Wilhelm II of Germany
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 авг 2024
- Please visit our new site for the serious history enthusiast: www.historyroom.org
This is an excellent documentary on Wilhelm II which will be very useful for students of the Great War, German nationalism and German history in general. Uploaded for educational purposes only.
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?
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 .
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.
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.
Another German who had a never to be forgotten, nor repeated style of moustache....
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".
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.
who says He was responsable for the war? nobody else than the Brits ofcourse.
*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
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.
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!
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!
these two mfs in the comments are unemployed 😄
Early retirement 😅
A slightly more difficult question: What was the *"policy* of the world" London suggested it implement, together with Washington DC?
You've got a few days free, courtesy of our dear leaders, and per "ruling," to ponder what that meant ☃️🎍👍
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.
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
There was a popular song in the 1920s: "Billy Billy, his moustache was very silly, his arm was on the wonk and drank too much plonk, and he had a one inch willy." Queen Mary sang it at parties apparently
“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..
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.
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?
RIP. The West died in 1918
Yes.
European citizens today are still suffering from the hegemonial ambitions of some of their leaders, teaming up with Washington DC/the Pentagon.
Read Washington chief strategist Brzinzki's "grand plan", or Mackinder before that (1904). The aim was always to drive a rift between Europeans, to avoid greater Eurasian co-operation and trade.
Germany died in 1990 : (
@@avus-kw2f213l'Allemagne est morte en 1918
"Since France was already in an alliance with Russia at the time (1894) it was not for Berlin to take steps to change this setup on the continent." - Herr von Bernhard
"Germany’s policy always had been, and would be, to try to frustrate any coalition between two States which might result in damaging Germany’s interests and prestige; and Germany would, if she thought that such a coalition was being formed, even if its actual results had not yet been carried into practical effect, not hesitate to take such steps as she thought proper to break up the Coalition." - Heinrich von Tschirschky, German Foreign Secretary, 1906
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.
UK declared war on Germany - not the other way around as the introduction makes believe.
Sometimes i fantasize about going back in time and warn them that the war earns you nothing but blood and lives.
"If you were a Confederate soldier in 1865, were you the "good guy" or the "bad guy"?"
If you were a Confederate soldier in 1865, you were ultimately fighting for the preservation of slavery.
What was the German soldier of 1940 ultimately fighting for? That's another dark picture.
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.
If this was a family affair why didn't they just have a duel instead of millions of innocent people dying?
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? 🙂
"Compared to Franklin, Adams held a distinctly pessimistic view of the Franco-American alliance. Adams believed the French to be involved only for their own self-interest, and he grew frustrated by what he perceived to be lethargy in providing substantial aid to the U.S. "It is interest alone which does it," he said, "and it is interest alone which can be trusted." Adams wrote that the French meant to keep their hands "above our chin to prevent us from drowning, but not to lift our heads out of water." His straightforward manner eventually led to a collision with Vergennes."
He was right. Self interest was absolutely paramount from the French perspective, and would remain so.
This documentary has a lot of inaccuracies
Like? Say that I don't watch
@@FranciscodeJesusFlagelado For example that Wilhelm wasn't "just being difficult" or a nutcase, but was just...ahem..."trolling the mainstream media", and was just...cough, cough..."being sarcastic" ;-)
Almost the whole thing is biased, non-historical, and slanted. Aka propaganda. Notice the accent the narrator is speaking in...
@@taylorthomas4962 are you an expert on the subject matter?
@@taylorthomas4962 "propaganda" is universal and not restricted to one single country. It would be naïve to suggest otherwise.
Mein gott, why blame me when it was actually that fool Hotzendorf?
Philip Eulenberg went on trial for perjury, not for homsexuality. He lied about participating in homosexual acts, while under oath. Thus he was tried for perjury. The Harden-Eulenberg Affair is well documented. Even General Kuno von Moltke, the one who was part of the camarilla and known to the Berlin Police as gay, and accused of being Eulenberg's long time lover, was not tried as a homosexual, This is poorly done.
It was essentially the same thing. A verdict of guilty with regards to perjury in denying being homosexual not only proves his "guilt" (it was a crime at that time) in the former allegations, without being seen to be directly persecuting him for his personal proclivities, but also discredits the man and any further testimony and support he may have given. It was a shrewd political move.
Throughout the annals of history, Europe has been a continent marked by incessant conflict, where nations have repeatedly clashed, driven by deep-seated enmities and long-standing rivalries. For centuries, these European powers nurtured a legacy of mistrust and jealousy, each one wary of the ambitions of the other. The intricate web of alliances and hostilities that defined European diplomacy was a reflection of this pervasive atmosphere of suspicion.
As time progressed, the rise of new industries and advancements in technology empowered these nations to muster even larger armies, equipped with ever more devastating weapons. The industrial revolution not only fueled economic competition but also transformed the nature of warfare, enabling governments to field forces capable of unprecedented destruction.
This newfound power did not bring peace but rather intensified the competition among European states. The desire to expand influence, secure resources, and assert dominance on the global stage grew stronger, leading to a volatile environment where the spectre of war loomed ever larger. The drive to extend their reach beyond Europe, into distant lands, became a natural extension of their continental ambitions. In this crucible of competition and mistrust, the seeds of even greater conflicts were sown, as each nation sought to carve out its place in an increasingly interconnected and contentious world.
Then, suddenly, America appears on the scene, and we are expected to believe that the chaos was solely its fault? In reality, Europe was simply a train wreck waiting to happen - barrelling down the tracks with the end of the line in plain view, yet refusing to slow down. Attempting to blame America overlooks the fact that Europe was already hell bent on a collision course with disaster, born from centuries of rivalry and unchecked ambition. Someone was inevitably going to be around to pick up the pieces.
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?
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?
