The Legacy of the Mad Kaiser.

[Mindful]

Who was the great villain of the 20th century—the person most to blame for the evils of those decades?

The Legacy of the Mad Kaiser - Taki s Magazine

 

[JoeB131]

I don't think Wilhelm II was any more responsible for the war than Nicolas II, Franz Josef, or the democratically elected leaders of France and Britain.

 

[martybegan]

I don't think Wilhelm II was any more responsible for the war than Nicolas II, Franz Josef, or the democratically elected leaders of France and Britain.

Europe was a powder keg waiting for a match, either side could have halted the march to war, but no one really wanted to. All sides had their aspirations, all share the blame for starting it.

 

[JoeB131]

Europe was a powder keg waiting for a match, either side could have halted the march to war, but no one really wanted to. All sides had their aspirations, all share the blame for starting it.

Also, I think no one thought it would get as bad as it got, where four major empires collapsed and others were left tottering on the precipice. .

 

[martybegan]

Europe was a powder keg waiting for a match, either side could have halted the march to war, but no one really wanted to. All sides had their aspirations, all share the blame for starting it.

Also, I think no one thought it would get as bad as it got, where four major empires collapsed and others were left tottering on the precipice. .

They all expected a quick war, a rehash of the franco-prussian war or some of the shorter coalition wars. They didn't realize that technology had defeated the military art until the invention of mobile armor brought back the one branch (cavalry) that had been eliminated by the invention of modern firearms and artillery.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Mao was the worst butcher in human history. Stalin comes in second; Hitler a distant third. Probably the most notable political scientist of the 20th century was the late Rudolph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at Yale and head of the political science department at the University of Hawaii. Visit his human misery indexes some time. His web site is very enlightening. R.J. Rummel

 

[Idadunno]

Who was the great villain of the 20th century—the person most to blame for the evils of those decades?

The Legacy of the Mad Kaiser - Taki s Magazine

I did a research paper called Inbreeding and Insanity: The Great War. The Kaiser inherited genes from the British monarchy, the Hapsburgs, and the French--all long bloodlines of madness. There was the mad hatter element going on, plus the fact that seven rulers were direct cousins of his and his feelings of inadequacy to his British cousin. A lot of people call WWI the war of cousins. Hitler served in WWI and was such a nationalist that he could never accept Germany's surrender. He blamed the Russians, more so the Russian Jews, for Germany's loss. His motivation was to get revenge for Germany--to take back what was lost with the Treaty of Versailles. The question to ponder is... if the Kaiser had not put the wheels in motion, would Hitler have come to power? Chances re he would have remained a starving artist. So yeah... the Kaiser started it all, which makes him the great villain.

 

[Idadunno]

Mao was the worst butcher in human history. Stalin comes in second; Hitler a distant third. Probably the most notable political scientist of the 20th century was the late Rudolph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at Yale and head of the political science department at the University of Hawaii. Visit his human misery indexes some time. His web site is very enlightening. R.J. Rummel

Mao and Stalin killed their own people in the name of communism (both starved millions to death) where Hitler was determined to cleanse the world, which is why he got more attention and had to be stopped. If Mao or Stalin had tried that, WWIII would have taken place. Stalin did push buttons though. There was a staring contest for awhile, then the bastid died.

 

[JoeB131]

I did a research paper called Inbreeding and Insanity: The Great War. The Kaiser inherited genes from the British monarchy, the Hapsburgs, and the French--all long bloodlines of madness. There was the mad hatter element going on, plus the fact that seven rulers were direct cousins of his and his feelings of inadequacy to his British cousin. A lot of people call WWI the war of cousins. Hitler served in WWI and was such a nationalist that he could never accept Germany's surrender. He blamed the Russians, more so the Russian Jews, for Germany's loss. His motivation was to get revenge for Germany--to take back what was lost with the Treaty of Versailles. The question to ponder is... if the Kaiser had not put the wheels in motion, would Hitler have come to power? Chances re he would have remained a starving artist. So yeah... the Kaiser started it all, which makes him the great villain.

The problem is, you act as though the Kaiser was an absolute monarch when he wasn't. He had a Parliament, he had ministers, he had a whole government machinery that thought that going to war was a good idea. Further, he had a populace that was for the war when it started, and frankly was willing to fight a second war a generation later.

