
How powerful was the Kaiser? - lermontov
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n08/christopher-clark/how-powerful-was-the-kaiser
======
yareally
If you can find it, the BBC's Fall of Eagles[1] documentary series is one of
the best I've seen on depicting the Kaiser and the other 19th Century Monarchs
of Central Europe and their downfall. It also has a very young Patrick Steward
portraying Vladimir Lenin and his rise to power.

Fall of Eagles depicts the Kaiser as being rather childish, whimsical and
always having something to prove. The later being at least partially
attributed his self-conscienceness about one of his arms being noticeable
shorter than the other (birth defect) as well as envy of British
Naval/Colonial power (his mother was also one of Queen Victoria's Children).
However, that's pretty much how the actual Kaiser Wilhelm II was during much
of his reign. He had his positives though, instilled in him from his English
Mother and progressive father, such as supporting worker's rights and funding
for science and the arts. However, WWI pretty much overshadows anything else
from his legacy.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Eagles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Eagles)

~~~
yareally
> I just saw the first episode of a similar series, royal Cousins at War

Haven't heard of it, but I want to see it. I love the history of that time
period because so much of it influenced what happened the next 100 years, but
rarely is it mentioned.

I think playing Imperialism[1] when I was a kid sort of drew me into wanting
to know more about the late 19th century and the events that lead to The Great
War. Any avid strategy gamers out there I recommend it or its more modern
(spiritual) successor Victoria 2[3]. Each has some strategic combat, but they
focus more on economics and out competing the other countries in resources +
manufactured goods.

Thanks!

FYI vithlani, your account appears dead. Looks like it's related mostly to a
single comment[2] you made sometime ago.

[1] [http://www.gog.com/game/imperialism](http://www.gog.com/game/imperialism)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8821439](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8821439)

[3]
[http://store.steampowered.com/app/42960/](http://store.steampowered.com/app/42960/)

~~~
green7ea
There's a cool youtube channel that covers WW1 and the events that lead up to
it [1]. They are covering week by week the events of the war as it happened
100 years ago and it is all very well done and doesn't seem to biased towards
any country (aka not too much propaganda).

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar](https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar)

------
mcguire
One occasionally hears that hereditary monarchy is superior to democracy
because the monarchs must consider the effects of their decisions on their
descendents.

~~~
kleer001
I have never heard that. It sounds like B.S. to me. I figure that all that
power from birth would completely warp a mind, not to talk of the inbreeding.

~~~
gress
Monarchs don't have all that power from birth. Usually they get it when their
parent dies. Why would power warp a mind more than powerlessness, or two
decades in a government operated school?

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
Do you actually know anything about monarchy and similar governments as they
are practiced.

~~~
whacker
I think s/he has the British monarchy in mind. They either are fine people or
they have awesome PR.

~~~
gress
I said nothing about monarch's being 'fine people'. I just don't think it's
obvious that their minds would be more 'warped' than a person chosen from the
general population. I was simply asking for some explanation of this, rather
than letting the assumption stand on its own.

------
bennyfreshness
Anyone interested in this, please read "The Sleepwalkers" by Christopher
Clark. Its an in depth documentation of all the factors leading up to the war.
Its absolutely enthralling, I can't put it down.

~~~
thearn4
I'll have to add that to my list. I just got caught up through Dan Carlin's
current `Hardcore History` multi-part podcast series on WW1, which is
fantastic.

[http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-
history-50-bluepri...](http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-
history-50-blueprint-for-armageddon-i/)

As a former soldier WW1 has always fascinated me in a unique kind of way. WW2
was the largest war in history and likely one of the worst wars in which to be
caught in behind the lines as a civilian, but I'm convinced WW1 was the worst
war to be in on the front lines as a soldier.

------
arca_vorago
I don't know how a person can write about the Kaiser and not even mention once
Edwards the 7th. He was the Kaiser's uncle and one of the most manipulative
forces upon him. I would say the Kaiser was one of those people who didn't
have the chops to function properly in his position, and wasn't very powerful
at all in the leadership sense of the word. What really gets me is that this
is the backdrop for the entire mess we have found ourselves in since the
beginning of the 20th century. Take note of such connections in the following
text from Webster Tarpley's "King Edward VII of Great Britain: Evil Demiurge
of the Triple Entente and World War 1"

"Edward’s mastery of psychological and ideological manipulation is most
evident in his relation with his pathetic and unstable nephew, Kaiser Wilhelm.
Edward made a detailed study of Willy’s psychological profile, which he knew
to be pervaded by feelings of inferiority and incurable anglophilia. As
Flourens noted: “Edward VII made an in-depth study of the defects of Wilhelm
II. He counted them as his most precious allies.” (Flourens, p. 58)

The British and Entente demonization of Wilhelm as the world’s chief warmonger
was always absurd. Wilhelm felt inferior to British royalty. Wilhelm’s
greatest secret desire was for acceptance by the British royals. Edward could
modulate his own behavior to get the desired result from the Kaiser. If he
wanted a public tantrum, he could get that. One British writer, Legge, reports
that Edward punched the Kaiser and knocked him down in a meeting.

But if Edward needed to be friendly, he could do that too. During the Boer
War, in November 1899, when Britain’s diplomatic isolation was at its height,
Edward was able to con the Kaiser into making a state visit to Britain. The
Boxer Rebellion in China, with its overtone of white racial solidarity against
the “yellow peril,” was also made to order for duping the Kaiser. In Wilhelm’s
dockside harangue to the German contingent setting out for Peking, he urged
his soldiers on to cruelty against the Chinese:

“Give no quarter! Take no prisoners! Kill him when he falls into your hands!
Even as, a thousand years ago, the Huns under their King Attila made such a
name for themselves as still resounds in terror through legend and fable, so
may the name of Germans resound through Chinese history a thousand years from
now.” (Cowles, p. 177) This “Huns” speech has provided grist for the London
propaganda mill for almost a century, from World War I to the Margaret
Thatcher- Nicholas Ridley “Fourth Reich” hysteria of 1989. Not just once, but
again and again, the Kaiser muffed opportunities to checkmate Edward’s plans.

Edward also played on the Kaiser to sabotage the Berlin to Baghdad railway. At
Windsor Castle in 1907, Edward demanded that the British keep control of a
section of the railway between Baghdad and the Persian Gulf as a “gate,”
supposedly to block German troops going to India. The Kaiser was ready to
grant such a gate. Otherwise, Edward demanded that all talks about the Baghdad
railway should be four-way, with France, Russia, Britain, and Germany
involved, so that German proposals would always be voted down 3 to 1.

When the war was finally over, and the Kaiser had lost his throne, the first
thing he wanted in exile from the Dutch host was a cup of real English tea.

Edward joked with his French friends that while many prayed to an eternal
father, he alone seemed to have an eternal mother. Queen Victoria finally died
in 1901, and Edward began his drive to world war."

