You might also be interested in a new paper I recently published, available direct from Amazon. Simply search *'How socialist was National Socialism'* in the Amazon search box.
It wasnt socialist at all... Hitler stated that openly. They were raising the flag of freedom against communist socialists and the zionists manipulated the world to take them down
It wasn't Socialist at all. That was the whole night of the long knives deal. Rhoem was passed that Hitler completely abandoned the socialism part and embraced the same old industrialist like Krupp. He was becoming more and more vocal about it threatening even to oust Hitler so Hitler killed him and his other enemies and wiped out the SA in a two birds one stone deal. No need for papers to tell me that, thanks though.
In my country(Norway) he was known as Norway friend and visited Norway almost every year for many years. In 1905 , he played an important role in persuading Swedish King Oscar II to not attack Norway after Norway abolished the Union. When Ålesund burned down in 1904 was emperor nearby, he organized help and donated large sums for reconstruction.
Do you have a source for that figure? The way I see it is that by the late twenties, the dust from the war had settled and Germans probably could have worked out a deal to allow Wilhelm to return to Germany, not as a ruler but as a private citizen. They never did.
Unadin Thats cause he wanted to be restored As Monarch of Germany before he returned. Stubbornly even in his will he wrote that he was not to be buried in Germany until a member of his royal house/Family was made King and or Emperor of Germany. Also Yes the people of Germany did want the monarchy back until the early 1950s. The Kaiser’s grandson Prince Wilhelm Frederick fought in WW2 and was killed during the invasion of Belgium. His funeral which was not a big public event had a turn out of 50,000 plus people. Sadly monarchism died out in both Germany’s during the 1950s and Germany is still a Federal Republic .
+Jesse Lee I see it like this, the Austo-hungarian empire was dissolved by the end of the war, and what was left of that was Austria, Austria was not big enough, or had enough economic power to repay the Triple Entente their allies for the war, so they blamed Germany whom had a much better potential for economic growth, so basically it was all about the munny
+Jesse Lee , interesting question that I also wondered about, given how the Nazis later rose to power partly because they appealed to a widespread feeling among the post WWI German public that the Allies unfairly blamed them for starting WWI. I suspect that the Allies held Germany responsible because Germany was more successful and aggressive militarily in WWI than Austro-Hungary was, and because Germany caused more damage to the eventual victors, especially France. That said, Austro-Hungarian Count Berchtold increased the likelihood of WWI starting with his ultimatum to Serbia, which was deliberately made with the expectation that Serbia would not accept it. From there, the alliance system and intense imperial rivalries brought in the rest of the major European powers of the time.
+Jesse Lee Austria Hungary wasn't really powerful enough to have made the other powers get involved in the war unlike Germany, which was left in a pretty damn solid position in the aftermath of the magnificent bastard Otto Von Bismark. If the conflict were just between Austria-Hungary and the Balkans it would've just been one of many little wars, but Germany opted to give them a blank check, meaning they would give the Austrians all the help they could give. This basically kicked off the first World War.
At around 59 minutes into the interview, Ray McGovern (ex-CIA) describes how the CIA was asked to come up with a strategy, actively implemented by Washington DC during the Cold War, of "wedge diplomacy" (see below, the attempt by Berlin to drive a rift in the Entente Cordial, to facilitate the creation of its own *global balance of power* in 1905). Wedge diplomacy as described by McGovern is always a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique (see below comments section for MORE than sufficient explanation of this technique of political/geographical/geopositional/military/economic POWER). It is something called *"the division of others"* which will *always* be considered as "justifiable" if done by the own power players, regardless of how much death and destruction it results in, but "injust" or "evil" or "mean" (or another derotatory term) if it is implemented on the own systems of power (the own "state", "country", "alliances/alignments", etc.) by an outside POWER. Had the 1905 Berlin "wedge diplomacy" succeeded in creating a European balance of power, it would also have resulted in a fair global balance of power, with none of the "sides" in any geopolitical strategic disadvantage, and WW1 (by implication also WW2), could then have been avoided. In any objective reality, it is neither "good" nor "bad" if such divisions are attempted as a means to create a *balance of power in times if peace.* It is simply a strategy of power.
I will try to post a link, but YT might simply "ghost ban" it... Oh, and also consider the impact of bias, as expressed by @Bolivar below. The intention is (yet again) to create a weaker version of the exposed realities by me, citing many historians, which was the reality that Berlin was surrounded by a-holes intent on own gain on *all* sides (except A-H). He and others like him, will always present the own view of "matters" which is that it was *only/mainly* Berlin which was the "problem." Reality: everything he just wrote, counts *equaly* for all the other powers, *but only one "side" (Entente Powers) decided to encircle and encroach on their neighbor's actual homelands, and he will simply ignore this reality (the Ostrich Effect or fallacy) or try to obfuscate it.* His standpoints are biased and fallacious in all respects, even if this is the (his)tory he grew up with, but he doesn't acknowledge it, then presents spurious "counter arguments" in order to lay breadcrumbs away from the stated reality (the Red Herring fallacy in reasoning). Follow such ideologically indoctrinated politician-types and imperialists at the own expense: as stated before, today and 100 or 200 years ago, these types will argue YOU into the bloody- and muddy trench, but when you get there and look around, you won't find these people anywhere near you (concept of the "teen in mommy's basement" screaming their "rights" and "wrongs", knowing full-well they won't be called upon to actually defend their standpoints in a trench).
I agree with Ralph's assessment that Wilhelm II was not a "hero" in the traditional sense, but was merely engaged in power politics. His actions during his reign were primarily driven by the pursuit of national interests and the consolidation of power, rather than by noble or heroic ideals. Wilhelm's strategic manoeuvres, like his efforts to create divisions among the Entente powers, aligned with the era's realpolitik and were focused on maximizing Germany's position rather than any higher moral or ethical goals. However, I would diverge from the view expressed about the nature of "good and bad" in international relations. It's accurate that nations often rationalize their actions with strategic or pragmatic reasoning, or "necessity," but this doesn't exempt them from moral or ethical judgment. The strategies employed by states can and should be evaluated not only for their effectiveness but also for their adherence to commonly acceptable moral and ethical standards. The consequences of actions, including their impact on human lives, justice, and international stability, are important considerations in moral and ethical evaluations. Historical and contemporary perspectives should consider the broader implications of these actions, beyond mere strategic gains. "Power" and "Necessity" are not "get out of jail free" cards that absolve nations and their leaders from the moral and ethical judgments of either their peers or wider public opinion. Choosing to ignore or side-line morality does not remove it from the picture. Furthermore, while a strategy might be justified as necessary for achieving immediate objectives, it should also be evaluated on whether it was a wise choice in the broader context. This includes assessing whether the strategy was well thought out, was executed effectively, its potential for achieving lasting peace or stability, and whether it was likely to create more problems than it solved. In Wilhelm II’s case, his aggressive and ill-conceived strategies, such as those demonstrated during the Moroccan Crises, often not only failed to achieve their intended aims but also contributed to greater instability and eventual conflict. His approach often lacked the foresight and flexibility required for effective diplomacy, ultimately leading to outcomes that were detrimental to both Germany and global stability. While his actions may be viewed as part of the wider pattern of "power politics" and may be presented as being "justified" by strategic "necessity," they were fraught with significant failings. *Edit (in response to Herr von Bernhard's edit of his post)* : "Had the 1905 Berlin 'wedge diplomacy' succeeded in creating a European balance of power, it would also have resulted in a fair global balance of power, with none of the 'sides' in any geopolitical strategic disadvantage, and WW1 (by implication also WW2), could then have been avoided." - Herr von Bernhard Notice the subtle shift from Herr von Bernhard's initial claims that 'rift/wedge diplomacy' is a purely neutral strategy to now attempting to portray it as both a 'good' and 'beneficial' strategy. This change in framing seeks to justify the strategy not as an amoral tool of power politics but as a potentially positive force in shaping global balance-despite the complexities and potential consequences such actions entail. Additionally, note how Herr von Bernhard's framing appears to be heavily dependent on who is doing the dividing. In this case, the 'who' is Germany, and therefore Herr von Bernhard has chosen to defend this strategy. ('It is something called "the division of others" which will always be considered as "justifiable" if done by the own power players [...]' - Herr von Bernhard)." Herr von Bernhard's argument that Berlin's attempts at "divide and rule" in 1905 would have prevented war from erupting in 1914 is inherently flawed. The Treaty of Björkö did nothing to address the underlying tensions and rivalries that were simmering across Europe. More importantly, nothing about the nature of the treaty, or the diplomacy of that period, would have prevented the specific chain of events that began with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914-a catalyst that triggered the broader conflict. The complex web of alliances, nationalistic fervour, and militaristic ambitions that characterized the pre-war period were far too entrenched to be undone by the success or failure of a single "diplomatic" effort nearly a decade earlier. *Edit 2 : (for the same reasons, yet more retrospective edits by Herr von Bernhard)* : Herr von Bernhard now asserts that 'He [presumably me] and others like him, will always present the own view of "matters" which is that it was only/mainly Berlin which was the "problem."' However, no one has ever made such a claim. This appears to be a projection of Herr von Bernhard's own bias, which has led to multiple inherent contradictions within his posts. These contradictions undermine his ability to present a clear and coherent argument. Instead of addressing the complexities of the situation, Herr von Bernhard seems to be constructing a straw man, attributing to others a position that hasn't been stated, perhaps to deflect from the inconsistencies in his own reasoning.
"a-holes intent on own gain on all sides (except A-H)" Herr von Bernhard's use of the term 'a-holes' to describe the surrounding nations is both charged and inflammatory, reflecting a clear bias rather than an objective analysis. Additionally, his attempt to assign a unique 'virtuousness' to Austria-Hungary, and by extension Germany, seems to ignore the shared responsibilities of all powers involved in the geopolitical tensions of the time. This selective portrayal of historical events undermines the credibility of his argument and grossly oversimplifies the motivations and actions that led to the conflicts of that era. Let's not forget that throughout history, Germans have demonstrated the capability not only to 'encroach' upon and 'isolate' their neighbours but also to remove them entirely from the map when it suited their interests. This history of aggressive expansionism shows that Germany, like many other powers, has at times pursued its goals with little regard for the sovereignty or stability of neighbouring states. This reality challenges any narrative that seeks to paint Germany or its allies as uniquely virtuous or unfairly targeted by surrounding nations. Italy, for one, might challenge the supposed virtuous nature of Austria-Hungary. The long-standing territorial disputes between Italy and Austria-Hungary, particularly over regions like South Tyrol and Trieste, fuelled considerable animosity. This tension culminated in Italy's decision to join the Allies during World War I, largely motivated by promises of territorial gains at Austria-Hungary's expense. Such historical realities challenge any attempt to portray Austria-Hungary as uniquely virtuous or benevolent, illustrating instead that, like Germany, it pursued its own imperial ambitions, often at the expense of its neighbours. "If one has universal principles, one does not wear "rose-colored glasses," meaning what is "right" for one group in a set of circumstances, also applies as "right" for all others." - Herr von Bernhard. It seems he struggles to adhere to his own principles, given the selective justifications he's presented in defence of certain actions. Universal principles require consistent application, regardless of who benefits or suffers, and anything less undermines their validity.
Inbreeding. It's still the bane of British Monarchy. Fortunately Princess Diana injected some unrelated non-royal blood into the line. Otherwise Windsors would be the same as Hapsbergs, genetically polluted to the point not one could rule anything
Just days before WW1 broke out, he was on board a British Battleship, part of a British Fleet in Germany at his invitation. At a reception he said he didn't think war was necessary and diplomacy will find a solution. 'Stephen King-Hall. "North Sea Diary." King-Hall was a young Royal Navy Lt. on board HMS Southhampton, part of the fleet in Kiel Harbor that day. Fascinating reading about Navy Life during First World War on the North Sea.
@@Itried20takennames GB started both world wars (by declaration) in order to protect the British Empire. You'd have to convince the reader that they were also necessary to avoid greater calamity at the time. WW2 was sadly necessary in 1939, due to the bumbled peace after WW1. Why would you say WW1 was necessary?
@Doug Bevins So? On the 24th August 1939, Stalin gave a "blank cheque" to Hitler to invade Poland. So I guess Stalin "started it" then...correct? Blair gave Bush a "blank cheque" to invade Iraq in 2003, rather than telling Bush that there would be no British support for such folly. Well, see what happened.... Gotta love "blank cheques"...
@@timteichmann6830 WW1 was a series of events resembling domino stones toppling over. Each stone, toppling the next one in the line. Each nation's leader was only responsible for own actions. Not the actions of others. Before WW1, there weren't any binding defense pacts (like NATO today, or the British-French-Polish Defense Treaty which was signed in 1939), so the only ones responsible for the free choices which were made in 1914, or during the course of WW1, were the leaders of each nation. Something known as "jumping on the bandwagon".
Germany declared war on France and Russia. I understand it was a complicated situation but I think its difficult to argue that Germany didnt start the war. I understand. Franz Joseph really initiated the conflict but Wilhelm turned it into a continental war. But, again, I do understand that it is a very complicated matter.
Alan Johnson Ahem, they were, for a long time, backing each other (Germany and Austria), Russia came in because of the war declaration of the Austrians, Germany came in, then we came in because we were salty about Alsace-Lorraine.
No he didn't Start world war 1 so he didn't give the order to invade Neutral Belgium and Breaking the London Agreement which Guaranteed Belgium's Naturally,he didn't start world war one which ended with over 10 Million killed and Many injured both Mentally and physically and left Most of Northern France lay destroyed and some of his own Troops killed some of the Belgium Men and Rapped some of there Women,no I've got no Sympathy for him and when he died in 1941 only Hitler went to his Former Kings Funeral
@@martincook318 Hey brainwashed fella just a question why was the meeting between Grey and prince Lischnowsky erased from almost all history books? Would be quiet obvious if it was common knowledge that you Brits initiated that war and later when you got surprised by the submarines and you ran out of supplies you've dragged us into the war. Wasn't it Churchill who ordered the Lusitania to slow down and how about the Juno? I'm convinced Europe would be in a better shape today if we had sided with Germany instead with you!
Regarding all of the comments accusing this documentary of having an anti-German bias, let me say the following: 1. This documentary is not about a country or a war, but a person. 2. Disliking Donald Trump does not make one anti-American and disliking Wilhelm II does not make one anti-German. 3. One thing I picked up from this documentary is that Wilhelm's mother's side of the family (i.e. the British side) had as much influence on his character and personality as his father's side, and that the Windsors at this time were not the most harmonious family. In other words, the documentary is not really anti-German but anti-Windsor. 4. Another thing I saw in this documentary is that Germans did not particularly like Wilhelm II either. His generals and admirals were willing to humor him by taking part in his stupid male bonding rituals, but it does not appear as though they really respected him much. When WW1 broke out, they did not trust his judgment, and generally kept him out of the decision making process. By the end of the war, he was clearly not a very popular guy in Germany. At the time of his escape to Holland, Wilhelm faced the possibility of imprisonment by the western allies. However, by the late twenties, after the dust from the war had settled, the Germans probably could have worked out a deal to allow him to return home, and maybe even make him a symbolic monarch, but they didn't. Even Hitler refused to do this. 5. One final thought. Many would argue that regardless of anything that Wilhelm II did or didn’t do, a war between Germany and Russia (and France) was inevitable. I think that’s probably true. However, there is quite a bit of debate about whether England’s participation in the war was inevitable. Personally, I don’t think it was, and I think that it was the result of years of bad diplomacy on Wilhelm’s part. Regardless, even if Britain’s entry into the war was inevitable, America’s entry was not. To the extent that one does not view England or America's involvement as inevitable, one could say that Wilhelm II is not responsible for STARTING WW1 but rather, LOSING WW1. In other words, even if you think that the central powers were the “right side” in WW1, you would still have good reason to dislike Wilhelm II.