He was a fool and a fanatical monarchist, but he was not a complete tyrant and he treated Jews decently. Compared to many other absolute monarchs, he was enlightened and humane. Compared to Hitler, he was a saint. To his credit, he never supported the Nazis, even though they expressed interest in restoring him as a figurehead. He was not the best of men, but he was far from the worst. His biggest mistake was his blind loyalty to his ally, Emperor Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary. Wilhelm II let him drag Germany into war. Ironically, they came closer to winning WWI than they did to WWII.
"should any constellation of powers try to encircle and encroach on France, then Paris would have every right to protect its own citizens, and try to break up such a harmful encirclement" - Herr von Bernhard.
Such as seeking an alliance with Russia? France was indeed faced with the possibility of a two front war by the Triple Alliance. Germany and Italy shared two distinct borders with France.
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).
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.
A bit of lying by omission going on here: This documentary states that Germany ordered its troops to mobilize, giving the viewer the impression that this was how the war started.
In fact Russia had ordered its troops to mobilize first, a much larger army, and the German mobilization was in response that development.
Also a key detail left out: Serbia acted under the auspices of Russia, literally fired the first shot in the war, which is to say Russia started the war.
Yet, the narrative taught in school books (and documentaries like this) to this day is that Germany was the guilty party.
Further: When one steps back, and looks honestly at these events, had America stayed out of the war, then there would have been no communist totalitarian state, no Stalin, no Mao, no WWII, and no Putin…
You appear to be "guilty" of that which you are accusing this documentary of.
If by "auspices" you mean, "Serbia benefited from a degree of protection by Russia", then yes, they did. As Austria-Hungary did from Germany. Did Russia collaborate in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand? No. There is absolutely nothing to even suggest that. The assassination plot was entirely Bosnian in origin (Young Bosnia (Mlada Bosna), a Bosnian separatist movement), not Serbian or Russian. The Black Hand did provide the weapons used, and trained the Bosnian's in their use, but the Black Hand was more of a threat to the Serbian government at that time than they were to the Austro-Hungarian Empire (they had already succeeded in orchestrating the removal of the Pašić government barely a month or so before the incident, which required Russian intervention to reverse. Austro-Hungarian intelligence reports from 1911 onwards confirm this belief in Austria-Hungary).
With regards Russian mobilisation and it's importance, even that is somewhat debated still. Yes, Russian general mobilisation was a rash move, definitely in the league of the Blank Cheque, but evidence exists that Germany was going to, or was certainly contemplating mobilising even in the absence of a Russian general mobilisation (discussions between senior German figures and von Moltke's telegrams to Conrad von Hötzendorf and the Austrian General Staff). It should also be noted that Germany knew Russian mobilisation would be "slow", and Bethmann had already decided that in the event of war, it was required/desired that Russia should mobilise first to give the appearance of a "defensive war" for the benefit of the Socialists in Germany. With regards the comparative size of armies, I'm not sure that's as much of an issue as you wish it to be. When Germany did mobilise, 80% of her armies went West, not East.
The entire July crisis is still debated because it contains many layers of complexity and nuance. Your comment falls into the same trap you accuse the video of by "omitting" certain facts, whether you realise it or not, whether it was intentional or not. The subject is simply too complex to cover in a single comment or a single 47 minute video (the subject of which was Wilhelm II in general, not the specific events of the July Crisis).
With regards American intervention in the war and the rise of Bolshevism/Communism, I have no idea what you are trying to assert here? Could you please elaborate on your thinking and reasoning? The February Revolution had occurred in Russia in March 1917, before America joined the war (Russia had been essentially in a pre-revolutionary state since around 1891, it was simply a pressure cooker waiting for the right moment, and it was the hardships imposed by the war that provided that "moment").
@@bolivar2153 A-H was "protected" as a European balance of power issue (defensive realism at the time, post Russo-Turkish War 1878/1879).
Serbia slipped into the "role" of "buck passing" for Russia as offensive realism (John Mearsheimer), same as Paris became the "buck catcher" for London (post 1871) and, and London/Paris BOTH became the "buck catcher" for Washington DC (in steps after "around 1900").
States don't make "fwiends".
@@ralphbernhard1757 "defensive realism at the time"
A-H expansion with the forced annexation of Bosnia in 1908 shows this to be a claim rooted in fallacy, Ralph.
A-H could easily have stolen the wind from pan-Slavic sails (being the sole "voice of the Slavs"), by simply granting the Slavs, and indeed other ethnicities within the Empire, equal voice and representation.
@@bolivar2153 Annexing Bosnia *was* "defensive" in the view of Russian expansion into the Balkans, after the "deals" with London (1907), and Paris (1891-1894).
If not, Bosnia would have been turned into the "pistol pointing at the heart of A-H." (grand strategy)
*What makes you think A-H would have annexed Bosnia, if it had not been for previous Russian/French/British actions?*
@@ralphbernhard1757 What was Russia annexing in the Balkans?
The greatest obstacle to power Hitler never had . Stupid mistake to get rid of him.
Quite correct.
But our leaders repeat history in endless cycles, apparently unable or incapable of learning from history.
"George Kennan, the intellectual father of America’s containment policy during the Cold War, perceptively warned in a May 2, 1998 New York Times interview about what the Senate’s ratification of NATO’s first round of expansion would set in motion. *”I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” Kennan stated. ”I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”* From Cato dot org
Note that Kennan was a strategist.
No "weany afraid librul".
He based his suggestions on history and strategy.
Unfortunately, nobody listened...
Had he been around in 1894, he would no doubt have advised France and Russia re. their so-called "defense treaty" (encircling Germany): "I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Germans will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. *There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”*
And had he been around at Versailles, and in view of a renewed "encroachment/encirclement" of Germany ("Little Entente", etc.): "I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Germans will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. *There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”*
Germany at the time, was a democracy of course.