 

[Idadunno]

The Kaiser was an absolute ruler. He was ruler by the grace of God--he reminded people of that often. Prussia was supposed to be a constitutional monarchy but Kaiser William I, Wilhelm's grandfather, did not agree with the idea, especially with the idea of parliament control over the military. He appointed Otto von Bismarck as Chancellor, who transformed Prussia to the German Empire. The "parliament" served at Bismarck's leisure--he terminated parliaments sessions twice to keep them in place and from trying to rule the military. People make the mistake of thinking that because a country has a parliament or is a democracy that the people are free and not ruled by autocratic rulers. This is wrong. A democracy lets one vote, but there may only be one choice or voting restrictions--and those restrictions have guns. A parliament is only as good as the military IT controls, and few parliaments have control over the military.
Kaiser Wilhelm forced Bismarck into retirement because he kept trying to steer the Kaiser away from his grand delusions. The Kaiser had the power of the German Empire and wanted a war to prove he could rule with an iron fist. More so, he wanted to prove to cousin George V that his Navy was bigger, badder, and stronger than the English Navy. He had a serious rivalry going there, in his head. The end of WWI put an end to absolute monarchies in the West.
The most plausible reason for why the military did not stick up for Bismarck is that overthrowing a monarchy was a bad thing, especially when the ruler has several cousins who rule strong nations that could wipe out the military. There was also Napoleon who proved how democratic rulers can turn into autocratic Emperors. History is a marvelous thing--shame more people do not study it.

 

[martybegan]

The Kaiser was an absolute ruler. He was ruler by the grace of God--he reminded people of that often. Prussia was supposed to be a constitutional monarchy but Kaiser William I, Wilhelm's grandfather, did not agree with the idea, especially with the idea of parliament control over the military. He appointed Otto von Bismarck as Chancellor, who transformed Prussia to the German Empire. The "parliament" served at Bismarck's leisure--he terminated parliaments sessions twice to keep them in place and from trying to rule the military. People make the mistake of thinking that because a country has a parliament or is a democracy that the people are free and not ruled by autocratic rulers. This is wrong. A democracy lets one vote, but there may only be one choice or voting restrictions--and those restrictions have guns. A parliament is only as good as the military IT controls, and few parliaments have control over the military.
Kaiser Wilhelm forced Bismarck into retirement because he kept trying to steer the Kaiser away from his grand delusions. The Kaiser had the power of the German Empire and wanted a war to prove he could rule with an iron fist. More so, he wanted to prove to cousin George V that his Navy was bigger, badder, and stronger than the English Navy. He had a serious rivalry going there, in his head. The end of WWI put an end to absolute monarchies in the West.
The most plausible reason for why the military did not stick up for Bismarck is that overthrowing a monarchy was a bad thing, especially when the ruler has several cousins who rule strong nations that could wipe out the military. There was also Napoleon who proved how democratic rulers can turn into autocratic Emperors. History is a marvelous thing--shame more people do not study it.

1st of all, paragraphs, learn to use them.

2nd of all, by the end of the war Lundendorff and Hindenberg were de facto rulers of Germany, at that point the Kaiser was merely a figurehead. 3rd, the German Parliament enthusiastically voted for a war budget.

 

[JoeB131]

I think your ideas of german history are a bit... goofy, and we'll leave it at that.

 

[Idadunno]

The Kaiser was an absolute ruler. He was ruler by the grace of God--he reminded people of that often. Prussia was supposed to be a constitutional monarchy but Kaiser William I, Wilhelm's grandfather, did not agree with the idea, especially with the idea of parliament control over the military. He appointed Otto von Bismarck as Chancellor, who transformed Prussia to the German Empire. The "parliament" served at Bismarck's leisure--he terminated parliaments sessions twice to keep them in place and from trying to rule the military. People make the mistake of thinking that because a country has a parliament or is a democracy that the people are free and not ruled by autocratic rulers. This is wrong. A democracy lets one vote, but there may only be one choice or voting restrictions--and those restrictions have guns. A parliament is only as good as the military IT controls, and few parliaments have control over the military.
Kaiser Wilhelm forced Bismarck into retirement because he kept trying to steer the Kaiser away from his grand delusions. The Kaiser had the power of the German Empire and wanted a war to prove he could rule with an iron fist. More so, he wanted to prove to cousin George V that his Navy was bigger, badder, and stronger than the English Navy. He had a serious rivalry going there, in his head. The end of WWI put an end to absolute monarchies in the West.
The most plausible reason for why the military did not stick up for Bismarck is that overthrowing a monarchy was a bad thing, especially when the ruler has several cousins who rule strong nations that could wipe out the military. There was also Napoleon who proved how democratic rulers can turn into autocratic Emperors. History is a marvelous thing--shame more people do not study it.

1st of all, paragraphs, learn to use them.

2nd of all, by the end of the war Lundendorff and Hindenberg were de facto rulers of Germany, at that point the Kaiser was merely a figurehead. 3rd, the German Parliament enthusiastically voted for a war budget.

There are two paragraphs in my post. I will assume you do not have your glasses on. Also, I think it is funny that someone who cannot form a proper sentence is playing grammar checker.

 

[Idadunno]

I think your ideas of german history are a bit... goofy, and we'll leave it at that.

My history views came from numerous history books pushed on me by the university and lots of research. The longer I am in school, the more I find that the world is full of experts, but none of them have a degree.

 

[JoeB131]

I think your ideas of german history are a bit... goofy, and we'll leave it at that.

My history views came from numerous history books pushed on me by the university and lots of research. The longer I am in school, the more I find that the world is full of experts, but none of them have a degree.