In the Schlieffen plan, Germany will pass through Belgium. This was aimed at winning a quick victory and knocking France out of the war. Now at the height of the European crisis, Great Britain assured the Belgian government that their neutrality would not be violated. And so the invasion of Belgium by Germany and the atrocities associated with the invasion invited Britain into the war. First an ultimatum is sent from London to Berlin, demanding they withdraw. It is ignored and Britain declares war.
Wilhelm's own (British ) mother despised him. Pretty much so did Granny, Queen Victoria. I'm not a Kaiser fan but he wasn't really given a chance to grow into a decent human being
Pleas translat. Spielt ja auch keine Rolle ob seine Generalität ihn mochte oder nicht er wurde auch nicht mehr vom Volk bejubelt als der Englische König oder der Norwegische, aber Wilhelm war des Krieges müde da ehe in sowieso nicht beginnen wollte und wurde somit Stück für Stück vom eigenen Generalstab außen vor gelassen sonder bis zur Niederlage auch noch angelogen. Ludendorff und Hindenburg haben mehrmals aktiv die Friedens gesuchte des Kaisers bei kotiert um auch ihre Position zu sichern. Hindenburg hatte auch nicht die möglich genutzt als Reichskanzler Wilhelm wenigste als König von Preußen wider ein zu setzen , davon abgesehen wen das Deutsche reich Expandieren wollte warum dann 1914 und nicht zur einer fiel günstigeren Zeit wie 1904 als das Russische reich entwaffnet war.
20:44 - “George V...sporting a German helmet...” - Bit of trivia for anyone interested: it was common for European royalty on official State visits to wear the uniforms of one another’s countries. George V for example, had been created a Prussian Field-Marshal by the Kaiser whilst still Prince of Wales, just as Wilhelm II had been made a British Field-Marshal by King Edward VII. In the next scene, in fact, the Kaiser is wearing the regimental uniform of a Colonel of the British Royal Horse Guards (now the ‘Blues and Royals’ - one of the two cavalry regiments of the Household Brigade, in which Princes William and Harry serve, and of which Anne, the Princess Royal, is Col-in-Chief). ADDENDUM: Excellent channel, BTW - many very interesting topics; only just found it and subscribed! Greetings from Greece!🇬🇷
I hope you realize that at the start of the video, the voice is not the kaiser but is instead his son the crown prince. Look up the UA-cam video "Deutscher Kronprinz Wilhelm complete Interview in Fox Movietone News 1932".
It's good to see a film stirring up such interesting academic debate. Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far; and for the students who use the film in their studies, be aware of the perceptive arguments advanced below. You get lots of credit for counter-argument, remember!
*In the smallest "nutshell" one can find, it was London (the state) which made Germany (the newly united state after 1871) the default rival in peace, and default enemy in war as a matter of policy. Its elites then set out to make "enemies out of old friends/friends out of old enemies".* While this might sound very "conspiratorial", it is exactly what happened, and it happened out in the open for all to see, and all to analyse while it happened. Unfortunately, same as today, it happens far too slowly for most current witnesses to notice. The reality is that most people are simply too pre-occupied with daily chores and problems, or don't care (indifference) or don't know (aka ignorance), or if they do, they don't act or don't now how things are connected (complacency)... In case they do study and wish to know about history, confusing "causes" and "effects" is one of the basic logical fallacies. Simply "pin a flag on a timeline somewhere suitable", downplay events before that, and start "writing history". Fact? London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends", not lasting alliances. Search for French historian Pozner: "Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin" on the Yale University Channel. *From "open hand" to "clenched fist" in 20-30 years.* "Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. *That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.* Of course people don't want war. Why should a poor fool on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best thing he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?" Hermann Goring
Emperor Wilhelm 2 he is a great monarch, diplomat, general, king, emperor, politician, patriot of his country, an incredible person. Symbol of the nations.
No, it may well. He is a brilliant monarch. These soldiers in helmets were dying for their homeland. And not yours and your imagination. The fact that young people are dying for their homeland is rather an honor, and not what you mean. He is truly great. There is no great great honor how to perish for the motherland for the king for the country. Unlike you, I have the honor.
@@Erwin_Munchen One definition of "honor" is "the quality of knowing and doing what is morally right" or to "fulfil (an obligation) or keep (an agreement)." If my nation is attacked without due cause, I will defend it. That is my duty, and I will honor it. I assume this is what you mean. If my nation is the one attacking another, without due cause, or in dishonor, there no obligation on my part. I have no obligation to serve leaders (or nations) engaging in acts of provocation, fight for disingenuous causes, or who act recklessly. That is what I mean. Of course you can see it whichever way you wish, and fight for whichever cause your leaders tell you to. There are certainly enough who see it that way, so go for it...it's a free world.
Honor is a person’s worthy of respect and pride; its relevant principles [1]. Honor can be perceived as a relative concept, brought to life by certain cultural or social traditions, material causes or personal ambitions. On the other hand, honor is interpreted as a person’s inherent feeling, an integral part of his personality. In the traditional system of cultural values of many peoples [what?], The category of honor is in a more important place than human life. The dictionary of V. I. Dahl defines honor as “internal moral dignity of a person, valor, honesty, nobleness of the soul and a clear conscience”, but also as “conditional, secular, worldly nobility, often false, imaginary”.  Honor is an internal right given to oneself to evaluate oneself and one’s existence in terms of self-esteem. Objective factors that give the right to honor are chastity and nobility. Chastity is the ideal axiological norm of the natural state. Nobleness is the ideal axiological norm of a personal state. Archimandrite Plato. Orthodox moral theology. You tell me your opinion is permissible. I love my country people culture history. Not without reason we are not going to battle. We are a peaceful nation and warriors do not want, we want peace and prosperity. I AM PERSONALITY as well as my compatriots. We fight when our country is in danger, when we are declared a warrior, when we were attacked. We are not fighting for the ambitions of our politicians, but for the defense of the fatherland. this is the difference between us. My people and I want the peace and prosperity of my country. That means honor. you have your own opinion your leader is your right because we live in a free world. We defend our homeland when it is in danger. I believe that the honor is respecting oneself respecting one’s own country and having one's own dignity. I ask you not to make excuses. You usually follow the instructions of the government war means war peace means peace take Zululand from the Boers so please. We ordinary do not follow the ambitions of politicians. We are for the honor of the country. Honor is self-awareness. But I don’t see you in this. A leader flourishes his people and not a leader oppresses (to the poor). A man who respects himself, a country, has dignity is an honor. Pseudo chauvinists come and go. And leaders live forever. What you wrote is pointless. Wilhelm 2 people of honor. And I don’t see honor with you. Good luck to you
@@Erwin_Munchen Wilhelm II supported the Boers, that includes the rule of the Boers over the Zulu. He wanted to make the homelands of the Boers (Transvaal Republic) a German protectorate. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruger_telegram The Boers looked down on Africans, including the Zulu, and treated them with dishonor. Are you South African?
When I was studying in England back in the late ‘80s there was a little old lady - Gracie was her name - who lived in one of the flats of the rooming house where I was staying. In the daytime, she was a sprightly, pleasant lady with a ready smile and a kindly word for everyone (she was particularly warm-hearted to all of us foreign students, so far away from our homes). But sometimes she would wake us all up in the wee hours of the morning, as she wandered through the hallways shouting in her wonderfully syncopated Cockney, “thay should-a ‘ung the Kaiser they should...” As we eventually learned from our landlady, her niece, the poor old thing had lost a brother and a sweetheart (and likely innumerable other young friends, relatives, and acquaintances) in the horrors of the trenches at the Western Front. Now, seventy odd years after the end of the Great War, in her grief and loneliness, she still blamed “Kaiser Bill” for the tragedies of her bygone youth...😢 God rest her soul.
I understand that Wilhelm was highly nationalistic and wanted to expand Germany’s Imperial prestige, which caused problems but Germany didn’t start the war like they seem to assert here. This account seems to be a bit propagandized to suit the narrative of the victors.
Once again, I’m not saying that Germany acted blamelessly but the Germans invaded Belgium because France had already declared war on them because of their alliance with Russia. Yes, Germany was the aggressor when it came to Belgium but the war was underway among at least four of the major European powers and Serbia already so my comment stands. Those networks of alliances between the different nations that brought the war to the scale that it was were also a reflection of the deep nationalism and militarism being exhibited by many of the European powers at the time, as well. Germany was not the only nation acting aggressively before the war, nor was as it responsible for starting it. I acknowledge that it did play a major role in escalating the war once it was underway though and maybe more so than others. Still, the video seems to place an inordinate amount of blame specifically on Germany when it was really years of geo-strategic game playing and building ethic tensions across Europe, especially in the Balkans, that are responsible for the war.
@Dragomir Ronilac Which empire occupied like a quarter of the world's landmass? C'mon, let's not act as if Germany was the only faction to pursue imperial ambitions.
During the period it was common to hear, from open windows on warm spring days, "Gunter! How many times have I told you not to leave that damned spiked helmet on my chair!?"
For me, the start of WW1 was like "one thing led to the other" situation. First, all the European powers at the time b4 1914 formed two rival alliances. Each country pledges support to one another. Then the spark; Archduke Franz Ferdinand is assassinated. Serbia is blamed for it. Then Serbia is under attack from Austrio- Hungarian forces. Russia moves in to support Serbia. Germany sees Russian involvement as a threat and declares war. As the days go by, France and Great Britain get involved also. Had there been a mechanism to calm tempers down WW1 would not have started
Yes, the "domino stones theory" makes a lot of sense. The domino stones toppled because none of the world's major powers were willing to step down from a position once taken. Therefore what could have remained a limited "3rd Balkan War", spread into a "Continental European War", and from there to a "Great, or World War". WW1 came about due to the contested spheres of influence in the Balkans, between Russia, Austria Hungary, and Germany. WW2 came about because of the contested spheres of influence in Eastern Europe (the British and French Empires, Germany, and the SU). WW2 in the Asia/Pacific theatre of operations came about due to the contested spheres of influence in China (Western Powers = Chinese Nationalists = Chiang Kai Check vs. Japan vs. the SU = Communism = Mao) Today, we are witnessing a contested sphere of influence in the ME (USA, West vs. Russia and China), so let's hope our wise leaders keep a level head...
This doc is informative about Wilhelm's weaknesses, but is one-sided about its portrayal of pre-WWI leaders. Many of the same failings were present in Nicholas II of Russia, who was the first person to order his armies to mobilize in July 1914. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was moribund and unstable, and Franz Joseph had not implemented reforms. The Serbian government was corrupt and did not crack down on the violent revolutionaries. So we have multiple parties who were at least as responsible as Wilhelm for starting the war and perhaps even moreso, in the estimation of many analysts. The author of The War That Ended Peace, Margaret Macmillan, writes that the tragedy of the death of Franz Ferdinand was compounded by the fact that not only did his death trigger the war, but also that he was the only man capable of stopping it.
Gazzara5 Easiest scenario to avoid complete disaster *once* war had broken out, because it would have perhaps meant a rapid or significantly hastened German victory, mild peace terms and less strain on the political systems of the great powers.
Gazzara5 Indeed. Upon closer inspection on the most important effects of the American entry into WWI as well as WWII was that the wars prolonged itself and led to much further deaths.
Aeros802 I meant the British decision to commit itself militarily, taken on August 4, 1914. Otherwise France would have probably fallen to the Germans in a matter of a few months, meaning lenient peace terms and Russia abandoning its own war effort after the collapse of the Western Front. The American entry was not made until April 1917, by which time millions were dead, Russia was in revolution and Germany continued the fight because it believed there was a chance to defeat the British and French in the west before American troops arrived in large numbers. The United States only really made a difference in 1918. In WW2, the American entry at a much earlier date sealed the fate of the Nazis and hastened their defeat, saving millions of lives. The situation can't be compared because Nazi Germany was a very different entity than Imperial Germany and had to be defeated at all costs.
Gazzara5 Yes. It's clear that the creaky old monarchies of Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey were headed towards a British-style peaceful transition to parliamentary democracy given a few more decades. E.g. in Russia I would have given absolute monarchy no more than to the end of Nicholas II's reign - he was begrudging of any democratic reform but reforms were happening anyway.
There's something about the Kaiser that both angers me and feels sorry for him at the same time. He was a pompous arrogant buffoon with a love/hate relationship with England. At the same time he was also a manipulated man by conservatives who had him turn against his liberal parents. These same conservatives who threw him under the bus in 1918 when the war was lost.
As a Canadian, whose great grandfather fought on the side of the World War I Allies against Germany, I will say that at the very least, the beginning comments in this video are pro-British and anti-German propaganda. My country and Britain had their differences with Germany intervening in Belgium that was officially neutral, but that does not make me look at Germany with total scorn. Why should have Germany have stood by and let the British Empire dominate over Europe and the world via its massive economy and navy? Why that anymore than why should China stand by and let the United States dominate the world today? There is no reason, and the only people who claim that there is a reason for Germany to have accepted British dominance are those who did support, or would have supported, Britain's dominance and Germany's acquiescence.
rfavro No idea where you get the idea that the British Empire 'dominated' Europe. The continental European empires, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia were 'land' empires that required large armies. The British, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish had 'colonial' empires that depended on having strong navies. Can't quite follow your argument that Britain 'dominated' Europe.
rfavro "Why should have Germany have stood by and let the British Empire dominate over Europe ....." Dominate over Europe? - Britain's possessions in Europe = Malta, Gibraltar, The Channel Islands - wow, that's 'domination.'?
If his father had reigned longer, this man might've had more time to prepare for his future role as Emperor. Instead, poor old Fritz died before he could do all the plans him and Victoria planned for years. I swear, if Emperor Friedrich III didn't have that cancer, he would've had more stronger and friendlier ties to Russia and Britain. Things would've been different.
Bacchus: I agree that things would have been different and probably better if Friedrich had lived a few years longer. I think that the main difference is that Bismarck would have had time to make preparations for a post-Bismarck Germany.
@Steve Bivens I'm german. Both Brothers of my great grandfather Lost their Lives fighting for the fatherland. The "documentary" is not at all neutral, but very disrespectfull, so...
It wasn't him, it was Crown Prince Wilhelm, his son. The mistake lies with the Director of this film, I would imagine. However, Wilhelm II spoke five languages, including fluent English due to his connections to the British royal court, so he was quite capable of uttering those words.
0:02 That is not the voice of Kaiser Wilhelm II but of his son Kronprinz Wilhelm. Seach for the video "Deutscher Kronprinz Wilhelm complete Interview in Fox Movietone News 1932"!
That's just a minor detail. When you leave, you'll be very proud that you've spotted it though. Do you think there is anything else "wrong" with the picture, which you might have missed?
From around 10:00 minutes onwards... The so-called "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" is very famous. Also a misnomer. It was in fact a "European Naval Arms Race". As clearly defined by the British 2-Power Standard... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Defence_Act_1889 ...which doesn't mention countries. It just simply stated "build more ships that the next two countries with a margin of 10%", making it (at the time/in reality) a *European Naval Arms Race.* According to the policy, GB was also trying to outbuild Russia and France, carrying out own naval programmes. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battleships_of_France Simplifying it down to "Anglo-German" is a little bit of name branding, just so the people know who "the enemy" is...
In contrast the post-WW1 naval arms race was not "branded" as being a *"Anglo/Japanese vs. USA Naval Arms Race"* but simply known as an arms race... [Japan and GB were still allied] Maybe London should've paid better attention to what that meant, and which implications it bore in the NWO after WW1... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
The only German curse word I know is Scheisse. You would need to find the German equivalent of Lenny Bruce or the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket to truly convey what Bismarck's soul would have said to Wilhelm.
"The hopes of many Liberals both in Germany and in England for Germany’s reformation died, and fears of where the young William II would lead Europe sprang up. This view and this fear for the future of Europe was held by many in the English press, particularly political cartoonists, (edit: liberals) *who were keen to damn him before his reign even truly began.* Cartoonist Matthew Summerville Morgan portrayed William II in such a way in the June 27, 1888, issue of the magazine Judy in a piece called “The Lost Hero.” A bust of Frederick III surrounded on all sides by wreathes from the nations of Europe and weeping angels dominates the left side of the cartoon. To the right and slightly in the background stands William II, raising his sword and imperial standard to a horizon over which hangs the word “war.” In a similar piece entitled “The New Emperor” in the June 23, 1888, issue of Fun magazine, John Gordon Thompson portrays William II as a child, blowing a trumpet and banging a drum labeled “war” while a woman representing the whole of Europe looks on in frustration, covering her ears." From "Mad as March Hares:" Kaiser Wilhelm II, Great Britain, and the Road to War by Jeffrey Kelly Note. All before even taking a single decision... Interesting.