Had only a part of the concessions later made to Hitler under threats, been granted to this democratic Germany voluntarily without duress, the new form of government's back would have been strengthened sufficiently to stand up to the forces of popularism. The policies of leaders up for election would have received sufficient support amongst the mostly centrist parties and left-leaning voters, to ensure the future of a strong democracy.
They simply saw themselves as having no option. Constitutional changes ( as had been "promised" by Wilhelm and Bethmann in early 1917 ) had been initiated in Sept/Oct 1918, upon Germany's defeat, with discussions leaning towards a parliamentary monarchy. It was simply too little, too late, and circumstances forced their hand. Dissatisfaction and unrest within the military appeared in the outbreak of the Kiel mutinies and civil revolution was spreading rapidly throughout the country. Wilhelm was not the first German monarch to be ousted, most of the minor German kings and nobility had already gone, either leaving voluntarily or fleeing from the unrest. Wilhelm's fate was ultimately sealed when the military refused to support him and von Hindenburg advised him to go. Erzberger and company simply saw the removal of the old regime and the declaration of the Republic as the only alternative to full blown civil war. Neither should one automatically equate an initial desire to keep the monarchy as an indication of support for Wilhelm. Other candidates for the throne were being considered.
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.
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".
Wilhelm still had such a regal look to him even when in exile.
He speaks English well. I always thought of Kaiser Wilhelm as being a mysterious individual.
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!?"
Hitler was NOT, repeat NOT an atheist. There are dozens of quotes to prove this. German soldiers had "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles. He was received with open arms by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Austria in 1938.The idea that Hitler was an atheist was made up by releigious believers who want you to accept that you must believe in a god in order to be a moral person.
A national leader who didn't believe in any religion used religion in order to further his own cause?
such wow, much uneblieve
Well, then by the sme token, you have to refuse to believe that Stalin really was an atheist. By the way, where can I find his atheistic opinions expressed? In his "table talk" diaries? Because in all the biographies I have read of Hitler, I have never once seen a quote where he says he does not believe in a god.
Does it matter if Hitler or Stalin believed in God or not? Both of them supervised extensive and prolonged attacks on religion yet rehabilitated the churches (to some extent)once war began. As Seneca, the tutor of Nero, said: Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Valteron8: The Concordat of 1933 between Nazi Germany and the Vatican was solicited by the Germans in order not to have an open fight with the Catholic Church. Cardinal Pacelli well knew of the negative aspects of Naziism, and he wrote of them to Pius XI when he was papal ambassador in Germany. The Nazis combined all the Lands kirche of the Protestants into one national church so they could influence them more easily, but they knew there had been trouble with the Catholics with Bismarck's Kultur Kampf, so they made it a point to give certain rights to the Church if they would tell Catholic politicians to not oppose them. When the Nazis took over Austria in 1938 after Pius XI's encyclical of 1937 "Mit brennender Sorge", the Austrian bishops knew they would have to just accept the political fact or reality. It was not "with open arms" or hearts as you seem to imply. They had been watching things in Germany and had instructions from the Vatican, even though they were more in favor of a Habsburg restoration or Schuschnigg's continuing..
FRAGIORGIO1 The Catholic Church was highly sympathetic and supportive of Fascism, especially under Franco and Mussolini. At least one of the allies of the Third Reich, I believe it was in Croatia or Slovakia, was headed by a Catholic Priest who carried out a more viscous anti-semitic Holocaust than the Nazis could have imagined. "Mit brenender Sorge" was simply a lover's quarrel between the Pope and Hitler, not a major rupture. It was really just the Pope making sure that Hitler continued to allow Catholic Schools in Germany. There is not a word about torture and repression of leftists, Jews, etc. The Holocaust did not seem to bother Pius XII at all. Nor did the Vatican have a word to say when Fascist Italy dropped poison gas on Ethopian villiagers in order to "conquer" their empire. The traitor Fascist Philippe Pétain, in his short 4 years in power, tried to destroy the secularlism of France (Vichy France) in favour of Catholic schools, with the blessing of the Pope. After the war, the Vatican helped large numbers of war criminals escape to South America with Vatican passports. Read the book "Hitler's Pope" if you want to see how much the Catholic Church was in bed with Naziism and Fascism.
Why did so many Europeans choose to leave Europe and move to America?
Many Europeans left their homelands to escape religious persecution, like the Pilgrims and Puritans, who sought a place where they could practice their faith freely without interference from state churches.
America also promised the chance to own land and improve one’s economic situation. For those from overcrowded and economically struggling regions, the New World offered fertile land and fresh opportunities in farming, trade, and craftsmanship.
Life in Europe was often marked by poverty, famine, and social unrest. America represented a chance to escape these hardships and start anew in a land full of possibilities.
Additionally, many were drawn by the opportunity to escape the rigid class systems and authoritarian governments of Europe.
Some came as part of European efforts to establish colonies, while others were simply enticed by the lure of adventure in uncharted territories.
Ultimately, the vast majority moved to America to escape the inequities, troubles, and strife of the Old World, not to bring them with them. Given the chance to start afresh in a new country with a new constitution, why on earth would anyone in their right mind choose to implement or mimic the very systems they had sought to escape?
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.
this is totally not from a biased anglo perspective
hihihi... please state your case, not your conclusions.
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.
this is the best video I have seen about the Kaiser.
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...
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
This is NOT the voice of Kaiser Bill, but that of the Kronzprinz Wilhelm!!!!
The notion that monarchical principles justify interference in the affairs of other nations requires scrutiny. Historically, European monarchs and ruling elites formed an "in-group" that used the concept of maintaining the balance of power and preserving the Holy Roman Empire to justify their interventions. However, this rationale was more about protecting their own interests than any universal right or principle. Concepts such as the "Holy Roman Empire" frequently took a back seat when it conflicted with issues of self-interest.
