Mindful
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
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
The Legacy of the Mad Kaiser - Taki s Magazine
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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. .
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
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
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 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.
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.
I think your ideas of german history are a bit... goofy, and we'll leave it at that.
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.
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 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.
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.