@@ralphbernhard1757 It was a view shared by many, including his mother who feared greatly for where Wilhelm's rule would lead Germany. The same fear was also held by individuals within Germany's ruling elite, and was one that continued to be expressed as his rule progressed. These views were not restricted to any one nation. Interesting.
I wonder if, in 1888, John Gordon Thompson knew that only 1 year before, in 1887, young Wilhelm II was one of those present at Wilhelm I's "war council" and was pressing for a "preventative war" against their neighbour Russia? (A war that was only narrowly prevented by the intervention of Bismarck and the existence of the Reinsurance Treaty).
10 років тому+6
This is a very good and balanced documentary. Thank you for uploading this Alan Brown.
Daniel Eyre All the picky little personality quibbling about the Kaiser like a cheap yellow magazine would do has very little to do with Political reality. Also, there is no focus on UK reactions to the building of the German fleet, which they viewed jealously. British attitude was very much in the mood of the 19th century song, "We don't want to fight, by jingo, but if it has to come, we've got the ships, and we've got the men, and we've got the money, too".
FRAGIORGIO1 "Brown" had nothing to do with the film, he merely uploaded it. And, since the majority of the content comes from German sources, specifically Professor Rohl and the Kaiser's own family, perhaps you should be writing to them instead.
How about countering the "diatribe" rather than simply voicing your opinion? In case you're up to it, I wrote a new comment, with a "challenge". You kids like "challenges", correct? 🙂
The Kaiser was “exiled” to a nice mansion with all his stuff and servants and had acreage. Napoleon was exiled to a tiny island hundreds of miles offshore
Recently discovered letters from the young Wilhelm to his Mother indicate a very strange abnormal attitude towards her. His anger towards her pro-English upbringing & her British Doctors' medical 'treatments', mentally took him down very odd paths.
All mothers and their sons have odd relationships in one form or another . She didn’t exactly accept his physical disabilities which means she didn’t wholly accept him as a human being . That’s a tough one .
In those days, having a physical disability was an omen regardless of who you were. I also think that his mom, coming from a long lineage of monarchs & royals, saw him as what he was, the future Keiser, that was one of the princesses’ duties, was to create heirs. Also, keep in mind that being a King or Queen meant, that you were chosen by God or it was a God given right, & so how can God give them a King with a bad arm. The whole thing to us is preposterous, but for them, it was a thing of power & longevity.
Perhaps if Frederick III hadn't died so soon, WWI might have been averted since he wanted Germany to follow the example of Great Britain. Here is the link to his story: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_III,_German_Emperor
Queen Victoria's favourite grandchild, however the rest of the family mocked him for the clicking of the heels and his pompous behaviour. He loved it when his uncle and aunt, Prince and Princess of Wales, had to bow and curtsey to him. He became Kaiser before his uncle became King. Queen Victoria died in the Kaisers arms. He managed all by himself to put an end to the German Monarchy!
People were looking for someone to blame for a war that killed so many millions of people, perhaps as many as fifty millions. And he did ocassionally wear a uniform with a big skull on it. Even I have seen that photo. Who better to blame? And yet he was allowed to live out his life as a private millionaire. In other words no real consequences for his actions.
Bush and Blair will live out their lives in millionaire comfort. I guess there will be no consequences for their actions. I guess they don't look at the world today, and feel in any way responsible...
amazing documentary editing and production, great 1990 generation. That's something the current generation with their gizmos and gazillion pixels cameras and lacking mentality could not do. Everything the music the sequences it's flawless.
Agreed. A very emotional documentary. It certainly tugs at those human instincts. And the music? Great choice. Just like in Hollywood movies, the music underscores the emotions generated by the images, and they compliment each other, and the narrative, in a very convincing manner... Excellent. It's almost as if the soothing, calming music makes everything more true. Excellent indeed.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Yes, except that Hollywood is not a positive reference afai am concerned. It's the brainwashing cradle operated by a minority nepotistic group imposing their dominance and propaganda over the USA. Occulting the real america and replacing it by a fake world that diverts attention away from the real problem people and their activities and forms zombies and points fingers to political opponent all to coerce masses to serve the fake elite minority. Only other countries' elite can see how brainwashed the common United-statian is. Fortunately there is a growing american population that has become aware.
my grandma always told us this rhyme : " Der Kaiser ist ein lieber Mann und wohnet in Berlin. Und wär´es nicht soweit von hier so ging ich heut´noch hin." ( The Kaiser is a nice man and lives in Berlin. And if it were´nt such far away i would walk this very day )
@@unadin4583 different part; the effect of 1871 united very much whole germany but most of all it was the feeling of living in a "golden era" were many cities grew as cure cities with huge public free bulidings, baths an nice parks. Even the currency they switched from silver/gold mix to a pure gold standard ! Same as in england too. Also the very good and free education system was felt as a huge step forward ....you can see that on how much german scientists get the Nobel price in these years . Still the downside was a massive workforce with little rights in upcoming industries like iron, coal,chemestry,electrification, railroads, ships, colonial territory overseas and not at least troops and weapons.
His grandparents, Albert and Victoria, were first cousins. His parents, Frederick and Vickey, were fifth cousins, once removed as both were descended from King George I of the UK.
In all ernest, so did King George V. When he died, he must've thought WW1 had secured the future of the British Empire... At least he had a battleship named after him. "Kings", "empires", and "battleships", were however antiquated concepts.
Wilhelm reigned for 30 YEARS. His reign was a golden age in terms of industrial, commercial, scientific and cultural achievement. And above all, it was a time of PEACE.
They say that Germany & the Keiser started the war, that isn't true all he wanted to do was to support Austria against Serbia. A tiny country at the time with a large Anarchist movement. France, UK, and Russia saw it as a reason to fight Germany, because they were scared of Germany.
imerupp.,As a pro Kaiser you would say that. But the truth is Germany had been spoiling for a fight for a long time against Britain and France because the Kaiser was jealous with an inferiority complex, partly due to his withered arm (that arm really did have an adverse effect on his personality) but mainly because of his envy of the British Empire and the Royal Navy. Coming to Austria's aid was merely an excuse to start the ball rolling. He also knew that by aiding Austria, Russia was bound to side with Serbia thereby igniting a European war.
Adrian Larkins In WW1 the German Empire and the Austrian-Hungarian Empire didn't want to be enemies of Britannia or USA, they wanted to deal with Serbia, that got France involved. in turn getting the UK evolved .
The cool thing about a divide and rule system, is that it does not matter what any individual emphasizes: It exists in parallel to whatever the observer wishes to amplify...
I actually don't know much about WW1, or royalties, but unlike many other british documentaries, this one seems to be biased and one sided, and leaves out alot about why things developped the way they were.
The vast majority of the monarchs who fought World War I were actually related to each other through marriages or were descendants of Queen Victoria, who had the idea that she could prevent the war that was to come by populating the Royal Houses of Europe with her off spring...well as history showed Victoria's plans backfired
There are so many what-ifs in history, especially with Kaiser Wilhelm. What if - Prince Albert had lived longer? What kind of influence would he have had on his first grandson? What if - he had had a normal birth? Would he have been less angry with his English relations? What if - he had not listened to his generals? What if - his chancellor had not undermined him and urged peace talks?
harmlessdrudge that’s not what he said in his own words on their outstanding efforts to the German economy. There’s photos of him shaking hands with the Jewish community representatives, and donated money to the Berlin synagogue
My Great Great Grandfather was the head guard in Wilhelms Royal Guard..When the shit hit the fan He told My Grandfather to take what ever he wanted..So he went into the kitchen and took the fine silver..My family has had the silver for years..
***** The forks, spoons and knives found in the kitchen of a palace or large country house would have been ordinary, everyday kitchen utensils - fine silverware for use in the dining rooms would have been kept in the Butler's Pantry - you don't imagine the servants used the best silver in the Servants' Hall do you? Think Downton.
***** The narrative has a naive trans-Atlantic chattiness - far too casual - the idea of an emperor even being in a position to be chatting to a lackey is preposterous let alone inviting the lackey to help himself to the silver is nonsense. If the family has any monogrammed Hohenzollern silver it has either been purchased from a dealer or looted.
***** He most certainly would not have been on a chatty "Help yourself to the silver Manfred, I'm off into exile in ten minutes." level with the German Emperor. The whole scenario is preposterous - the German Emperor just happens to say to the "Head" of his guard, "Help yourself to whatever you fancy" the guard goes "into the kitchen" and helps himself to some fine silver. The point I'm making is this: 1. Such an exchange is very, very unlikely bearing in mind the shear inprobability of such a casual conversation ever taking place. 2. "Fine silver" was never kept in 'the kitchen' 3. The "Head" of the guard, in all probability, a member of minor nobility, would have been rewarded with a personal gift from the Emperor, he would not have been told to pop into the kitchen and help himself to a fist-full of cutlery. 4. The Ex-Kaiser was treated very well by the new German regime - he was allowed to take into exile personal effects, and furniture from the 'New Palace' at Potsdam.
@@crayoncer All doctors follow the same oath. The Oath of Hypocrites. A doctor speaking one language, or having a certain ethnicity, religion, or race, makes no difference. The OP's point is therefore moot. It is based on a false narrative called "assuming malice".
@@ralphbernhard1757was i starting a debate bruh, just attempting to correct a mistake in the video. I don't like any doctors. The German emperor said he wished German doctors had delivered him, probably because he felt the doctors (and every other profession) in Germany are better, just like his mother from England refused German doctors in Germany because she felt the doctors of her home country were superior.
@@detectivefowler4135 I was referring to how he likes to wear "costumes" to visit foreign countries sometimes like his india visit Now that I mention it he'd probably have a fake mustache too that looks like the kaisers
The Kaiser was NOT responsible for WWI and he did not start it. Of course he played a significant part but we’ve been made to believe the responsibility was all his.
@@bleenblock8525 That's a rather speculative claim. Rival powers had been fighting over eastern Europe for centuries. Is it really surprising that the major powers of the region at that time (i.e. Russia, Germany, and AH), might do the same? Germany did not have much in the way of a colonial empire. Bismarck could have claimed more land for Germany in Africa but decided not to.
@@bosareva More like 27 years, due to the fact that he inherited a stable nation state with good relations with most of its neighbors, thanks to Bismarck.
It is easy to imagine one filling the Kaiser's boots and doing a much better job of it and surviving (as Kaiser) long after 1918. Even with advantage of hindsight, however, it is hard to imagine the Russian Tsar, Nicholas II, as being anything but doomed.
I don't know - Nicholas II made a lot of mistakes. He even had a massive warning in 1905 and refused to change anything. Like a lot of monarchs who lost their position, he could well have kept his place if he had been willing to compromise.
@Phillip Robinson In case you decide to come here, and read, please remember: *Words* (like the Magna Carta) do not cancel out the *power* of deeds (actions), as carried out as *actual events* according to observed reality (such as events explained by the divide and rule strategies of the elites). *That reality makes any accumulation of "words" the ancillary in any depiction of historicity, and the events the indicative.* Events which are proven to have happened, are the imperative or cardinal choice. "Words" can become platitudes, if what they intend to achieve, are not put into effect, whereas events cannot.
If you REALLY study it, The First World War started with the death of an Archduke, most people had NEVER heard of, in a city most people could NOT pronounce correctly, in a country most people could NOT correctly locate on a map.
Yup, just like today. Most soldiers wouldn't be able to spell, let alone find on a map, the places they're sent to die in... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war Good thing Nagorno-Karabakh was neither a contested sphere of influence, nor have the allure of raw materials, or a strategically important location... "Good" for us commoners and grunts :-) "Good", if nobody jumps on the bandwagon, to escalate. "Good", if our leaders decide to let the little crisis/war go to waste...
Absolutely correct. It made front page headlines for a day or two, the newspaper's had praised the nations for remaining "sword's sheathed", then it became a couple of items here and there tucked inside the papers. It faded from peoples thought's quickly, was well on it's way to becoming memory and life resumed it's normal routines. It was known is the "July Crisis", but it could be more aptly described as "The Last Week in July Crisis", when the world learned the of the plan between Germany and Austria-Hungary to exact military justice on Serbia.
@@mynamedoesntmatter8652 I only use Wiki as a reference for further reading, or to underline what I've already read over the last 30 years or so, in hundreds of conventional history books, and thousands of articles and theses.
Japan made "mistakes"????? MISTAKES???? You mean all those horrible things were simply unintended errors? The women forced to be "comfort girls" were really hired as singers, perhaps? The thousands of civilians raped and used for target practice in the sack of Nanking were really killed when Japanese rifles went off by mistake, perhaps? Prisoners of war were starved, beaten and beheaded by mistake? Perhaps the knife slipped? Perhaps Japan could learn in the coming years if it began by admitting its so-called mistakes in their children's history books. That would be a good beginning.
Not every Japanese citizen agreed with those actions. Infact, almost none of them. Blaming the people for what the government and military did is like blaming ALL Muslims for 9/11.
***** Thank you for pointing out different ways of looking at the subject. I am inclined to believe that crimes committed by one party should not be used to legitimise the crimes committed by others, so I never used the atrocities known to be committed by Japan's enemies to justify what Japan did. But when it comes to punishing the very individuals, the sense of law should be brought in, above human emotions. I am an uneducated Japanese of humble means, so I am not really qualified to accuse or defend anyone, this is merely my personal feeling.
***** The crimes of the colonial period occurred well over one hundred years ago, not within the memories of thousands of people alive today. In any event nothing equates to the systematic cruelty that was part and parcel of the behaviour of the Japanese military.
I disliked because of the opening description of him which is completely unfair and similar to the propaganda of the day. Then listening to more of this..how simplistic and one-dimensional! As if the British Empire didn’t have ‘nationalism’! ‘Unrepentant’ German nationalist? Whatever...Who tried ‘to bring the British empire to its knees?’ The British were no peace-loving, anti-nationalist victims. And I say that as a great admirer of my British brothers. Looks like I’m not the only one to dislike. 🇺🇸 1-17(AIR)CAV
I agree that some of the language at the beginning is a bit unfair. However, the documentary does go on to provide a decent summary of his life. No one should base their view of Wilhelm solely on this documentary, but it's not worthless.
Agreed. The *real* "1st WW1" took place from 1803 to 1815. In terms of scope, powers involved, and capabilities (at the time before wars became "total"). Why do you think historians don't call it "WW1", or try to link the various and varied motivations and/or intentions, or bother trying to pin the blame on anybody "starting it"? Interesting question.
To be fair, by 1914, Russia was only masquerading as a superpower. After being humiliated in the world stage after its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the many faults in Russia became apparent. Tsar Nicholas II did not know how to govern a country well, thanks to his father Alexander III who chose to not teach him how to Govern a nation until Nicholas was 30, then died when he was just 26. The Russian Military was still using weaponry from the 1870’s, and many troops suffered extreme lack of morale.
@@outofuseaccount9671 I don't completely agree with you about Russia: 1. Although the Russians fought poorly against the Germans, they were more than a match for the other central powers. Russia could have defeated AH, Turkey, and Bulgaria on its own. 2. The war started at a time when Russia was in a vulnerable phase, like an invertebrate shedding its exoskeleton in order to grow. Russia was a late comer to the industrial revolution, but at the beginning of the 20th century, its economy was growing by leaps and bounds. It was attracting many immigrants from other European countries. The problem was that industrialization had a very disruptive effect on its society, making it vulnerable to radical ideologies. 3. Just a small note about Aaden's comment and yours. The powers of Europe at that time are called "great powers", not "superpowers". Britain and Germany were the most powerful, but no country was powerful enough to take on the rest of them combined. The term "superpower" is used to describe the balance of power after WW2, with the USA and USSR being the world's two superpowers.
i dont blamed germany or france,england and even russia,this conflict was only between austria and serbia,but this big nations because of the alliances must support thier allies,if only serbia and austria solved it in diplomatic way. Imagined if no ww1 hitler remain a painter and ordinary man and no holocaust,no communist most of all no ww2.