These interventions were driven by the monarchs' desire to preserve their own power and prevent revolutionary changes that could undermine their authority. This "in-group" worked to uphold a system that benefited their continued rule, frequently at the expense of emerging democratic movements and national sovereignty.
Being "an accident of birth" in one nation grants no inherent legal or moral rights to interfere in the affairs of any other nation, nor does it grant any special dispensation when visiting organised violence on another nation.
Big mustaches should come back in style.
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.
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 RUclips video "Deutscher Kronprinz Wilhelm complete Interview in Fox Movietone News 1932".
@Tracy
Thank you for your kind words.
Are you from China? In case you are, and you decide to come here, IMO the people from China should be proud of their own names, and not use these "westernized" ones to communicate.
The essay about how history doesn't have a start or stop, and isn't about good or bad people fighting eternal wars, has been swiped. I'll try to repost it here.
rgds
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
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!🇬🇷
"All of you know nothing! I alone know something! I alone decide!"
Sounds like exceptionalism.
"Belief in exceptionalism can represent erroneous thought analogous to historicism in that it overemphasizes peculiarities in an analysis and ignores or downplays meaningful comparisons. A group may assert exceptionalism in order to exaggerate the appearance of difference, to invoke a wider latitude of action, and to avoid recognition of similarities that would reduce perceived justifications. This can be an example of special pleading, a form of spurious argumentation that ignores relevant bases for meaningful comparisons. Exceptionalism is often based on poor historical knowledge." (Wiki)
"Something extraordinary had happened: in the course of the second and third Polish partitions, Frederick William II, perhaps the least impressive figure to have mounted the Prussian throne over the last century and a half, secured more territory for his kingdom than any other sovereign in his dynasty’s history. Prussia grew in size by about one third to cover over 300,000 square kilometres; its population swelled from 5.5 to around 8.7 million. With its objectives in the east more than fulfilled, Prussia lost no time in extracting itself from the anti-French coalition in the west, and signing a separate peace with France at Basle on 5 April 1795.
Once again, the Prussians had left their allies in the lurch. The scribes and pamphleteers employed to produce Austrian propaganda dutifully thundered against this foul retreat from the common cause against France. Historians have often taken a similar line, denouncing the separate peace and the neutrality that followed as contemptible, ‘cowardly’, ‘suicidal’ and ‘pernicious’."
Of course, such allegations of perfidy only make sense if you subscribe to the opinion that Prussia was engaged in some "national mission" for the good of Germany and the Germans. They weren't. Their actions should instead be viewed through the prism of self-interest.
The terms of the Treaty of Basle were, on paper at least, highly favourable for a Prussia who had already secured extensive annexations in the East at Poland's expense. It secured a dominant position within the German Neutrality zone which, in the absence of a war with France, meant Prussia could focus it's attentions on asserting it's influence over the smaller German states within the zone, which it lost no time in doing. It also ensured that French aggression would be focused now on Austria, and that was perfectly in line with Prussian aims; there was more to 'neutrality' than just avoiding the fight with the French.
So, the king could now sit safely inside his neutral zone, surveying his acquisitions, and looking smug...
But, there's always a catch...
"Prussia was now isolated. Over the past six years, it had allied itself with - and then abandoned - virtually every European power. The king’s known predilection for secret diplomacy and chaotic double-dealing left him a lonely and distrusted figure on the diplomatic scene. Experience would soon show that unless Prussia could count on the assistance of a great power in defending the German demarcation line, the neutrality zone was indefensible and therefore largely meaningless. An issue of longer-term significance was the disappearance of Poland from the European map. Even if we set aside the moral outrage committed against Poland by the partitioning powers, the fact remains that independent Poland had played a crucial role as a buffer and intermediary between the three eastern powers. Now that it no longer existed, Prussia shared, for the first time in its history, a long and indefensible border with Russia. From now on, the fortunes of Prussia would be inseparable from those of its vast and increasingly powerful eastern neighbour.
By taking refuge in the north German neutrality zone agreed with the French at Basle in 1795, Berlin also signalled its utter indifference to the fate of the Holy Roman Empire [...]"
Being half German I find this documentary very interesting, Thank you for putting this up.
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...
@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".
*Geopolitics: Nutshell version.*
In a nutshell, before WW1 British strategy to "save the Empire" was to "avoid the collapse of France".
Therefore, if that reality no longer existed.
During WW2, British strategy to "save the Empire" should have been to "avoid the collapse of Germany".
Unfortunately for London, superior minds in Moscow and Washington DC had other plans, and they played Churchill like the proverbial "fiddle"...
"Europe" was going to be cut like a cake, straight through the middle, each side with its own satellite states. Stalin was "mastah" of the World Island/Heartland (defined by MacKinder).
*Only nukes and extremely long-range aircraft (standpoint: 1945) could get at and threaten the "mastah of the Heartland".*
The "mastah of the Heartland" was "declared" the new enemy of all the "little survivors" of the carnage of WW2 with the Truman Doctrine, and could only be threatened with the combination of VLR aircraft combined with nukes.
["world" war 1 = Seven Years War; "world" war 2 = Napoleonic Wars; "world" war 3 = The Great War/WW1; "world" war 4 = World War 2]
World War 4 was "game over" for The British Empire.
London/GB/Empire was not going to be a part of a "Big Three". The new hegemon for the West, Washington DC, was going to allow GB/London to play "empire" a little longer in the NWO it had established.
But London would not have nukes to be able to "declare WW5" in order to advance/defend own rule. Washington DC would see to that, classify all secrets out of the reach of everyone else, and unravel "Empire" in the background as British scientists scrambled to develop the own...