Maybe when you graduate from school and get into the real world, I'll take you seriously.

 

[Steven_R]

I don't think Wilhelm II was any more responsible for the war than Nicolas II, Franz Josef, or the democratically elected leaders of France and Britain.

I'd argue that WW1 (and ultimately the ending of empires, WW2, the Cold War, the rise of Communism, and so on) can be laid at Otto von Bismark's feet, far more than Wilhelm's. Once A-H threatened Serbia, and the Serbs turned to Russia for support and the alliance system came to play, Wilhelm was on a machine set up by Bismark that couldn't be stopped.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't think Wilhelm II was any more responsible for the war than Nicolas II, Franz Josef, or the democratically elected leaders of France and Britain.

I'd argue that WW1 (and ultimately the ending of empires, WW2, the Cold War, the rise of Communism, and so on) can be laid at Otto von Bismark's feet, far more than Wilhelm's. Once A-H threatened Serbia, and the Serbs turned to Russia for support and the alliance system came to play, Wilhelm was on a machine set up by Bismark that couldn't be stopped.

Well, that's questionable.

The thing was, the Germans made the mistake of writing the Austrians a blank check for a war they weren't prepared to fight. The German foreign minister reported to the Kaiser about the status of Austria-Hungary, "Sire, we are allied to a corpse!"

Germany had every opportunity to work for a diplomatic solution. They didn't.

 

[indiajo]

Who was the great villain of the 20th century—the person most to blame for the evils of those decades?

The Legacy of the Mad Kaiser - Taki s Magazine

I did a research paper called Inbreeding and Insanity: The Great War. The Kaiser inherited genes from the British monarchy, the Hapsburgs, and the French--all long bloodlines of madness. There was the mad hatter element going on, plus the fact that seven rulers were direct cousins of his and his feelings of inadequacy to his British cousin. A lot of people call WWI the war of cousins. Hitler served in WWI and was such a nationalist that he could never accept Germany's surrender. He blamed the Russians, more so the Russian Jews, for Germany's loss. His motivation was to get revenge for Germany--to take back what was lost with the Treaty of Versailles. The question to ponder is... if the Kaiser had not put the wheels in motion, would Hitler have come to power? Chances re he would have remained a starving artist. So yeah... the Kaiser started it all, which makes him the great villain.

Actually: No.
The starting shot gave the russian Zar by mobilizing the russian forces. That time, the mobilization of an amy was the ultimate reason for the other side to declare war.
The stupidity, and there is no doubt that Wilhelm II. as well as his aristocratic cousins were all pretty retarded inbreeds, was the blank check he gave to the Austrian Kaiser Fanz Joseph to open war on Serbia. This is a bit complicated to explain in two sentences, you better refer to a neutral history book.

The situation in short: Serbia was historically kind of a protectorate of Russia, and protected by this backup played a not that nice game at the south border of the austrian kuk Monarchy by supporting separatist movements in Bosnia.
Austria itself was an encrusted system, mentally living in past glorious ages, no real clue that the future had alread overtaken it.
Russia was actually in a similar situation, the Zar needed some outside action to divert the depraved public from the devastating economic and social situation.

Germany was since the foundation as Kaiserreich 1871 on an unprecedente leap forward. The restrictions it had before by the patchwork of kingdoms and countships with different currencies, customs regulations, laws and whatever had suddenly shed off all this restrictions. In fact, economic and political freedom (even as monarchy), individual rights and prosperity had left France and Britain far behind.
One problem was, Germany had given Austria unlimited guarantees as ally, most possibly not aware what they would do with that.
The other problem was, but seen as quite normal at that time, its urge to participate in colonies and its efforts to expand its war fleet to meet this ambitions.


This again was a threat to Britain. As you may know, Britain at this time still had its forcefully robbed together empire. And of cours the most powerful fleet on the planet. They were not amused, even though Germany had generously offered them to help the british fleet out with their ships overseas, and guaranteed the expansion as no threat to Britain whatsoever.
But they were also afraid of the german social model and its undeniable success. They were about to lose the leadership, and saw the danger of a continantal power, something they had prevented in all history (Spain, Napoleon, etc., you name it)
So, actually, Britain was planning for a long time how to get Germany back to the cats table.

France, on the other hand, was raging for revenge since 1871. This is a long story, and as German I must remember the french all the time of the centuries before where they ravaged the german states and counties at will, but ok.
No other problems, the french just wanted to pay back 1871.

Italy, well. They switched sides so often in the 20th century, I have no clue to analyze that.

So, this was roughly the situation. It followed a short period where Bismarck still had tied the knots of a pretty complicated foreign policy that guaranteed stability.
Under Wilhelm I., to be understood.
This was obiously too difficult for the inbreeds to follow, so they fucked up a peaceful situation where nobody could see a reason for war.

 

[whitehall]

WW1 was nothing but the continuation of hundreds of years of tribal warfare in Europe. The leader of every country was a blood freaking king or monarch or screwy pontiff or a nut case. The US should have stayed out of it.