@@angiealigo4012 Some sort of conflict in Europe was inevitable at that time. If the war hadn't started with the assassination of the archduke, it would have started for some other reason within the next few years. For about 250 years, the great powers of Europe had fought many wars with each other. However, with the exception of the Napoleonic Wars, these were limited wars, and the casualties came nowhere near that of WW1. When WW1 started, the participants thought that it would be another limited war. The question is not so much how the war started and who is to blame for starting it. The question is why it became such a colossal bloodbath.
One wonders how things would have been different had his father lived longer and given time for the impetuous and insecure young man to mature. Not that I blame him for WW1 nearly as much as this doc does, not even remotely.
@Ralph Bernhard Just wondering, before I delve in to detail in your latest opinion piece, can we expect your "article" about Carl Schmitt and his role as a top Washington DC advisor any time soon? Genuinely interested in this claim.
A very well-designed historical 'biopic' of the German Kaiser, and main architect of the First World War. Great researching "The History Room". I really enjoy it.
The First World War did not exist in 1914. It was only named that afterwards. Therefore, there could also not have been an "architect" for it, seeing that it evolved out of a local conflict...
@Audairevonetta The 'entente', with both Russia and France, was nothing more than an agreement agreeing to, and thus solving potential sources of conflict, over colonial holdings. Nothing more, nothing less ...
@Audairevonetta " Brits supported Belgium, a nation they knew would get invaded" Remind us again, who invaded them? Remember, the Treaty of London was signed by all the European powers.
@@bolivar2153 Yes, the Treaty of London was also signed by the Netherlands. It was not a defense treaty. Each country which signed it, pledged to honor its neutrality. No other binding treaty obligations arose from it. The Netherlands, France, and GB honored their signature, Germany didn't. Immoral, yes. But nothing else. GB declaring war was a choice, nothing else.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Ah, the old 'scrap of paper' line... Bethmann-Hollweg would be proud. Treaties such as this form the basis of International Law as we know it today. Your flippant dismissal of it is surprising, given the repercussions it's breaching would have upon Belgium, Europe and the world as a whole. Yes, Britain chose to go to war, however, the British cabinet was not in majority favour of war with Germany, right up until the point they violated this treaty. At this point the swing was almost unanimously in favour. Britain didn't need propaganda to convince it's population of the rightness of it's decision, the sentiment was widely felt. It was also Germany's choice to go to war. They chose to declare war on Russia. They chose to declare war on France. They chose to declare war on Belgium. It's always choices.
“If everybody always lies to you, *the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer…* And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. *And with such a people you can then do what you please.”* -Hannah Arendt The unfortunate effect of constant misdirection and deceit is that we are noticing a "shift" taking place in the world. A "shift" towards popularism, and "dear infallible leaders"...
@@ralphbernhard1757 She certainly wouldn't advocate your selective dismissal of 99% of the facts in order to make your "story" fit. This would, in fact, be what she specifically warns against.
Scott: Couple of thoughts: 1. If you watch this documentary from beginning to end, I think it presents a fair assessment of Wilhelm. The problem is that it starts off with these very incendiary comments about him wanting to conquer Europe. It's not a bad documentary in its entirety, but it gets off to a bad start. 2. There was a similar comment to yours posted a few months ago. I think the concept of victors always writing history is somewhat overused. In ancient times, one civilization would conquer another and completely erase its history. In modern times it is a bit different. Often times, the victor will allow the defeated to repeat their own narrative. For example, I grew up in the northeastern USA, but my high school history textbook presented a narrative of the south seceding for many reasons other than slavery. Many Japanese continue to believe that they fought WW2 in order to liberate their neighbors from European colonial oppression. 3. Over the past few years, I have come to the conclusion that some of the worst slander and scapegoating of Wilhelm came not from the victorious nations, but from his own generals. After the war, Hindenburg, Ludendorff, and others had political aspirations of their own. With Wilhelm safely tucked away in Holland, they placed much of the blame on him. They also scapegoated another general, Moltke, who had died before the end of the war.
@@unadin4583 Correct, both von Moltke and von Falkenhayn found themselves on the receiving end of much undeserved negative criticism, their "error" largely being the early realisation of Germany's position and fortunes, or lack thereof, in the war. The entire sequence of scapegoating that continued throughout the war would eventually culminate in the "stab in the back" myth. Wilhelm received increasing amounts of this as the war progressed and Germany's fortune's went from bad to worse. Much of this was equally undeserved, so far as conduct of the war was concerned, as by 1916 he was largely "out of the loop", having been effectively side lined by Von Hindenburg and Ludendorff, shuffled out of harm's way, and being nothing more than a "rubber stamp" for their leadership. I think Wilhelm has no one else but himself to blame for this, however. With his bravado and bluster in the years leading up to the war, his continued determination to proclaim his "personal rule" to anyone who would listen, he therefore set himself up as the figurehead for the nation, the focus of blame from within Germany when things went wrong and the "personification" of the enemy for the belligerent nations.
Nah. He felt that Germany was going down the crapper. While he (sarcastically) congratulated Hitler on conquering France, he was, by that point, so contemptuous of the Nazis that he even declared they made him "ashamed to be German". When his son joined the Nazi party, Wilhelm flipped his lid and disowned him. Not long after his death, Operation: Barbarossa kicked off, and things went downhill from there, as Wilhelm knew they would.
@Bernard de Fontaines Nationalism by itself is not a danger. dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/nationalism It becomes dangerous when coupled with ideologies or primitive human characteristics like greed, violence, hate, etc. I assume the Belgians who went to The Congo and murdered up to 20 million people here at the same time they were being murdered (early- 20th century) were not doing it because they were "nationalist", but because they were "capitalist"... That just goes to show how *any* "-ism" or belief system can corrupt itself, when it becomes infiltrated by primitive instincts like hate, greed, feelings of superiority, and so on... Good luck with your "eternal German" propaganda. Others have already "been there, done that".
I suspect any realistic assessment of Germany in 1942 would reveal the very real cracks in the facade.The most powerful country in the world vastly overstates the reality.
@Invisibleman One of the most persistent arguments against Wilhelm II was that he was erratic, or even a psychopath, and didn't have clear goals and aims. The argument usually goes something like this. "Wilhelm wasn't exactly consistent in his policies, and was so unpredictable that he constantly exasperated his own ministers and his generals, who said he 'couldn't lead three soldiers over a gutter'. Wilhelm thought that he was a good diplomat when actually he was a terrible one, and he seemed to have the habit of saying the worst possible things to alienate almost everybody else in Europe." (copied form a YT comment by Invisibleman) "Wilhelm wasn't exactly consistent in his policies..." Actually, he was. *The end goal was unity in Europe, to balance out the rise of the USA, either by alliance with the continental powers, or by alliance with GB, which (could/might) then draw the others in.* "...and was so unpredictable that he constantly exasperated his own ministers and his generals, who said he 'couldn't lead three soldiers over a gutter'...." That is an actual means in a "divide and rule"-strategy, since most of these German leaders were extremely conservative in their views, and as expalined in some of the below essays, in order to achieve a higher aim (European unity, by peacefull means), one FIRST has to the destroy the existing structures in the OWN political system, which was conservative, meant a wish to stick to the status quo... "Wilhelm thought that he was a good diplomat when actually he was a terrible one, and he seemed to have the habit of saying the worst possible things to alienate almost everybody else in Europe." Same "divide and rule"-strategy for other European powers. These utterings can be easily explained, when looking at whom was being "woed" in order to create a rapprochement, or an alliance/treaty/agreement of sorts, and who had to be kept out until such unity was achieved. Here it is very important, NOT to scramble the timeline of events, by simply rattling down such utterings without looking at the complete picture, but to analyse these "utterings" within the context at one particular timepoint on the timeline. *First in line for such "unity", was Great Britain (early-1890s), whilst trying to build up better relations to France in slow steps, or "enable a rapprochement" with France.* In order to understand this, one must evaluate the strategies of "game theory" and the process of slow incremental steps towards an (lol) "endsieg", and why I stated waaaaaay down in this thread that after Bismarck was "fired", that Berlin "leaned west" (gravitating/geopolitics). *Tit-for-tat, is not only a "kids game".* It is in fact one of the key means in diplomacy. One makes a small step, and then checks what effect this has, or how another side responds to this "small step". The wishful effect desired, would be that the other "side" mirrors the attempt with an equally small positive step. Then, to take in from there in small steps... (Search for Game Theory/Strategy/Tit-for-Tat) The exact scientific analysis of the strategy is elabored under the essay about EU High Council Rep. Joseph Borrel, about 6 months ago (ALL essays are interlinked, and solely based on the analysis of "systems" and "strategies" which are timeless, so that the "logic" of criticizing any "hopping around on the timeline" does not exist. Also I use this means, because I do not personally follow any ideology). The strategy can be applied for good intentions, or bad intentions, and assuming bad intentions as a default would be admitting to own biases... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_attribution_bias Especially in an environment of extreme mistrust and typical deceptive politics, this is a way to discover the intentions of an opposing side, without "leaning out of the window" too far, or "letting the cat out of the bag" too early, meaning that opposition to new alignments BOTH in the own empire, as well as in other empires can create an opposing conservative strategy to any observed "more unity in Europe". *Evidence for the above statement that Wilhelm II/some elements in Berlin actually did want to "balance out the rise of the USA", is provided in the below comments section, which actually provides an essay for each and every "begged question" which might or might not arise from any other essay.* After a looooooong 5 years or so, by 1896, after both Great Britain and France had declined this "gradual process" of tit-for-tat, Berlin "leaned east" again, hoping for a "protype EU" of sorts using an axis Berlin-St. Petersburg as basis. The memorandum was titled something like "on the need to create a politico/economic union against the USA" (paraphrasing, but the exact wording and title is under the essay starting with "Why Wilhelm had to go in 1918...") Why London refused such cooperation, regardless of the "narratives" hobby historians grew up with. *London did not want to,* because London thought (strategy/own historical POV) that they could master each and every European crisis and war, and gain from these, without a binding treaty with any power. Evidence for this, if one doesn't want to read any of the below, is actually in simply studying what London did NOT do in the leadup to WW1, and beyond until after WW2, when they themselves became weak and a "US poodle" (Peter Hitches). This is not only true for GB today, but also for each and every European country, who despite all declarations and words, are not a unity, but easily bullied US "poodles".
You might also be interested in a new paper I recently published, available direct from Amazon. Simply search *'How socialist was National Socialism'* in the Amazon search box.
Thanks Doc... I appreciate so much your sharing of knowledge with me...
It wasnt socialist at all... Hitler stated that openly. They were raising the flag of freedom against communist socialists and the zionists manipulated the world to take them down
What of this history?
I am still the Kaiser; the most important man in all the wolrd.
It wasn't Socialist at all. That was the whole night of the long knives deal. Rhoem was passed that Hitler completely abandoned the socialism part and embraced the same old industrialist like Krupp. He was becoming more and more vocal about it threatening even to oust Hitler so Hitler killed him and his other enemies and wiped out the SA in a two birds one stone deal. No need for papers to tell me that, thanks though.
@@hirokidabar4655 Are you crazy or just on drugs?
In my country(Norway) he was known as Norway friend and visited Norway almost every year for many years. In 1905 , he played an important role in persuading Swedish King Oscar II to not attack Norway after Norway abolished the Union. When Ålesund burned down in 1904 was emperor nearby, he organized help and donated large sums for reconstruction.
The True fact is that a huge majority of the German people loved the Kaiser . 71% never wanted him to go, he was forced by the other powers.
Do you have a source for that figure? The way I see it is that by the late twenties, the dust from the war had settled and Germans probably could have worked out a deal to allow Wilhelm to return to Germany, not as a ruler but as a private citizen. They never did.
Unadin Thats cause he wanted to be restored As Monarch of Germany before he returned. Stubbornly even in his will he wrote that he was not to be buried in Germany until a member of his royal house/Family was made King and or Emperor of Germany. Also Yes the people of Germany did want the monarchy back until the early 1950s. The Kaiser’s grandson Prince Wilhelm Frederick fought in WW2 and was killed during the invasion of Belgium. His funeral which was not a big public event had a turn out of 50,000 plus people. Sadly monarchism died out in both Germany’s during the 1950s and Germany is still a Federal Republic .
I've always been perplexed as to why that mainly Kaiser Wilhelm and Germany were blamed for WW1 and not Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary?
this
+Jesse Lee I see it like this, the Austo-hungarian empire was dissolved by the end of the war, and what was left of that was Austria, Austria was not big enough, or had enough economic power to repay the Triple Entente their allies for the war, so they blamed Germany whom had a much better potential for economic growth, so basically it was all about the munny
+Jesse Lee He was Franz Joseph I of Austria. (BUT King of Hungary.)
+Jesse Lee , interesting question that I also wondered about, given how the Nazis later rose to power partly because they appealed to a widespread feeling among the post WWI German public that the Allies unfairly blamed them for starting WWI. I suspect that the Allies held Germany responsible because Germany was more successful and aggressive militarily in WWI than Austro-Hungary was, and because Germany caused more damage to the eventual victors, especially France.
That said, Austro-Hungarian Count Berchtold increased the likelihood of WWI starting with his ultimatum to Serbia, which was deliberately made with the expectation that Serbia would not accept it. From there, the alliance system and intense imperial rivalries brought in the rest of the major European powers of the time.
+Jesse Lee Austria Hungary wasn't really powerful enough to have made the other powers get involved in the war unlike Germany, which was left in a pretty damn solid position in the aftermath of the magnificent bastard Otto Von Bismark. If the conflict were just between Austria-Hungary and the Balkans it would've just been one of many little wars, but Germany opted to give them a blank check, meaning they would give the Austrians all the help they could give. This basically kicked off the first World War.
The biggest scapegoat in human history. A misunderstood hero of his time.
At around 59 minutes into the interview, Ray McGovern (ex-CIA) describes how the CIA was asked to come up with a strategy, actively implemented by Washington DC during the Cold War, of "wedge diplomacy" (see below, the attempt by Berlin to drive a rift in the Entente Cordial, to facilitate the creation of its own *global balance of power* in 1905).
Wedge diplomacy as described by McGovern is always a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique (see below comments section for MORE than sufficient explanation of this technique of political/geographical/geopositional/military/economic POWER).
It is something called *"the division of others"* which will *always* be considered as "justifiable" if done by the own power players, regardless of how much death and destruction it results in, but "injust" or "evil" or "mean" (or another derotatory term) if it is implemented on the own systems of power (the own "state", "country", "alliances/alignments", etc.) by an outside POWER.
Had the 1905 Berlin "wedge diplomacy" succeeded in creating a European balance of power, it would also have resulted in a fair global balance of power, with none of the "sides" in any geopolitical strategic disadvantage, and WW1 (by implication also WW2), could then have been avoided.
In any objective reality, it is neither "good" nor "bad" if such divisions are attempted as a means to create a *balance of power in times if peace.*
It is simply a strategy of power.
ua-cam.com/video/eUZkKM4GiFY/v-deo.htmlsi=WGf6AgtYlGaFHWLC
The interview.
I will try to post a link, but YT might simply "ghost ban" it...
Oh, and also consider the impact of bias, as expressed by @Bolivar below.
The intention is (yet again) to create a weaker version of the exposed realities by me, citing many historians, which was the reality that Berlin was surrounded by a-holes intent on own gain on *all* sides (except A-H).
He and others like him, will always present the own view of "matters" which is that it was *only/mainly* Berlin which was the "problem."