If one looks at the histories of India and China, and how imperialist powers used "divide and rule/conquer" strategies to tear apart these *"GDP champions of the 16th/17th century",* one can draw parallels to Europe.
All it needs to succeed is division, which an outside power with a superior *geograpical advantage* and an edge in certain key areas (like technology, military power, or communications) can then exploit.
They will insert the lever, and jank away at even the most minute cracks (division)...
The big question today is (apart from the self-centered inward view of 90% of the planet's population) is: *Will China and India allow post 16th/17th Century history to repeat itself?*
Will their leaderships bow to pressure, and allow outsiders play the same games they had already played 300 or 400 years ago...
Will the "leaders of the world", proudly proclaiming their moral superiority at every opportunity, be able to set up Russia, China, and India against each other, so that one overpowers the other, and outsiders can enter with their "carving knives to the feast" (strategy)...
*The most insidious of the hegemonic "strategies" is called "not bending over backwards to avoid war".*
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
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.
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...
With regards to the shift towards democracy in Germany at the end of WWI, this move was initiated by Wilhelm II himself and his appointed government. For the first time, they formed a government consisting of delegates representing the majority parties of the Reichstag, with Prince Max von Baden being the exception. Von Baden was not a representative of any major party but was instead chosen by the 'old regime' to head this new government and maintain a degree of control. These reforms were implemented before Germany even approached the Entente powers regarding an armistice.
Importantly, Germany did not approach the collective Entente powers but instead sought negotiations with the United States alone.
This raises two possible motivations for these changes:
1. It was a purely cynical move by Germany to secure sympathy from President Wilson and ensure his acceptance of their offer.
2. They foresaw the public reaction to news of their defeat and implemented constitutional changes to stave off potential unrest, having a better understanding of the situation 'on the ground' within Germany.
Or, perhaps it was a combination of both motives?
Additionally, as the situation deteriorated and Kaiser Wilhelm II's position became increasingly untenable, von Baden's role as Chancellor also became less tenable. His association with the Kaiser, who was rapidly losing legitimacy and support, undermined his position. Von Baden, being the Kaiser's appointee, was not seen as truly representative of the people or the Reichstag deputies, which further weakened his standing as Germany transitioned towards a more democratic government.
oh my old ally. Greetings Kaiser II. Wilhelm
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
Outstanding - thanks to Wilhelm's descendants for speaking
*"If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past." Baruch Spinoza*
All throughout history we have been implored to study the past, and be honest about the past, lest we repeat it.
And it is indeed repeated in endless cycles, because we are not honest about our past.
In the timeframe relevant to this documentary, "poor little Belgium" had the function as a "barrier state" between great powers, in order to keep them apart (grand strategy). It was created under a completely different "big picture" reality of the post-Napolionic Wars, at a time weaker nations (incl. Germans in single states and kingdoms) needed protection from France. For GB/Empire it had the main intention for London to have a "reason for war", which it could present to its own isolationist inhabitants and leaders not versed in military strategy. Note, there was no defense pact of any kind between London and Brussels, and no alliance. London simply did not sign any binding (geopolitical/grand strategy) treaties with continental states, as a policy standpoint.
For GB as a state, nation, and empire, there was no legal obligation to ever do anything.
Only "feelings".
"Poor little Belgium" had a function as a "barrier state", and Belgian leaders went along with it. For London Belgium's main raison d'etre was to have a "reason for war" which it could sell to its own people and leaders. Note again, there was no defense pact of any kind, and no mutual alliance.
*Belgium of the past, set up as a "barrier state" with the good intention of avoiding dynastical wars, morphed over time as "tools" of an empire."*
*In that regard, and concerning "strategy" and "feelings" and Finnland in 1939/40, and the Ukraine today.*
In 1939 Stalin did not *need* an outright "win" in order to get his demands met.
All he wanted, was to get his demands met.
In 1939 the SU neither set out, nor strove for "total war" and "total victory".
Stalin's demands were finally met in 1940, because nobody meddled too much.
The "non-agression pact" (lol) with Germany created a barrier which effectively seperated Finnland from the rest of the world (apart from the tiny port of Petsamo in the Artic which was Finnish at the time). The Baltic as access to Finnland was off limits.
Similarly, today and re. strategy, Putin does not *need* an outright "win" in order to get his demands met (No NATO forces in the Ukraine/acknowledgement of the Crimean and Donets "reality"). Again, 90% of the "experts" we see on TV these days, and their "expert analyses" miss the point entirely. Again, either intentionally or unintentionally (misleading audiences).
*In 1939/40, what anybody in the outside world wanted for "poor little Finland" was entirely irrelevant.*
*Today, what anybody in the outside world wants for "poor little Ukraine" is entirely irrelevant.*
Why? In 1939 Nazi Germany acted as a "shield" isolating Finnland from the rest of the world.
Today, what the USA and their "little NATO helpers" (or the UN, or anybody else) want or desire for "poor little Ukraine" is not relevant.
Today the "barrier" isn't geography, but a weapon: nukes (MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction).
The situation doesn't need to be 100% the same in "3d chess" world of strategists, in order for the outcome to be the same.
*Outcome: No or little outside meddling.*
And after the current "Ukraine War" has passed?
*2022: "poor little Finnland" today, getting "set up" as sacrificial pawn by the "alphas" yet again.*
And regarding "poor little Finnland" as the sacrificial pawn of the morphed "economic alpha empires" USA/EU (NATO alliance), dangling the "NATO membership prize" for Finnland, *while at the same time creating a "red cape" as the "lighting rod" for the bull (Russia).*
Let's see how smart their leaders are today.