~~~
meric
_Edward was related to nearly every other European monarch and came to be
known as the "uncle of Europe".[37] Kaiser Wilhelm II was his nephew; Tsar
Nicholas II was his nephew-by-marriage; Queen Victoria Eugenia of Spain, Crown
Princess Margaret of Sweden, Crown Princess Marie of Romania, Crown Princess
Sophia of Greece, and Empress Alexandra of Russia were his nieces; Haakon VII
of Norway was both his nephew by marriage and his son-in-law; Frederick VIII
of Denmark and George I of Greece were his brothers-in-law; Albert I of
Belgium, Ferdinand of Bulgaria, and Charles I and Manuel II of Portugal were
his second cousins. Edward doted on his grandchildren, and indulged them, to
the consternation of their governesses.[82] However, there was one relation
whom Edward did not like: Wilhelm II. Edward's difficult relationship with his
nephew exacerbated the tensions between Germany and Britain._

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VII](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VII)

The WWI, in some ways, was a proxy of a family conflict.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2552270/Royal-
Cous...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2552270/Royal-Cousins-War-
tells-family-rift-saw-George-V-Tsar-Nicholas-against-German-cousin.html)

------
Erazal
Fascinating question. In my opinion, it is because the Kaiser was so
inconsistent that such a drama could unfold - his never ending blathering
facilitated the rise of hawkish people in his entourage (and the german empire
at the time was full of those), in turn increasing the risk of a full scale
conflict which eventually broke out in the summer of 1914. It is only insofar
that Germany can be deemed as "more" responsible for the outbreak of the first
world war. Anyways, the absence of proper check and balances apart from the
Kaiser made the downfall of the regime inevitable on the long run.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
> insofar that Germany can be deemed as "more" responsible for the outbreak of
> the first world war

Russia started it. They mobilized on the German border and refused to
demobilize. The tsar and friends never got to share the blame because by the
end of the war they were all dead.

~~~
green7ea
You can't forget the Austo-Hungarian Empire using the assassination of Franz
Ferdinand as a pretext to invade Serbia.

~~~
NotableAlamode
Please don't forget that that assassination was planned, coordinated and paid
for by the Serbian government via Serbian military intelligence chief,
Dragutin Dimitrijevic. Serbia was aided in this by the Russian military
attache in Belgrade (Viktor Artamonov). Russian radio intelligence was able to
read Austro-Hungarian diplomatic cables so they probably were aware of what
Vienna’s reaction to the assassination they were sponsoring would be.

------
cafard
According to Gordon Craig's history of Germany 1866-1945, Wilhelm II
complained during the war that none of the generals would tell him anything,
except for the one in charge of railways, to whom he was very grateful for the
favor. The recent history _The Sleepwalkers_ depicts him as a bit panicked by
the approach of the war.

------
a8da6b0c91d
The article seems to guffaw a bit about the Kaiser's concerns over the French
invading through Belgium. They absolutely were planning to do that! And much
of the French leadership was still thirsting for vengeance over 1870. If the
Belgian king found a discussion about the subject shocking then he was an
idiot.

~~~
NotableAlamode
Not to mention Belgian colonialism.

------
burnte
I think a better question is, how come everybody wanna keep it like the
kaiser?