Reality: everything he just wrote, counts *equaly* for all the other powers, *but only one "side" (Entente Powers) decided to encircle and encroach on their neighbor's actual homelands, and he will simply ignore this reality (the Ostrich Effect or fallacy) or try to obfuscate it.*
His standpoints are biased and fallacious in all respects, even if this is the (his)tory he grew up with, but he doesn't acknowledge it, then presents spurious "counter arguments" in order to lay breadcrumbs away from the stated reality (the Red Herring fallacy in reasoning).
Follow such ideologically indoctrinated politician-types and imperialists at the own expense: as stated before, today and 100 or 200 years ago, these types will argue YOU into the bloody- and muddy trench, but when you get there and look around, you won't find these people anywhere near you (concept of the "teen in mommy's basement" screaming their "rights" and "wrongs", knowing full-well they won't be called upon to actually defend their standpoints in a trench).
I agree with Ralph's assessment that Wilhelm II was not a "hero" in the traditional sense, but was merely engaged in power politics. His actions during his reign were primarily driven by the pursuit of national interests and the consolidation of power, rather than by noble or heroic ideals. Wilhelm's strategic manoeuvres, like his efforts to create divisions among the Entente powers, aligned with the era's realpolitik and were focused on maximizing Germany's position rather than any higher moral or ethical goals.
However, I would diverge from the view expressed about the nature of "good and bad" in international relations. It's accurate that nations often rationalize their actions with strategic or pragmatic reasoning, or "necessity," but this doesn't exempt them from moral or ethical judgment. The strategies employed by states can and should be evaluated not only for their effectiveness but also for their adherence to commonly acceptable moral and ethical standards. The consequences of actions, including their impact on human lives, justice, and international stability, are important considerations in moral and ethical evaluations. Historical and contemporary perspectives should consider the broader implications of these actions, beyond mere strategic gains. "Power" and "Necessity" are not "get out of jail free" cards that absolve nations and their leaders from the moral and ethical judgments of either their peers or wider public opinion. Choosing to ignore or side-line morality does not remove it from the picture.
Furthermore, while a strategy might be justified as necessary for achieving immediate objectives, it should also be evaluated on whether it was a wise choice in the broader context. This includes assessing whether the strategy was well thought out, was executed effectively, its potential for achieving lasting peace or stability, and whether it was likely to create more problems than it solved.
In Wilhelm II’s case, his aggressive and ill-conceived strategies, such as those demonstrated during the Moroccan Crises, often not only failed to achieve their intended aims but also contributed to greater instability and eventual conflict. His approach often lacked the foresight and flexibility required for effective diplomacy, ultimately leading to outcomes that were detrimental to both Germany and global stability.
While his actions may be viewed as part of the wider pattern of "power politics" and may be presented as being "justified" by strategic "necessity," they were fraught with significant failings.
*Edit (in response to Herr von Bernhard's edit of his post)* : "Had the 1905 Berlin 'wedge diplomacy' succeeded in creating a European balance of power, it would also have resulted in a fair global balance of power, with none of the 'sides' in any geopolitical strategic disadvantage, and WW1 (by implication also WW2), could then have been avoided." - Herr von Bernhard
Notice the subtle shift from Herr von Bernhard's initial claims that 'rift/wedge diplomacy' is a purely neutral strategy to now attempting to portray it as both a 'good' and 'beneficial' strategy. This change in framing seeks to justify the strategy not as an amoral tool of power politics but as a potentially positive force in shaping global balance-despite the complexities and potential consequences such actions entail. Additionally, note how Herr von Bernhard's framing appears to be heavily dependent on who is doing the dividing. In this case, the 'who' is Germany, and therefore Herr von Bernhard has chosen to defend this strategy. ('It is something called "the division of others" which will always be considered as "justifiable" if done by the own power players [...]' - Herr von Bernhard)."
Herr von Bernhard's argument that Berlin's attempts at "divide and rule" in 1905 would have prevented war from erupting in 1914 is inherently flawed. The Treaty of Björkö did nothing to address the underlying tensions and rivalries that were simmering across Europe. More importantly, nothing about the nature of the treaty, or the diplomacy of that period, would have prevented the specific chain of events that began with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914-a catalyst that triggered the broader conflict. The complex web of alliances, nationalistic fervour, and militaristic ambitions that characterized the pre-war period were far too entrenched to be undone by the success or failure of a single "diplomatic" effort nearly a decade earlier.
*Edit 2 : (for the same reasons, yet more retrospective edits by Herr von Bernhard)* : Herr von Bernhard now asserts that 'He [presumably me] and others like him, will always present the own view of "matters" which is that it was only/mainly Berlin which was the "problem."' However, no one has ever made such a claim. This appears to be a projection of Herr von Bernhard's own bias, which has led to multiple inherent contradictions within his posts. These contradictions undermine his ability to present a clear and coherent argument. Instead of addressing the complexities of the situation, Herr von Bernhard seems to be constructing a straw man, attributing to others a position that hasn't been stated, perhaps to deflect from the inconsistencies in his own reasoning.
"a-holes intent on own gain on all sides (except A-H)"
Herr von Bernhard's use of the term 'a-holes' to describe the surrounding nations is both charged and inflammatory, reflecting a clear bias rather than an objective analysis. Additionally, his attempt to assign a unique 'virtuousness' to Austria-Hungary, and by extension Germany, seems to ignore the shared responsibilities of all powers involved in the geopolitical tensions of the time. This selective portrayal of historical events undermines the credibility of his argument and grossly oversimplifies the motivations and actions that led to the conflicts of that era.
Let's not forget that throughout history, Germans have demonstrated the capability not only to 'encroach' upon and 'isolate' their neighbours but also to remove them entirely from the map when it suited their interests. This history of aggressive expansionism shows that Germany, like many other powers, has at times pursued its goals with little regard for the sovereignty or stability of neighbouring states. This reality challenges any narrative that seeks to paint Germany or its allies as uniquely virtuous or unfairly targeted by surrounding nations.
Italy, for one, might challenge the supposed virtuous nature of Austria-Hungary. The long-standing territorial disputes between Italy and Austria-Hungary, particularly over regions like South Tyrol and Trieste, fuelled considerable animosity. This tension culminated in Italy's decision to join the Allies during World War I, largely motivated by promises of territorial gains at Austria-Hungary's expense. Such historical realities challenge any attempt to portray Austria-Hungary as uniquely virtuous or benevolent, illustrating instead that, like Germany, it pursued its own imperial ambitions, often at the expense of its neighbours.
"If one has universal principles, one does not wear "rose-colored glasses," meaning what is "right" for one group in a set of circumstances, also applies as "right" for all others." - Herr von Bernhard.
It seems he struggles to adhere to his own principles, given the selective justifications he's presented in defence of certain actions. Universal principles require consistent application, regardless of who benefits or suffers, and anything less undermines their validity.
It's amazing how all of these great monarchs that fought against one another were all so closely related.
Indeed, it's no surprise how many of these monarchs were overthrown after WW1. They couldn't even maintain peace within their own family.
Inbreeding. It's still the bane of British Monarchy. Fortunately Princess Diana injected some unrelated non-royal blood into the line. Otherwise Windsors would be the same as Hapsbergs, genetically polluted to the point not one could rule anything
Nothing great about Wilhelm: an immature, malignant narcissist.
Queen Victoria must be such a granny.
Just days before WW1 broke out, he was on board a British Battleship, part of a British Fleet in Germany at his invitation. At a reception he said he didn't think war was necessary and diplomacy will find a solution. 'Stephen King-Hall. "North Sea Diary." King-Hall was a young Royal Navy Lt. on board HMS Southhampton, part of the fleet in Kiel Harbor that day. Fascinating reading about Navy Life during First World War on the North Sea.
You be got to admit I’ve got a swag
Please return we need you
The drippiest Kaiser
You and your cousin Nicolas II have a way of turning lands of grain into ashes and bloody lakes.
This is getting out of hand now there are two of them
@@xmilkx1897 The West remembers.... Your fall from grace.
I also have Erb's palsy like Kaiser Wilhelm II. I never knew that there was someone famous with this condition as well. Very inspiring!
Imagine thinking that Germany started WW1.
They did.
@@Itried20takennames GB started both world wars (by declaration) in order to protect the British Empire.
You'd have to convince the reader that they were also necessary to avoid greater calamity at the time.
WW2 was sadly necessary in 1939, due to the bumbled peace after WW1.
Why would you say WW1 was necessary?
@Doug Bevins So?
On the 24th August 1939, Stalin gave a "blank cheque" to Hitler to invade Poland.
So I guess Stalin "started it" then...correct?
Blair gave Bush a "blank cheque" to invade Iraq in 2003, rather than telling Bush that there would be no British support for such folly. Well, see what happened....
Gotta love "blank cheques"...
@@ralphbernhard1757 so you say Austria started it?
@@timteichmann6830 WW1 was a series of events resembling domino stones toppling over. Each stone, toppling the next one in the line.
Each nation's leader was only responsible for own actions. Not the actions of others.
Before WW1, there weren't any binding defense pacts (like NATO today, or the British-French-Polish Defense Treaty which was signed in 1939), so the only ones responsible for the free choices which were made in 1914, or during the course of WW1, were the leaders of each nation.
Something known as "jumping on the bandwagon".
UK declared war on Germany - not the other way around as the introduction makes believe.
He didnt start the war
Germany declared war on France and Russia. I understand it was a complicated situation but I think its difficult to argue that Germany didnt start the war. I understand. Franz Joseph really initiated the conflict but Wilhelm turned it into a continental war. But, again, I do understand that it is a very complicated matter.
Alan Johnson Ahem, they were, for a long time, backing each other (Germany and Austria),
Russia came in because of the war declaration of the Austrians, Germany came in, then we came in because we were salty about Alsace-Lorraine.
No he didn't Start world war 1 so he didn't give the order to invade Neutral Belgium and Breaking the London Agreement which Guaranteed Belgium's Naturally,he didn't start world war one which ended with over 10 Million killed and Many injured both Mentally and physically and left Most of Northern France lay destroyed and some of his own Troops killed some of the Belgium Men and Rapped some of there Women,no I've got no Sympathy for him and when he died in 1941 only Hitler went to his Former Kings Funeral
@@martincook318 Hitler did not go to the Kaiser's funeral but he did send representatives against the Kaiser's wishes to have a non-nazi funeral.
@@martincook318 Hey brainwashed fella just a question why was the meeting between Grey and prince Lischnowsky erased from almost all history books?
Would be quiet obvious if it was common knowledge that you Brits initiated that war and later when you got surprised by the submarines and you ran out of supplies you've dragged us into the war. Wasn't it Churchill who ordered the Lusitania to slow down and how about the Juno? I'm convinced Europe would be in a better shape today if we had sided with Germany instead with you!
Another German who had a never to be forgotten, nor repeated style of moustache....
Regarding all of the comments accusing this documentary of having an anti-German bias, let me say the following:
1. This documentary is not about a country or a war, but a person.
2. Disliking Donald Trump does not make one anti-American and disliking Wilhelm II does not make one anti-German.
3. One thing I picked up from this documentary is that Wilhelm's mother's side of the family (i.e. the British side) had as much influence on his character and personality as his father's side, and that the Windsors at this time were not the most harmonious family. In other words, the documentary is not really anti-German but anti-Windsor.
4. Another thing I saw in this documentary is that Germans did not particularly like Wilhelm II either. His generals and admirals were willing to humor him by taking part in his stupid male bonding rituals, but it does not appear as though they really respected him much. When WW1 broke out, they did not trust his judgment, and generally kept him out of the decision making process.
By the end of the war, he was clearly not a very popular guy in Germany. At the time of his escape to Holland, Wilhelm faced the possibility of imprisonment by the western allies. However, by the late twenties, after the dust from the war had settled, the Germans probably could have worked out a deal to allow him to return home, and maybe even make him a symbolic monarch, but they didn't. Even Hitler refused to do this.
5. One final thought. Many would argue that regardless of anything that Wilhelm II did or didn’t do, a war between Germany and Russia (and France) was inevitable. I think that’s probably true. However, there is quite a bit of debate about whether England’s participation in the war was inevitable. Personally, I don’t think it was, and I think that it was the result of years of bad diplomacy on Wilhelm’s part. Regardless, even if Britain’s entry into the war was inevitable, America’s entry was not.
To the extent that one does not view England or America's involvement as inevitable, one could say that Wilhelm II is not responsible for STARTING WW1 but rather, LOSING WW1. In other words, even if you think that the central powers were the “right side” in WW1, you would still have good reason to dislike Wilhelm II.
In the Schlieffen plan, Germany will pass through Belgium. This was aimed at winning a quick victory and knocking France out of the war. Now at the height of the European crisis, Great Britain assured the Belgian government that their neutrality would not be violated. And so the invasion of Belgium by Germany and the atrocities associated with the invasion invited Britain into the war. First an ultimatum is sent from London to Berlin, demanding they withdraw. It is ignored and Britain declares war.
Wilhelm's own (British ) mother despised him. Pretty much so did Granny, Queen Victoria. I'm not a Kaiser fan but he wasn't really given a chance to grow into a decent human being
@@Annasea666 Well actually Victoria adored him, but after she died he became that relative that no one wants around.
Pleas translat. Spielt ja auch keine Rolle ob seine Generalität ihn mochte oder nicht er wurde auch nicht mehr vom Volk bejubelt als der Englische König oder der Norwegische, aber Wilhelm war des Krieges müde da ehe in sowieso nicht beginnen wollte und wurde somit Stück für Stück vom eigenen Generalstab außen vor gelassen sonder bis zur Niederlage auch noch angelogen. Ludendorff und Hindenburg haben mehrmals aktiv die Friedens gesuchte des Kaisers bei kotiert um auch ihre Position zu sichern. Hindenburg hatte auch nicht die möglich genutzt als Reichskanzler Wilhelm wenigste als König von Preußen wider ein zu setzen , davon abgesehen wen das Deutsche reich Expandieren wollte warum dann 1914 und nicht zur einer fiel günstigeren Zeit wie 1904 als das Russische reich entwaffnet war.
@@Annasea666 He was not capable of growing
20:44 - “George V...sporting a German helmet...” - Bit of trivia for anyone interested: it was common for European royalty on official State visits to wear the uniforms of one another’s countries. George V for example, had been created a Prussian Field-Marshal by the Kaiser whilst still Prince of Wales, just as Wilhelm II had been made a British Field-Marshal by King Edward VII. In the next scene, in fact, the Kaiser is wearing the regimental uniform of a Colonel of the British Royal Horse Guards (now the ‘Blues and Royals’ - one of the two cavalry regiments of the Household Brigade, in which Princes William and Harry serve, and of which Anne, the Princess Royal, is Col-in-Chief).
ADDENDUM: Excellent channel, BTW - many very interesting topics; only just found it and subscribed! Greetings from Greece!🇬🇷
I hope you realize that at the start of the video, the voice is not the kaiser but is instead his son the crown prince. Look up the UA-cam video "Deutscher Kronprinz Wilhelm complete Interview in Fox Movietone News 1932".
this is the best video I have seen about the Kaiser.
Being half German I find this documentary very interesting, Thank you for putting this up.
It's good to see a film stirring up such interesting academic debate. Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far; and for the students who use the film in their studies, be aware of the perceptive arguments advanced below. You get lots of credit for counter-argument, remember!
If this was a family affair why didn't they just have a duel instead of millions of innocent people dying?
*In the smallest "nutshell" one can find, it was London (the state) which made Germany (the newly united state after 1871) the default rival in peace, and default enemy in war as a matter of policy. Its elites then set out to make "enemies out of old friends/friends out of old enemies".*
While this might sound very "conspiratorial", it is exactly what happened, and it happened out in the open for all to see, and all to analyse while it happened. Unfortunately, same as today, it happens far too slowly for most current witnesses to notice. The reality is that most people are simply too pre-occupied with daily chores and problems, or don't care (indifference) or don't know (aka ignorance), or if they do, they don't act or don't now how things are connected (complacency)...
In case they do study and wish to know about history, confusing "causes" and "effects" is one of the basic logical fallacies.