*It has all happened before, and I hope "poor little" Finnish leaders know their history, and are versed in strategy.*
Their *real* history, not the spun emotional versions for the fans in the relevant countries. Today, Finnland and the Ukraine are on Washington DC's "list" of states that will involuntarily do their bidding for them, same as the unfortunate Finnland (geographically and politically cut off from the rest of the world) was for the "empires" back in 1939/40, and same as "poor little Belgium" back in the leadup to 1914...
In 1914, and for the British Empire, the first neighbor to invade Belgium was "the enemy".
Irrelevant of who it was, Belgium's struggle would then automatically become a struggle to uphold the British Empire, and London's "right" to meddle on the continent. In London, the strategists didn't care about "Belgians" as such. They were simply a tool to ensure that in any potential future scenario, the average Brit would feel outrage.
Today with the war in the Ukraine. The Ukraine's "function" is to fight Washington's rival/enemy, and weakening it, while at the same time the alpha can sit "on the fence" and watch, conserving its strength...
All of this has happened before.
Of course it has.
Not exactly, but history rhymes.
Also not as one might think.
*Strategy (of a few) = pawns = tools = the emotions (of the many).*
The victim in the past (WW2) was Norway, and the "schemers" were London/British Empire and their "little helper" France.
They intended to drag Norway into the war, while falsely and insidiously claiming to "want to help Finland (Winter War)".
*One needs to truly understand history and strategy by delving into the details, and being honest about the motivations of the own past leaders, in order to honestly understand the present.*
Of course, British and French forces in any Scandinavian state (Norway or Sweden) would have acted as a "red cape" for either Berlin or Moscow. A threat to their northern flanks they could not and would not ignore. The minute Norway and Sweden opened their doors to outside forces "just wanting to help" the "poor little Finns", the war would expand north, away from the own homelands (France and GB).
For Finnish leaders today it means truly understanding what happened in 1939/40 re. the Finnish Winter War, and how London/Paris intended to turn Scandinavia into a "soft underbelly" (or rather "soft overbelly") and to turn Scandinavia into a war zone so that they would suffer less casualties themselves as some other region of the world went up in flames. "Poor little Finnland" would do nicely as an excuse, thank you. All the more reason for Stalin to "settle matters quickly" in March 1940, before the summer came...
*Let's see if Finnland today has learnt their lesson from the past and today (Belgium/the Ukraine/Finnland 1939).*
Whether they did will be revealed to us "commoners" in due time.
Soon.
Their leaders will reveal if the "lessons" have been learned, if we are all suddenly "surprized" (lol) by a newspaper article proclaiming that a "fait accompli" of overnight NATO membership had been quickly signed, after a short secret negotiation (lol again).
In case these negotions are taking place in the open, and drag on for months?
Good luck Finnland, in case you then end up with a "little border incident" with Russia, meaning a state of duress or war. There is always the wise option of threatening a neutrality deal with Moscow of course, in case a demand to Washington DC/NATO for secret and rapid signing is "delayed".
Delayed? By golly...just like the Ukraine, which had the "promise of NATO membership" (since 2007/08) and "you'll be one us...soon" (EU) dangled in front of their noses...
In case of any "Crimea/Donbass"-style duress evolving in Finnland during an overly long approval process, *NATO will not sign Finnland up.* Again, see Ukraine, and the "...but, but...danger of expanded nuclear war"-shrug of the old shoulders...
Re. the strategies our leaders follow.
They have not changed much over time.
Age-old strategies to advance own interests, which do not exclude cheating "brothers".
Finnland take note.
"Friendship" does not exist on the ladder to success, or to stay on top of the pyramid kicking down.
A tale as old as the Bible.
Essau and Jacob is of course a cautionary tale to *beware of brothers,* which has morphed over time and now means "winning means everything"...
Note that in this biblical "tale" about eternal deceit and "cheating own brothers out of their inheritance", *the deceiver* is the hero of the story.
Go figure.
The deceiver's name and slimey ways continue.
Essau the "hunter type" as a name has sorta died out...
Very telling indeed.
The "smoothe talking good guy" deceiving his own brother, is the "hero".
*"If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past." Baruch Spinoza*
Sounds like the dude is neither a friend nor a leader. He doesn't care either way on war? I mean only millions would die while his crippled ass sits cushy on his "throne"
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 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
"Europeans were not disinterested in Africa because "there was NOTHING there" to exploit or extract."
Please, quote me saying this, Herr von Bernhard, or must we accept that you are simply wrong (on so many levels) again?
If you need the specific data, links to the sources, the names of the US strategy papers, etc. just ask. In 200 or 300 years (in case the planet still exists) analysts will view WW1 and WW2 in a completely different light, because they will no longer be emotionally attached to the specific events, and all the minor details will fade away. That means the systemic analyses will gain traction, and in the same way we analyze the 30 Years War from 1618 to 1648 (a series of worldwide conflicts as global conflagration), the Seven Years War from 1756 to 1763 (series of conflicts as global conflagration) and the series of wars now known as the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815 (as global conflagration), because nobody looks at these events with an emotional attachment anymore. That means the systems and strategies they employed steering these events move into the foreground, where they belong. Most people have absolutely no idea of any specifics of these wars, since they simply don't care. This will happen to WW1 and WW2 over the next few dozens of years, as the specifics fade away into the background.
WW1 was a breakout attempt out of an implemented imperialist encirclement attempt after 1900. Per definition, a "preventive war." How do we as historical analysts know for a fact that it was an encirclement strategy? Because it can be plotted on a map (1891-1894, 1904, 1907), and we therefore do not need any expertise from others. Note that during the first encirclement stage (1891-1894) Berlin was being lured by the potential of an Anglo-German Alliance, with talks. Only to be told in 1895 that London wasn't interested anymore, just after the encirclement by Russia and France was finalized. Three years later (1898), the Lords were back, asking for "alliance talks" again...
Berlin: "Yeah, right...whatever. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Unlike George Bush, I think I got that right...
WW2 was a pre-pre-preventive war, in order to *prevent* the future encirclement of Germany, and the foreseeable and anticipated breakup of the Axis per wedge-diplomacy, whenever it suited London in some foreseeable future (standpoint of the mid-1930s).
London was dragging along a weakened France (after 1871) which was its "continental army" (quote: Wilhelm II) within the "divide and rule"-setup of Europe.
For a renewed total encirclement of Germany as happened before 1914, and all that was needed for that to proceed by London, was a German growth in economic power after the 1930s, as a repeat of history in the late-19th century.
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!
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
"The previous Central European powerhouse (not centered in Paris), the Holy Roman Empire was kept disunited, as carried out by Napoleon (geopolitically dislocated). This Holy Roman Empire of the German people, with various changing capital cities throughout the ages (Rome, Aachen, Vienna, Frankfort, Prague and Regensburg, etc.) was NOT resurrected by concert, which of course meant that the balance of power principle did not disadvantage France." - Herr von Bernhard
Wrong.
The Congress of Vienna established the German Confederation, as the successor to both the HRE and Napoleons Confederation of the Rhine.
The German Confederation, created by the Congress of Vienna, consisted of a union of German states under the nominal leadership of Austria and Francis I. It aimed to provide a framework for cooperation and collective security among these states while preserving the influence of the major powers. While not a direct resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire, which was dissolved by Francis II on 6 August 1806, NOT Napoleon, the German Confederation did reflect certain aspects of its predecessor, such as the decentralized nature of governance and the recognition of the sovereignty of individual states within the confederation, whilst at the same time serving to contain France.
France did remain a great power following the Congress of Vienna, despite calls from within Prussia for the further reduction and dismemberment of France, beyond it's pre-Revolutionary re-adjustments, with Prussia seeking to gain from further annexations. These calls were opposed by many nations including, but not limited to Austria and Great Britain, who sought to maintain a balance and prevent the emergence of any predominant single state in Europe.
Some people are either just ignorant or are simply prepared to lie to support their favourites.
He was not Wilhelm “of” Germany, but Wilhelm of Prussia. As German Emperor he was only the first under the German monarchs, or better to say the second after the Emperor of Austria.
I like your comment because it illustrates the confusion of what a monarch at that time was supposed to be. Was Wilhelm the kaiser of the nation-state of Germany, or the kingdom of Prussia? Was Germany a nation-state or a Prussian empire? Was Wilhelm's duty to his family members, e.g. the king of England and czar of Russia, the people of Germany, or the Prussian military aristocracy? As an American, I have difficulty understanding how the constitutional monarchies of that time were supposed to work.
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.
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.
Whoever decided to censor the word “cripple”, needs to have “their” brain analyzed because it is sick.
I said so years ago.
To quote myself, *"the key to save Europe was a rapprochement between Paris and Berlin."*
The final attempt of a rapprochement between Germany and France was 1905, with a *comprehensive European security agreement, signed but unfortunately never ratified* (MORE than adequate details, in the below comments section).
_At the same time, it was also the final attempt _*_by Berlin_*_ to save France from its "buck catcher"-role in grand strategy, which it took with the "entente" (1904), _*_for_*_ London._
AS ALREADY EXPLAINED, but simply ignored: The (not serious, as already revealed by historians) "Berlin war scare" was not an actual attempt to wage war on France. Meaning, that the next logical conclusion is that it was an attempt at wedge diplomacy, to drive a rift between London/Paris, to enable pro-European French politicians to gain the upper hand, *and sign up for Bjorko/Triple Alliance,* an attempt which unfortunately failed. Beware of the propaganda techniques of the "dividers" and their "forked tongue" snake, doing the work *for* them, free of charge. See Dunning-Kruger. It is the "10%" who *"think* they think" doing this free divisive work, by skewing timelines, cherry-picking facts, and then "writing history" whichever way they want. These snakes/dividers will inform the interested hobby historian that "Bjorko was merely The Reinsurance Treaty 2.0" even though they *have already been informed this is a lie, and then they simply repeat the lies.*
_Geopolitical reality, supported by primary sources: Bismarck EXCLUDED France per stipulation, and Bjorko INCLUDED France per treaty clauses._
Since France *was* already in an alliance with Russia at the time (1894) it was not for *Berlin* to take steps to change this setup on the continent. Therefore, and logically, and decently, this new setup of a *comprehensive European security agreement* (post-1905) could only be reached if St. Petersburg made this new proposal for a "threesome" (lol) to Paris.
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
*The picture Malcolm X painted, is faaaaaar bigger than that.*
If you're not careful, the entire apparatus steered by the global elites will have you hating the people who are being ideologically encircled and divided, _and loving the people who are doing the ideological encircling and dividing..._
*Follow such deceivers and dividers, at the own risk...*
BECAUSE:
And 1905 was also the final attempt *by Berlin* to save Great Britain from *its* "buck catcher"-role for the American Century. MORE than sufficient data in the below comments section.
*In the end, all lost, and became "poodles" of the American Century. I'm sure, they were very sad...*
Read the theory, and try to counter it.
I do not need MORE evidence, *for* the theory.
Strangely enough, just like the Bible which started off with a few simple commandments, ended up as a multi-chapter book, because some people do not understand the *"meaning of words,"* this comment is getting longer and longer and looooonger...
Choose "newest comment first", and please read the below essay called "THE IMPACT OF IDEOLOGY ON HISTORY", and then the entire thread of interlinked essays below that, all connected by a common aim: *do not bow down to ANY man-made system.* Create a balance of all powers, on all tiers of human cooperation.
1905, when Berlin was threatening France, and by extension Europe with war?
Reinsurance Treaty 2.0
The great step backwards, and the realisation that Bismarck had been right.