Simply "pin a flag on a timeline somewhere suitable", downplay events before that, and start "writing history".
Fact?
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war.
An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London made "temporary best friends", not lasting alliances.
Search for French historian Pozner: "Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin" on the Yale University Channel.
*From "open hand" to "clenched fist" in 20-30 years.*
"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. *That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.* Of course people don't want war. Why should a poor fool on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best thing he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?"
Hermann Goring
Emperor Wilhelm 2 he is a great monarch, diplomat, general, king, emperor, politician, patriot of his country, an incredible person. Symbol of the nations.
Yes, maybe. Problem is when you have leaders advocating "born to lead", you might soon see young men writing "born to die" on steel helmets...
No, it may well. He is a brilliant monarch. These soldiers in helmets were dying for their homeland. And not yours and your imagination. The fact that young people are dying for their homeland is rather an honor, and not what you mean. He is truly great. There is no great great honor how to perish for the motherland for the king for the country. Unlike you, I have the honor.
@@Erwin_Munchen One definition of "honor" is "the quality of knowing and doing what is morally right" or to "fulfil (an obligation) or keep (an agreement)."
If my nation is attacked without due cause, I will defend it. That is my duty, and I will honor it. I assume this is what you mean.
If my nation is the one attacking another, without due cause, or in dishonor, there no obligation on my part.
I have no obligation to serve leaders (or nations) engaging in acts of provocation, fight for disingenuous causes, or who act recklessly. That is what I mean.
Of course you can see it whichever way you wish, and fight for whichever cause your leaders tell you to. There are certainly enough who see it that way, so go for it...it's a free world.
Honor is a person’s worthy of respect and pride; its relevant principles [1].
Honor can be perceived as a relative concept, brought to life by certain cultural or social traditions, material causes or personal ambitions. On the other hand, honor is interpreted as a person’s inherent feeling, an integral part of his personality. In the traditional system of cultural values of many peoples [what?], The category of honor is in a more important place than human life.
The dictionary of V. I. Dahl defines honor as “internal moral dignity of a person, valor, honesty, nobleness of the soul and a clear conscience”, but also as “conditional, secular, worldly nobility, often false, imaginary”.
 Honor is an internal right given to oneself to evaluate oneself and one’s existence in terms of self-esteem. Objective factors that give the right to honor are chastity and nobility. Chastity is the ideal axiological norm of the natural state. Nobleness is the ideal axiological norm of a personal state.
Archimandrite Plato. Orthodox moral theology. You tell me your opinion is permissible. I love my country people culture history. Not without reason we are not going to battle. We are a peaceful nation and warriors do not want, we want peace and prosperity. I AM PERSONALITY as well as my compatriots. We fight when our country is in danger, when we are declared a warrior, when we were attacked. We are not fighting for the ambitions of our politicians, but for the defense of the fatherland. this is the difference between us. My people and I want the peace and prosperity of my country. That means honor. you have your own opinion your leader is your right because we live in a free world. We defend our homeland when it is in danger. I believe that the honor is respecting oneself respecting one’s own country and having one's own dignity. I ask you not to make excuses. You usually follow the instructions of the government war means war peace means peace take Zululand from the Boers so please. We ordinary do not follow the ambitions of politicians. We are for the honor of the country. Honor is self-awareness. But I don’t see you in this. A leader flourishes his people and not a leader oppresses (to the poor). A man who respects himself, a country, has dignity is an honor. Pseudo chauvinists come and go. And leaders live forever. What you wrote is pointless. Wilhelm 2 people of honor. And I don’t see honor with you. Good luck to you
@@Erwin_Munchen Wilhelm II supported the Boers, that includes the rule of the Boers over the Zulu.
He wanted to make the homelands of the Boers (Transvaal Republic) a German protectorate.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruger_telegram
The Boers looked down on Africans, including the Zulu, and treated them with dishonor.
Are you South African?
When I was studying in England back in the late ‘80s there was a little old lady - Gracie was her name - who lived in one of the flats of the rooming house where I was staying. In the daytime, she was a sprightly, pleasant lady with a ready smile and a kindly word for everyone (she was particularly warm-hearted to all of us foreign students, so far away from our homes). But sometimes she would wake us all up in the wee hours of the morning, as she wandered through the hallways shouting in her wonderfully syncopated Cockney, “thay should-a ‘ung the Kaiser they should...” As we eventually learned from our landlady, her niece, the poor old thing had lost a brother and a sweetheart (and likely innumerable other young friends, relatives, and acquaintances) in the horrors of the trenches at the Western Front. Now, seventy odd years after the end of the Great War, in her grief and loneliness, she still blamed “Kaiser Bill” for the tragedies of her bygone youth...😢 God rest her soul.
Awwwwww I feel sorry for her.
God is in control😭😭😢😢
gott strafe england
I understand that Wilhelm was highly nationalistic and wanted to expand Germany’s Imperial prestige, which caused problems but Germany didn’t start the war like they seem to assert here. This account seems to be a bit propagandized to suit the narrative of the victors.
Once again, I’m not saying that Germany acted blamelessly but the Germans invaded Belgium because France had already declared war on them because of their alliance with Russia. Yes, Germany was the aggressor when it came to Belgium but the war was underway among at least four of the major European powers and Serbia already so my comment stands. Those networks of alliances between the different nations that brought the war to the scale that it was were also a reflection of the deep nationalism and militarism being exhibited by many of the European powers at the time, as well. Germany was not the only nation acting aggressively before the war, nor was as it responsible for starting it. I acknowledge that it did play a major role in escalating the war once it was underway though and maybe more so than others. Still, the video seems to place an inordinate amount of blame specifically on Germany when it was really years of geo-strategic game playing and building ethic tensions across Europe, especially in the Balkans, that are responsible for the war.
@Dragomir Ronilac Which empire occupied like a quarter of the world's landmass? C'mon, let's not act as if Germany was the only faction to pursue imperial ambitions.
@Dragomir Ronilac That was was started before Germany ever invaded Belgium. Serbia started that war. Who backed Serbia?
He speaks English well. I always thought of Kaiser Wilhelm as being a mysterious individual.
Outstanding - thanks to Wilhelm's descendants for speaking
During the period it was common to hear, from open windows on warm spring days, "Gunter! How many times have I told you not to leave that damned spiked helmet on my chair!?"
Germany didn’t start ww1
No, but it didn't stop it either.
Ralph Bernhard Britain and France didn’t stop it also
@@kevinvalentinocasanova8416 Yes, that is also correct.
No nations' leaders stopped it, even though they could have.
But they lost it lol
@@dannywlm63 i don't get how a war where millions of people died is funny to you?
Wilhelm still had such a regal look to him even when in exile.
For me, the start of WW1 was like "one thing led to the other" situation.
First, all the European powers at the time b4 1914 formed two rival alliances. Each country pledges support to one another. Then the spark; Archduke Franz Ferdinand is assassinated. Serbia is blamed for it. Then Serbia is under attack from Austrio- Hungarian forces. Russia moves in to support Serbia. Germany sees Russian involvement as a threat and declares war. As the days go by, France and Great Britain get involved also. Had there been a mechanism to calm tempers down WW1 would not have started
Yes, the "domino stones theory" makes a lot of sense.
The domino stones toppled because none of the world's major powers were willing to step down from a position once taken. Therefore what could have remained a limited "3rd Balkan War", spread into a "Continental European War", and from there to a "Great, or World War".
WW1 came about due to the contested spheres of influence in the Balkans, between Russia, Austria Hungary, and Germany.
WW2 came about because of the contested spheres of influence in Eastern Europe (the British and French Empires, Germany, and the SU).
WW2 in the Asia/Pacific theatre of operations came about due to the contested spheres of influence in China (Western Powers = Chinese Nationalists = Chiang Kai Check vs. Japan vs. the SU = Communism = Mao)
Today, we are witnessing a contested sphere of influence in the ME (USA, West vs. Russia and China), so let's hope our wise leaders keep a level head...
This doc is informative about Wilhelm's weaknesses, but is one-sided about its portrayal of pre-WWI leaders. Many of the same failings were present in Nicholas II of Russia, who was the first person to order his armies to mobilize in July 1914. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was moribund and unstable, and Franz Joseph had not implemented reforms. The Serbian government was corrupt and did not crack down on the violent revolutionaries. So we have multiple parties who were at least as responsible as Wilhelm for starting the war and perhaps even moreso, in the estimation of many analysts.
The author of The War That Ended Peace, Margaret Macmillan, writes that the tragedy of the death of Franz Ferdinand was compounded by the fact that not only did his death trigger the war, but also that he was the only man capable of stopping it.
valinor100 Good points -- what an amazing circle of idiocy on multiple sides that caused most of the misery of the 20th century.
Gazzara5 Easiest scenario to avoid complete disaster *once* war had broken out, because it would have perhaps meant a rapid or significantly hastened German victory, mild peace terms and less strain on the political systems of the great powers.
Gazzara5 Indeed. Upon closer inspection on the most important effects of the American entry into WWI as well as WWII was that the wars prolonged itself and led to much further deaths.
Aeros802
I meant the British decision to commit itself militarily, taken on August 4, 1914. Otherwise France would have probably fallen to the Germans in a matter of a few months, meaning lenient peace terms and Russia abandoning its own war effort after the collapse of the Western Front. The American entry was not made until April 1917, by which time millions were dead, Russia was in revolution and Germany continued the fight because it believed there was a chance to defeat the British and French in the west before American troops arrived in large numbers. The United States only really made a difference in 1918.
In WW2, the American entry at a much earlier date sealed the fate of the Nazis and hastened their defeat, saving millions of lives. The situation can't be compared because Nazi Germany was a very different entity than Imperial Germany and had to be defeated at all costs.
Gazzara5 Yes. It's clear that the creaky old monarchies of Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey were headed towards a British-style peaceful transition to parliamentary democracy given a few more decades. E.g. in Russia I would have given absolute monarchy no more than to the end of Nicholas II's reign - he was begrudging of any democratic reform but reforms were happening anyway.
Really appreciate the archival video footage...
There's something about the Kaiser that both angers me and feels sorry for him at the same time. He was a pompous arrogant buffoon with a love/hate relationship with England. At the same time he was also a manipulated man by conservatives who had him turn against his liberal parents. These same conservatives who threw him under the bus in 1918 when the war was lost.
As a Canadian, whose great grandfather fought on the side of the World War I Allies against Germany, I will say that at the very least, the beginning comments in this video are pro-British and anti-German propaganda. My country and Britain had their differences with Germany intervening in Belgium that was officially neutral, but that does not make me look at Germany with total scorn. Why should have Germany have stood by and let the British Empire dominate over Europe and the world via its massive economy and navy? Why that anymore than why should China stand by and let the United States dominate the world today? There is no reason, and the only people who claim that there is a reason for Germany to have accepted British dominance are those who did support, or would have supported, Britain's dominance and Germany's acquiescence.
rfavro No idea where you get the idea that the British Empire 'dominated' Europe. The continental European empires, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia were 'land' empires that required large armies. The British, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish had 'colonial' empires that depended on having strong navies. Can't quite follow your argument that Britain 'dominated' Europe.
rfavro "Why should have Germany have stood by and let the British Empire dominate over Europe ....." Dominate over Europe? - Britain's possessions in Europe = Malta, Gibraltar, The Channel Islands - wow, that's 'domination.'?
You forgot another tiny possession, Cyprus.
If his father had reigned longer, this man might've had more time to prepare for his future role as Emperor. Instead, poor old Fritz died before he could do all the plans him and Victoria planned for years. I swear, if Emperor Friedrich III didn't have that cancer, he would've had more stronger and friendlier ties to Russia and Britain. Things would've been different.
Bacchus: I agree that things would have been different and probably better if Friedrich had lived a few years longer. I think that the main difference is that Bismarck would have had time to make preparations for a post-Bismarck Germany.
true
@@veigaanaosodecalcinha1459 porra de nome é esse kkkkkk
Same with Nicholas II.
First sentence allready overloaded with anti-german Propaganda...
@Steve Bivens I'm german. Both Brothers of my great grandfather Lost their Lives fighting for the fatherland. The "documentary" is not at all neutral, but very disrespectfull, so...
@Steve Bivens historians are lying that’s “So”
@@leone.6190 Your evil country has torn Europe apart twice, and now your Fourth Reich EU is trying again.
Excellent documentary. Thank you very much .❤
This is NOT the voice of Kaiser Bill, but that of the Kronzprinz Wilhelm!!!!
It’s really interesting to hear an actual recording of the Kaiser speaking English and his English seemed really good too
It wasn't him, it was Crown Prince Wilhelm, his son. The mistake lies with the Director of this film, I would imagine. However, Wilhelm II spoke five languages, including fluent English due to his connections to the British royal court, so he was quite capable of uttering those words.
Well his grandmother is Queen Victoria the former queen of the British empire. And his mother was a Brit so he spoke English and german as a child
His mother was English.
Mein gott, why blame me when it was actually that fool Hotzendorf?
0:02 That is not the voice of Kaiser Wilhelm II but of his son Kronprinz Wilhelm. Seach for the video "Deutscher Kronprinz Wilhelm complete Interview in Fox Movietone News 1932"!
That's just a minor detail.
When you leave, you'll be very proud that you've spotted it though.
Do you think there is anything else "wrong" with the picture, which you might have missed?
@@ralphbernhard1757 Hard to fit everything about Wilhelm II into a 47 minute film, but I think it touches upon a lot of the highlights.
I don't like monarchs but I have huge respect for that guy
Our Queen (UK) awesome?
@@pup1008 yes
You forget that France started the war.
@@jeanghika7653
How?
@@pup1008Read the innocence of Kaiser Whilhelm ii by Christina Croft. You'll know the truth then.
From around 10:00 minutes onwards...
The so-called "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" is very famous.
Also a misnomer.
It was in fact a "European Naval Arms Race".
As clearly defined by the British 2-Power Standard...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Defence_Act_1889
...which doesn't mention countries.
It just simply stated "build more ships that the next two countries with a margin of 10%", making it (at the time/in reality) a *European Naval Arms Race.*
According to the policy, GB was also trying to outbuild Russia and France, carrying out own naval programmes.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battleships_of_France
Simplifying it down to "Anglo-German" is a little bit of name branding, just so the people know who "the enemy" is...
In contrast the post-WW1 naval arms race was not "branded" as being a *"Anglo/Japanese vs. USA Naval Arms Race"* but simply known as an arms race...
[Japan and GB were still allied]
Maybe London should've paid better attention to what that meant, and which implications it bore in the NWO after WW1...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century
Despite being german leader during the first world war he was nowhere near as unruling as hitler
You are really naive and ignorant.
The First killed more people than the Second...
@@LathropLdST no one can be this dumb please tell me you're joking
The narrator's voice is the most soothing I've ever heard.
She sounds like an English nanny reading a bedtime story.
imagine Bismarck's soul talking with the kaiser in his last moments
The only German curse word I know is Scheisse. You would need to find the German equivalent of Lenny Bruce or the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket to truly convey what Bismarck's soul would have said to Wilhelm.
Nö worries they probably met each other in hell
Wilhelm II was not the person most people teach us he was. My Grandfather met him and he said, that he didn't want the War. He wasn't a war monger.
Yes.
"There are always four sides to a story: your side, their side, the truth and what really happened."
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
"The hopes of many Liberals both in Germany and in England for Germany’s reformation died, and fears of where the young William II would lead Europe sprang up. This view and this fear for the future of Europe was held by many in the English press, particularly political cartoonists, (edit: liberals) *who were keen to damn him before his reign even truly began.* Cartoonist Matthew Summerville Morgan portrayed William II in such a way in the June 27, 1888, issue of the magazine Judy in a piece called “The Lost Hero.” A bust of Frederick III surrounded on all sides by wreathes from the nations of Europe and weeping angels dominates the left side of the cartoon. To the right and slightly in the background stands William II, raising his sword and imperial standard to a horizon over which hangs the word “war.” In a similar piece entitled “The New Emperor” in the June 23, 1888, issue of Fun magazine, John Gordon Thompson portrays William II as a child, blowing a trumpet and banging a drum labeled “war” while a woman representing the whole of Europe looks on in frustration, covering her ears."
From "Mad as March Hares:" Kaiser Wilhelm II, Great Britain, and the Road to War by Jeffrey Kelly
Note.
All before even taking a single decision...
Interesting.
@@ralphbernhard1757 It was a view shared by many, including his mother who feared greatly for where Wilhelm's rule would lead Germany. The same fear was also held by individuals within Germany's ruling elite, and was one that continued to be expressed as his rule progressed. These views were not restricted to any one nation.
Interesting.
@@bolivar2153 Even more interesting?
The concept of the "self-fulfilling prophecy".
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
I wonder if, in 1888, John Gordon Thompson knew that only 1 year before, in 1887, young Wilhelm II was one of those present at Wilhelm I's "war council" and was pressing for a "preventative war" against their neighbour Russia? (A war that was only narrowly prevented by the intervention of Bismarck and the existence of the Reinsurance Treaty).
This is a very good and balanced documentary. Thank you for uploading this Alan Brown.
My pleasure. Thanks, Daniel.
Daniel Eyre: "Balanced"? Hardly ! It is very prejudicial and biased.
Daniel Eyre
All the picky little personality quibbling about the Kaiser like a cheap yellow magazine would do has very little to do with Political reality. Also, there is no focus on UK reactions to the building of the German fleet, which they viewed jealously. British attitude was very much in the mood of the 19th century song, "We don't want to fight, by jingo, but if it has to come, we've got the ships, and we've got the men, and we've got the money, too".
Daniel Eyre
Look at Ms. Croft's video about WW I to see a balanced view. Brown is very one-sided. He is simply a British government apologist.
FRAGIORGIO1 "Brown" had nothing to do with the film, he merely uploaded it. And, since the majority of the content comes from German sources, specifically Professor Rohl and the Kaiser's own family, perhaps you should be writing to them instead.
Thank God the documentary was far more interesting and informative than the diatribe of comments below.🙄
How about countering the "diatribe" rather than simply voicing your opinion?
In case you're up to it, I wrote a new comment, with a "challenge". You kids like "challenges", correct? 🙂
this is totally not from a biased anglo perspective
hihihi... please state your case, not your conclusions.
I firmly believe that the Kaiser wasn't an evil menace and he certainly didn't deserve to be exiled like Napoleon, hell Napoleon didn't deserve it.
They should of replaced. Him with his son
He was anti semetic though
@@Goldrunner1169 True, but who wasn't at the time, leader wise?
@@Goldrunner1169 everyone was tho at that time it if it was the king of Britain or the Tsar of Russia and many American presidents
The Kaiser was “exiled” to a nice mansion with all his stuff and servants and had acreage. Napoleon was exiled to a tiny island hundreds of miles offshore
Recently discovered letters from the young Wilhelm to his Mother indicate a very strange abnormal attitude towards her. His anger towards her pro-English upbringing & her British Doctors' medical 'treatments', mentally took him down very odd paths.
Robert Musacchio I can’t blame him. Those treatments for that arm sound more like torture. They said they used electric shock therapy.
All mothers and their sons have odd relationships in one form or another . She didn’t exactly accept his physical disabilities which means she didn’t wholly accept him as a human being . That’s a tough one .
In those days, having a physical disability was an omen regardless of who you were. I also think that his mom, coming from a long lineage of monarchs & royals, saw him as what he was, the future Keiser, that was one of the princesses’ duties, was to create heirs. Also, keep in mind that being a King or Queen meant, that you were chosen by God or it was a God given right, & so how can God give them a King with a bad arm. The whole thing to us is preposterous, but for them, it was a thing of power & longevity.
“He liked to play childish games on members of his cabinet and military staff… he punched his head of the navy in the stomach during a storm.”
WHAT
Not exactly childish.. Under normal conditions a victim would not be laughing off these actions..
I stumbled into a video with the most educated comment section I've ever seen.
It takes careful curation to keep it so, Sam. Thanks.
Wilhem the second was unfit for kaiser. Bismark and kaiser Wilhem the first (his grandfather), thought that as well as alot of the parliament
Wilhelm II wasn't trying to "conquer Europe" wtf. And that wasn't even him speaking at the begining- it was his son, Wilhelm THE THIRD.
Great documentary thanks for posting
Perhaps if Frederick III hadn't died so soon, WWI might have been averted since he wanted Germany to follow the example of Great Britain. Here is the link to his story:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_III,_German_Emperor
Queen Victoria's favourite grandchild, however the rest of the family mocked him for the clicking of the heels and his pompous behaviour. He loved it when his uncle and aunt, Prince and Princess of Wales, had to bow and curtsey to him. He became Kaiser before his uncle became King. Queen Victoria died in the Kaisers arms. He managed all by himself to put an end to the German Monarchy!
People were looking for someone to blame for a war that killed so many millions of people, perhaps as many as fifty millions. And he did ocassionally wear a uniform with a big skull on it. Even I have seen that photo. Who better to blame? And yet he was allowed to live out his life as a private millionaire. In other words no real consequences for his actions.
Bush and Blair will live out their lives in millionaire comfort.
I guess there will be no consequences for their actions.
I guess they don't look at the world today, and feel in any way responsible...
amazing documentary editing and production, great 1990 generation. That's something the current generation with their gizmos and gazillion pixels cameras and lacking mentality could not do. Everything the music the sequences it's flawless.
Agreed.
A very emotional documentary.
It certainly tugs at those human instincts.
And the music? Great choice. Just like in Hollywood movies, the music underscores the emotions generated by the images, and they compliment each other, and the narrative, in a very convincing manner...
Excellent.
It's almost as if the soothing, calming music makes everything more true.
Excellent indeed.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Yes, except that Hollywood is not a positive reference afai am concerned. It's the brainwashing cradle operated by a minority nepotistic group imposing their dominance and propaganda over the USA. Occulting the real america and replacing it by a fake world that diverts attention away from the real problem people and their activities and forms zombies and points fingers to political opponent all to coerce masses to serve the fake elite minority. Only other countries' elite can see how brainwashed the common United-statian is. Fortunately there is a growing american population that has become aware.
my grandma always told us this rhyme : " Der Kaiser ist ein lieber Mann und wohnet in Berlin. Und wär´es nicht soweit von hier so ging ich heut´noch hin." ( The Kaiser is a nice man and lives in Berlin. And if it were´nt such far away i would walk this very day )
Was your grandma Prussian, or from a different part of Germany?
@@unadin4583 different part; the effect of 1871 united very much whole germany but most of all it was the feeling of living in a "golden era" were many cities grew as cure cities with huge public free bulidings, baths an nice parks. Even the currency they switched from silver/gold mix to a pure gold standard ! Same as in england too. Also the very good and free education system was felt as a huge step forward ....you can see that on how much german scientists get the Nobel price in these years . Still the downside was a massive workforce with little rights in upcoming industries like iron, coal,chemestry,electrification, railroads, ships, colonial territory overseas and not at least troops and weapons.
From my understanding, wasn't he a grandchild of the late queen Victoria, dubbed grandmother of Europe?
Yes
The first grandchild!
also the product of two first cousins marrying , i believe
His grandparents, Albert and Victoria, were first cousins. His parents, Frederick and Vickey, were fifth cousins, once removed as both were descended from King George I of the UK.
i see , thanks
Strange to think that he died thinking Germany had won the war.
In all ernest, so did King George V.
When he died, he must've thought WW1 had secured the future of the British Empire...
At least he had a battleship named after him.
"Kings", "empires", and "battleships", were however antiquated concepts.
Sometimes i fantasize about going back in time and warn them that the war earns you nothing but blood and lives.
Wilhelm reigned for 30 YEARS. His reign was a golden age in terms of industrial, commercial, scientific and cultural achievement. And above all, it was a time of PEACE.
Some interesting facts presented but very blatant bias in commentary.
They say that Germany & the Keiser started the war, that isn't true all he wanted to do was to support Austria against Serbia. A tiny country at the time with a large Anarchist movement. France, UK, and Russia saw it as a reason to fight Germany, because they were scared of Germany.
imerupp.,As a pro Kaiser you would say that. But the truth is Germany had been spoiling for a fight for a long time against Britain and France because the Kaiser was jealous with an inferiority complex, partly due to his withered arm (that arm really did have an adverse effect on his personality) but mainly because of his envy of the British Empire and the Royal Navy. Coming to Austria's aid was merely an excuse to start the ball rolling. He also knew that by aiding Austria, Russia was bound to side with Serbia thereby igniting a European war.
Adrian Larkins
In WW1 the German Empire and the Austrian-Hungarian Empire didn't want to be enemies of Britannia or USA, they wanted to deal with Serbia, that got France involved. in turn getting the UK evolved
.
Adrian Larkins Let us agree to disagree!
Frank Wohnrade Oh , go away. I know my history. And by the way, it is "jealous of", not "at".
The cool thing about a divide and rule system, is that it does not matter what any individual emphasizes: It exists in parallel to whatever the observer wishes to amplify...
I actually don't know much about WW1, or royalties, but unlike many other british documentaries, this one seems to be biased and one sided, and leaves out alot about why things developped the way they were.
The vast majority of the monarchs who fought World War I were actually related to each other through marriages or were descendants of Queen Victoria, who had the idea that she could prevent the war that was to come by populating the Royal Houses of Europe with her off spring...well as history showed Victoria's plans backfired
There are so many what-ifs in history, especially with Kaiser Wilhelm.
What if - Prince Albert had lived longer? What kind of influence would he have had on his first grandson?
What if - he had had a normal birth? Would he have been less angry with his English relations?
What if - he had not listened to his generals?
What if - his chancellor had not undermined him and urged peace talks?
42:57 the only reason he said that was to please the Nazis into getting his throne back in Berlin.
No such thing as Nazis
No such thing as nazis and there never was. Whats it like living with only propaganda in your head, little sheep?
Not true. Wilhelm was a longstanding antisemite long before the Nazis came to power.
@@harmlessdrudge he was anti-Semitic but not a Nazi supporter.
harmlessdrudge that’s not what he said in his own words on their outstanding efforts to the German economy. There’s photos of him shaking hands with the Jewish community representatives, and donated money to the Berlin synagogue
0:18 That was the Crown Prince Wilhelm speaking. There is actually a video of him saying that.
My Great Great Grandfather was the head guard in Wilhelms Royal Guard..When the shit hit the fan He told My Grandfather to take what ever he wanted..So he went into the kitchen and took the fine silver..My family has had the silver for years..
Jo Sutton Great story, Jo, thanks!
Interesting Jo, what sort of fine silver would he have found in the kitchen?
***** The forks, spoons and knives found in the kitchen of a palace or large country house would have been ordinary, everyday kitchen utensils - fine silverware for use in the dining rooms would have been kept in the Butler's Pantry - you don't imagine the servants used the best silver in the Servants' Hall do you? Think Downton.
***** The narrative has a naive trans-Atlantic chattiness - far too casual - the idea of an emperor even being in a position to be chatting to a lackey is preposterous let alone inviting the lackey to help himself to the silver is nonsense. If the family has any monogrammed Hohenzollern silver it has either been purchased from a dealer or looted.
***** He most certainly would not have been on a chatty "Help yourself to the silver Manfred, I'm off into exile in ten minutes." level with the German Emperor.
The whole scenario is preposterous - the German Emperor just happens to say to the "Head" of his guard, "Help yourself to whatever you fancy" the guard goes "into the kitchen" and helps himself to some fine silver.
The point I'm making is this:
1. Such an exchange is very, very unlikely bearing in mind the shear inprobability of such a casual conversation ever taking place.
2. "Fine silver" was never kept in 'the kitchen'
3. The "Head" of the guard, in all probability, a member of minor nobility, would have been rewarded with a personal gift from the Emperor, he would not have been told to pop into the kitchen and help himself to a fist-full of cutlery.
4. The Ex-Kaiser was treated very well by the new German regime - he was allowed to take into exile personal effects, and furniture from the 'New Palace' at Potsdam.
That wasn't me that was Austria :
Mein Kaiser von Vaterland, talk some sense into these British propaganda spreaders
As a child in I would walk past his statue in my hometown in Germany. Always admired him. What a great man.
Excuse me but why he was great man? A king that he was responsible for millions of deaths during the ww1 is definitely not a great man.
Kostas veronis you clearly know nothing
Kostas veronis clearly the Serbs were the cause of those millions
who says He was responsable for the war? nobody else than the Brits ofcourse.
Say what you will, the man could rock a mustache.
You're right, that was a MEAN stache.
The way it curled up was awesome.
so could his boyfriend!
It wasn't a German doctor who helped deliver the baby, but and English one.
@mariusz pawlowski I can't understand your English.
Right!! Wilhelm said if German doctors had been there he wouldn't have the strong hand.
@@crayoncer All doctors follow the same oath.
The Oath of Hypocrites.
A doctor speaking one language, or having a certain ethnicity, religion, or race, makes no difference.
The OP's point is therefore moot.
It is based on a false narrative called "assuming malice".
@@ralphbernhard1757was i starting a debate bruh, just attempting to correct a mistake in the video. I don't like any doctors. The German emperor said he wished German doctors had delivered him, probably because he felt the doctors (and every other profession) in Germany are better, just like his mother from England refused German doctors in Germany because she felt the doctors of her home country were superior.
Wearing a Prussian helmet to visit the German leader. Sounds like something Trudeau would do
WOOOO TRUDEAU!!!! 😊😁😂
@@detectivefowler4135
I was referring to how he likes to wear "costumes" to visit foreign countries sometimes like his india visit
Now that I mention it he'd probably have a fake mustache too that looks like the kaisers
LOL. Ouch!
Old Prussian Proverb - If you win, you stay; if you lose, you go.
The Kaiser was NOT responsible for WWI and he did not start it. Of course he played a significant part but we’ve been made to believe the responsibility was all his.
Britain was responsible for WWI. They didn´t like the rise of Germany and german colonies.
@@bleenblock8525 That's a rather speculative claim. Rival powers had been fighting over eastern Europe for centuries. Is it really surprising that the major powers of the region at that time (i.e. Russia, Germany, and AH), might do the same? Germany did not have much in the way of a colonial empire. Bismarck could have claimed more land for Germany in Africa but decided not to.
One thing you can say about KW - he did love his grandmother!
By the way - he was a 35 years of peace-Kaiser!
@@bosareva More like 27 years, due to the fact that he inherited a stable nation state with good relations with most of its neighbors, thanks to Bismarck.
Fascinating insight to a troubled and flawed man.. thank you so much
It is easy to imagine one filling the Kaiser's boots and doing a much better job of it and surviving (as Kaiser) long after 1918. Even with advantage of hindsight, however, it is hard to imagine the Russian Tsar, Nicholas II, as being anything but doomed.
I don't know - Nicholas II made a lot of mistakes. He even had a massive warning in 1905 and refused to change anything. Like a lot of monarchs who lost their position, he could well have kept his place if he had been willing to compromise.
The English subtitles are full of absurdities. No one bothered to edit them.
Utter nonsense from the opening statement...
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight
@Phillip Robinson
In case you decide to come here, and read, please remember: *Words* (like the Magna Carta) do not cancel out the *power* of deeds (actions), as carried out as *actual events* according to observed reality (such as events explained by the divide and rule strategies of the elites).
*That reality makes any accumulation of "words" the ancillary in any depiction of historicity, and the events the indicative.*
Events which are proven to have happened, are the imperative or cardinal choice.
"Words" can become platitudes, if what they intend to achieve, are not put into effect, whereas events cannot.
If you REALLY study it, The First World War started with the death of an Archduke, most people had NEVER heard of, in a city most people could NOT pronounce correctly, in a country most people could NOT correctly locate on a map.
Yup, just like today. Most soldiers wouldn't be able to spell, let alone find on a map, the places they're sent to die in...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war
Good thing Nagorno-Karabakh was neither a contested sphere of influence, nor have the allure of raw materials, or a strategically important location...
"Good" for us commoners and grunts :-)
"Good", if nobody jumps on the bandwagon, to escalate.
"Good", if our leaders decide to let the little crisis/war go to waste...
What a load of rubbish
Absolutely correct. It made front page headlines for a day or two, the newspaper's had praised the nations for remaining "sword's sheathed", then it became a couple of items here and there tucked inside the papers. It faded from peoples thought's quickly, was well on it's way to becoming memory and life resumed it's normal routines.
It was known is the "July Crisis", but it could be more aptly described as "The Last Week in July Crisis", when the world learned the of the plan between Germany and Austria-Hungary to exact military justice on Serbia.
@@ralphbernhard1757
I’m sorry, beg pardon - but do you wiki everything, because your cut and paste is overly everywhere.
@@mynamedoesntmatter8652 I only use Wiki as a reference for further reading, or to underline what I've already read over the last 30 years or so, in hundreds of conventional history books, and thousands of articles and theses.
We meet yet again. Japan did make mistakes, and I hope we have learnt what we could, and continue to learn more in coming years.
Japan made "mistakes"????? MISTAKES???? You mean all those horrible things were simply unintended errors? The women forced to be "comfort girls" were really hired as singers, perhaps? The thousands of civilians raped and used for target practice in the sack of Nanking were really killed when Japanese rifles went off by mistake, perhaps? Prisoners of war were starved, beaten and beheaded by mistake? Perhaps the knife slipped? Perhaps Japan could learn in the coming years if it began by admitting its so-called mistakes in their children's history books. That would be a good beginning.
Not every Japanese citizen agreed with those actions. Infact, almost none of them. Blaming the people for what the government and military did is like blaming ALL Muslims for 9/11.
***** Thank you for pointing out different ways of looking at the subject. I am inclined to believe that crimes committed by one party should not be used to legitimise the crimes committed by others, so I never used the atrocities known to be committed by Japan's enemies to justify what Japan did. But when it comes to punishing the very individuals, the sense of law should be brought in, above human emotions. I am an uneducated Japanese of humble means, so I am not really qualified to accuse or defend anyone, this is merely my personal feeling.
***** The crimes of the colonial period occurred well over one hundred years ago, not within the memories of thousands of people alive today.
In any event nothing equates to the systematic cruelty that was part and parcel of the behaviour of the Japanese military.
I disliked because of the opening description of him which is completely unfair and similar to the propaganda of the day.
Then listening to more of this..how simplistic and one-dimensional! As if the British Empire didn’t have ‘nationalism’!
‘Unrepentant’ German nationalist? Whatever...Who tried ‘to bring the British empire to its knees?’ The British were no peace-loving, anti-nationalist victims. And I say that as a great admirer of my British brothers.
Looks like I’m not the only one to dislike. 🇺🇸
1-17(AIR)CAV
I agree that some of the language at the beginning is a bit unfair. However, the documentary does go on to provide a decent summary of his life. No one should base their view of Wilhelm solely on this documentary, but it's not worthless.
Agreed.
The *real* "1st WW1" took place from 1803 to 1815.
In terms of scope, powers involved, and capabilities (at the time before wars became "total").
Why do you think historians don't call it "WW1", or try to link the various and varied motivations and/or intentions, or bother trying to pin the blame on anybody "starting it"?
Interesting question.
oh my old ally. Greetings Kaiser II. Wilhelm
So France Russian and England conspiring against Germany prior to the war. All 3 were supper powers at that time. Do you want? A hopeless situation.
To be fair, by 1914, Russia was only masquerading as a superpower. After being humiliated in the world stage after its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the many faults in Russia became apparent. Tsar Nicholas II did not know how to govern a country well, thanks to his father Alexander III who chose to not teach him how to Govern a nation until Nicholas was 30, then died when he was just 26. The Russian Military was still using weaponry from the 1870’s, and many troops suffered extreme lack of morale.
@@outofuseaccount9671 I don't completely agree with you about Russia:
1. Although the Russians fought poorly against the Germans, they were more than a match for the other central powers. Russia could have defeated AH, Turkey, and Bulgaria on its own.
2. The war started at a time when Russia was in a vulnerable phase, like an invertebrate shedding its exoskeleton in order to grow. Russia was a late comer to the industrial revolution, but at the beginning of the 20th century, its economy was growing by leaps and bounds. It was attracting many immigrants from other European countries. The problem was that industrialization had a very disruptive effect on its society, making it vulnerable to radical ideologies.
3. Just a small note about Aaden's comment and yours. The powers of Europe at that time are called "great powers", not "superpowers". Britain and Germany were the most powerful, but no country was powerful enough to take on the rest of them combined. The term "superpower" is used to describe the balance of power after WW2, with the USA and USSR being the world's two superpowers.
i dont blamed germany or france,england and even russia,this conflict was only between austria and serbia,but this big nations because of the alliances must support thier allies,if only serbia and austria solved it in diplomatic way.
Imagined if no ww1 hitler remain a painter and ordinary man and no holocaust,no communist most of all no ww2.
@@angiealigo4012 Some sort of conflict in Europe was inevitable at that time. If the war hadn't started with the assassination of the archduke, it would have started for some other reason within the next few years. For about 250 years, the great powers of Europe had fought many wars with each other. However, with the exception of the Napoleonic Wars, these were limited wars, and the casualties came nowhere near that of WW1.
When WW1 started, the participants thought that it would be another limited war. The question is not so much how the war started and who is to blame for starting it. The question is why it became such a colossal bloodbath.
@Angie Aligo
Russia had no alliance with Serbia.
One wonders how things would have been different had his father lived longer and given time for the impetuous and insecure young man to mature. Not that I blame him for WW1 nearly as much as this doc does, not even remotely.
He tried to prevent the war actually... (24:28- 25:01) The Chancellor ignored him and pressed Austria to attack
Agreed. I think that if Bismarck knew Wilhelm's father would die so soon that he would have taken steps to curb the Kaiser's power.
He really screwed up by letting Bismarck go. He should have kept him on and learned from him.
Queen Victoria, would be proud of her grandson......
@Ralph Bernhard Just wondering, before I delve in to detail in your latest opinion piece, can we expect your "article" about Carl Schmitt and his role as a top Washington DC advisor any time soon? Genuinely interested in this claim.
A very well-designed historical 'biopic' of the German Kaiser, and main architect of the First World War. Great researching "The History Room". I really enjoy it.
The First World War did not exist in 1914.
It was only named that afterwards.
Therefore, there could also not have been an "architect" for it, seeing that it evolved out of a local conflict...
@Audairevonetta The 'entente', with both Russia and France, was nothing more than an agreement agreeing to, and thus solving potential sources of conflict, over colonial holdings. Nothing more, nothing less ...
@Audairevonetta " Brits supported Belgium, a nation they knew would get invaded" Remind us again, who invaded them? Remember, the Treaty of London was signed by all the European powers.
@@bolivar2153 Yes, the Treaty of London was also signed by the Netherlands.
It was not a defense treaty.
Each country which signed it, pledged to honor its neutrality.
No other binding treaty obligations arose from it.
The Netherlands, France, and GB honored their signature, Germany didn't.
Immoral, yes. But nothing else.
GB declaring war was a choice, nothing else.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Ah, the old 'scrap of paper' line... Bethmann-Hollweg would be proud. Treaties such as this form the basis of International Law as we know it today. Your flippant dismissal of it is surprising, given the repercussions it's breaching would have upon Belgium, Europe and the world as a whole. Yes, Britain chose to go to war, however, the British cabinet was not in majority favour of war with Germany, right up until the point they violated this treaty. At this point the swing was almost unanimously in favour. Britain didn't need propaganda to convince it's population of the rightness of it's decision, the sentiment was widely felt. It was also Germany's choice to go to war. They chose to declare war on Russia. They chose to declare war on France. They chose to declare war on Belgium. It's always choices.
It seems obvious from this documentary that the victors write the history books.
i thought exactly the same.
“If everybody always lies to you, *the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer…* And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. *And with such a people you can then do what you please.”*
-Hannah Arendt
The unfortunate effect of constant misdirection and deceit is that we are noticing a "shift" taking place in the world. A "shift" towards popularism, and "dear infallible leaders"...
@@ralphbernhard1757 She certainly wouldn't advocate your selective dismissal of 99% of the facts in order to make your "story" fit. This would, in fact, be what she specifically warns against.
Scott: Couple of thoughts:
1. If you watch this documentary from beginning to end, I think it presents a fair assessment of Wilhelm. The problem is that it starts off with these very incendiary comments about him wanting to conquer Europe. It's not a bad documentary in its entirety, but it gets off to a bad start.
2. There was a similar comment to yours posted a few months ago. I think the concept of victors always writing history is somewhat overused. In ancient times, one civilization would conquer another and completely erase its history. In modern times it is a bit different. Often times, the victor will allow the defeated to repeat their own narrative. For example, I grew up in the northeastern USA, but my high school history textbook presented a narrative of the south seceding for many reasons other than slavery. Many Japanese continue to believe that they fought WW2 in order to liberate their neighbors from European colonial oppression.
3. Over the past few years, I have come to the conclusion that some of the worst slander and scapegoating of Wilhelm came not from the victorious nations, but from his own generals. After the war, Hindenburg, Ludendorff, and others had political aspirations of their own. With Wilhelm safely tucked away in Holland, they placed much of the blame on him. They also scapegoated another general, Moltke, who had died before the end of the war.
@@unadin4583 Correct, both von Moltke and von Falkenhayn found themselves on the receiving end of much undeserved negative criticism, their "error" largely being the early realisation of Germany's position and fortunes, or lack thereof, in the war. The entire sequence of scapegoating that continued throughout the war would eventually culminate in the "stab in the back" myth. Wilhelm received increasing amounts of this as the war progressed and Germany's fortune's went from bad to worse. Much of this was equally undeserved, so far as conduct of the war was concerned, as by 1916 he was largely "out of the loop", having been effectively side lined by Von Hindenburg and Ludendorff, shuffled out of harm's way, and being nothing more than a "rubber stamp" for their leadership. I think Wilhelm has no one else but himself to blame for this, however. With his bravado and bluster in the years leading up to the war, his continued determination to proclaim his "personal rule" to anyone who would listen, he therefore set himself up as the figurehead for the nation, the focus of blame from within Germany when things went wrong and the "personification" of the enemy for the belligerent nations.
When the Kaiser Wilhelm II died Germany was the most powerful nation in Europe. Sounds odd but it’s true. That must have made him happy.
Nah. He felt that Germany was going down the crapper. While he (sarcastically) congratulated Hitler on conquering France, he was, by that point, so contemptuous of the Nazis that he even declared they made him "ashamed to be German". When his son joined the Nazi party, Wilhelm flipped his lid and disowned him. Not long after his death, Operation: Barbarossa kicked off, and things went downhill from there, as Wilhelm knew they would.
@Bernard de Fontaines Nationalism by itself is not a danger.
dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/nationalism
It becomes dangerous when coupled with ideologies or primitive human characteristics like greed, violence, hate, etc.
I assume the Belgians who went to The Congo and murdered up to 20 million people here at the same time they were being murdered (early- 20th century) were not doing it because they were "nationalist", but because they were "capitalist"...
That just goes to show how *any* "-ism" or belief system can corrupt itself, when it becomes infiltrated by primitive instincts like hate, greed, feelings of superiority, and so on...
Good luck with your "eternal German" propaganda.
Others have already "been there, done that".
Prussian Revivalist would it be possible for Germany to revert to a Constitutional Monarchy as of now? What are the road blocks?
I suspect any realistic assessment of Germany in 1942 would reveal the very real cracks in the facade.The most powerful country in the world vastly overstates the reality.
@Invisibleman
One of the most persistent arguments against Wilhelm II was that he was erratic, or even a psychopath, and didn't have clear goals and aims.
The argument usually goes something like this.
"Wilhelm wasn't exactly consistent in his policies, and was so unpredictable that he constantly exasperated his own ministers and his generals, who said he 'couldn't lead three soldiers over a gutter'. Wilhelm thought that he was a good diplomat when actually he was a terrible one, and he seemed to have the habit of saying the worst possible things to alienate almost everybody else in Europe." (copied form a YT comment by Invisibleman)
"Wilhelm wasn't exactly consistent in his policies..."
Actually, he was.
*The end goal was unity in Europe, to balance out the rise of the USA, either by alliance with the continental powers, or by alliance with GB, which (could/might) then draw the others in.*
"...and was so unpredictable that he constantly exasperated his own ministers and his generals, who said he 'couldn't lead three soldiers over a gutter'...."
That is an actual means in a "divide and rule"-strategy, since most of these German leaders were extremely conservative in their views, and as expalined in some of the below essays, in order to achieve a higher aim (European unity, by peacefull means), one FIRST has to the destroy the existing structures in the OWN political system, which was conservative, meant a wish to stick to the status quo...
"Wilhelm thought that he was a good diplomat when actually he was a terrible one, and he seemed to have the habit of saying the worst possible things to alienate almost everybody else in Europe."
Same "divide and rule"-strategy for other European powers.
These utterings can be easily explained, when looking at whom was being "woed" in order to create a rapprochement, or an alliance/treaty/agreement of sorts, and who had to be kept out until such unity was achieved. Here it is very important, NOT to scramble the timeline of events, by simply rattling down such utterings without looking at the complete picture, but to analyse these "utterings" within the context at one particular timepoint on the timeline.
*First in line for such "unity", was Great Britain (early-1890s), whilst trying to build up better relations to France in slow steps, or "enable a rapprochement" with France.* In order to understand this, one must evaluate the strategies of "game theory" and the process of slow incremental steps towards an (lol) "endsieg", and why I stated waaaaaay down in this thread that after Bismarck was "fired", that Berlin "leaned west" (gravitating/geopolitics).
*Tit-for-tat, is not only a "kids game".*
It is in fact one of the key means in diplomacy.
One makes a small step, and then checks what effect this has, or how another side responds to this "small step".
The wishful effect desired, would be that the other "side" mirrors the attempt with an equally small positive step.
Then, to take in from there in small steps...
(Search for Game Theory/Strategy/Tit-for-Tat)
The exact scientific analysis of the strategy is elabored under the essay about EU High Council Rep. Joseph Borrel, about 6 months ago (ALL essays are interlinked, and solely based on the analysis of "systems" and "strategies" which are timeless, so that the "logic" of criticizing any "hopping around on the timeline" does not exist. Also I use this means, because I do not personally follow any ideology). The strategy can be applied for good intentions, or bad intentions, and assuming bad intentions as a default would be admitting to own biases...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_attribution_bias
Especially in an environment of extreme mistrust and typical deceptive politics, this is a way to discover the intentions of an opposing side, without "leaning out of the window" too far, or "letting the cat out of the bag" too early, meaning that opposition to new alignments BOTH in the own empire, as well as in other empires can create an opposing conservative strategy to any observed "more unity in Europe".
*Evidence for the above statement that Wilhelm II/some elements in Berlin actually did want to "balance out the rise of the USA", is provided in the below comments section, which actually provides an essay for each and every "begged question" which might or might not arise from any other essay.*
After a looooooong 5 years or so, by 1896, after both Great Britain and France had declined this "gradual process" of tit-for-tat, Berlin "leaned east" again, hoping for a "protype EU" of sorts using an axis Berlin-St. Petersburg as basis. The memorandum was titled something like "on the need to create a politico/economic union against the USA" (paraphrasing, but the exact wording and title is under the essay starting with "Why Wilhelm had to go in 1918...")
Why London refused such cooperation, regardless of the "narratives" hobby historians grew up with. *London did not want to,* because London thought (strategy/own historical POV) that they could master each and every European crisis and war, and gain from these, without a binding treaty with any power. Evidence for this, if one doesn't want to read any of the below, is actually in simply studying what London did NOT do in the leadup to WW1, and beyond until after WW2, when they themselves became weak and a "US poodle" (Peter Hitches). This is not only true for GB today, but also for each and every European country, who despite all declarations and words, are not a unity, but easily bullied US "poodles".