Were there ANY German negotiations with France in 1905 in respect of Reinsurance Treaty 2.0?
Was there ANY attempt, at ANY point, in the timeframe leading to 1905 to reconcile the differences between Germany and France?
French inclusion in the 1905 Reinsurance Treaty 2.0 was only agreed to at the insistence of Russia.
Russia was not allowed to consult with France until AFTER Russia had signed.
Nicholas was not even allowed to consult with his own ministers.
During the "negotiations", Wilhelm went to great lengths to stress to Russia that she considered France to be an unreliable ally, and that France was actively acting against Russia's efforts in the Russo Japanese war.
The ultimate aim was the same as their aims in Morocco. The neutralisation or destruction of the Franco-Russian Alliance and the Entente Cordiale.
Was Germany upset that France refused to join? No. They were irrelevant from the outset.
What Germany wanted was Russia's signature.
Russia was the prize.
I simply provided the facts that you chose to omit in your narrative.
If you took the time, or had the knowledge and/or honesty to include all of the details, there would be no need.
Edit : "See Dunning-Kruger. It is the "10%" who "think they think" doing this free divisive work, by skewing timelines, cherry-picking facts, and then "writing history" whichever way they want" - Herr von Bernhard
"Bismarck EXCLUDED France per stipulation"
False
France was included, though indirectly and not by signature. France was specified explicitly within the terms of the Treaty. Bismarck stipulated that Russia would not be bound to the terms of the Treaty in the event of war between Germany and France. This satisfied Russia's desires to prevent Germany from gaining at France's expense, and thus upsetting the balance of power.
What Bismarck aimed for was to prevent the creation of an alliance of Great powers against Germany by tying Germany to as many possible enemies as he could. Reinsurance Treaty 1.0 reduced the need for Russia to seek such an arrangement with France by allaying Russian fears of possible German aggression against France and thus reduced the possibility of a two front war scenario for Germany. It also sought to reduce tensions between Russia and Austria in the Balkans.
Nicholas sought a similar exclusion in the case of war with France from Wilhelm when France refused to join Reinsurance Treaty 2.0. This was rejected by Berlin.
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
Documentary is biased, not bad, but very, very biased.
@m g the documentary immediately starts off claiming that the kaiser was hellbent on "world domination" when it is very clear to anyone with even a superficial understanding of ww1 that the only thing germany was guilty of was backing up its biggest ally austria hungary who declared war on serbia following the assasination of ferdinand. Sorry for the paragraph but as you might be able to tell the bias in this documentary is just a tad bit aggravating to me
@@sinister3315 Nicely said, didn't even have to say it myself. Good to see others noticing the bias in documentaries, watch the German documentaries, they're very good but maybe also a little biased. The truth always lies in between.
@@sinister3315 well, you are not wrong but it is also true that Germany was looking for a way to obtain some oversee colonies from france and england. The famous line Germany's place at the sun comes from Germany's ambition to build a colonial empire at least equally powerful as france or englands. But every superpower at the time tried to expand its sphere of influence, that's why WW1 was almost unavoidable.
@@Chillerll I'm afraid it goes a bit deeper than that.
In the 50 years or so before WW1, which scenario would have been more dangerous to GB (and by extension, also France).
1) a Berlin "leaning west", with secure access to the seas, and a few overseas colonies for exports, with food and raw materials shared on a basis of being equals?
2) or, in case 1) was deemed undesirable by London/Paris, a Berlin "leaning east", towards the Urals for raw materials, the Caucasus (for oil), and "the breadbasket of Europe" (the Ukraine) for food?
www.thoughtco.com/what-is-mackinders-heartland-theory-4068393
Wilhelm "leaned west".
So?
Why not "make a deal" with Wilhelm II, which all could live with?
@@sinister3315 Sure, they called themselves "the 2nd Reich" just for fun I guess then
He wasn't considered the future Kaiser, until Friedrich suddenly died. This summary, doesn't sound very convincing, In a few ways.Recently, is been suggested his personality was not bullishly militaristic and apparently he tried to stop the First World War. He didn't even know his own war plan, according to recent letters. He definitely was jealous of the Brits, but prrobably only because of family rivalry- These soon abandoned the naval race, after starting it initially, then, on the eve of war, it was definitely his generals who were warmongers, considering they had to start in 1914, even though they only had a slight chance, through blitzing through to Paris quickly, because they considered that they would have lost a war even more Convincingly, in the years after
Hmm, a new Ralph. Over the past few years, I have come to share that view. He was an incompetent ruler and a terrible diplomat, but not an altogether bad person. I think his generals were the real warmongers, and that given his public persona, he made a convenient scapegoat.
@@unadin4583 It's no me 🙂
Strangely enough, when I log in to my account the OP is headed as by "Ralph", but when I log out the same user is stated as being "@Rowlph8888". Must be a new weird RUclips thing.
I do agree with the comment though, and upvoted it.
In fact, I wrote something similar a few years back in that Wilhelm was not a strategists, and was in way over his head regarding international affairs.
He was more of a "chest thumper", but actually against great wars in Europe (but in favor of small limited wars as to "blood" boys into men, which was a common attitude back then).
@@ralphbernhard1757 The avatar photo is "Rowlf" the dog, so I'm not sure why he changed the spelling to "Ralph". I'm surprised you haven't replied to my comment about monarchs. I'd like to hear your take on Wilhelm's domestic policies and whether he supported or opposed democratic reforms.
@@unadin4583 Regarding the account names, I'm sure it's not voluntary, but something which RUclips does automatically. In your comment about monarchs, which I'll write a short essay for and post it there later, I see you wrote that you see the account name as being "74zbh91", however if you log out you will see the same account called "user-uh2rl8pj7s".
It's the same account, but either logged in or logged out, appears under different names. In both cases the avatar pic is the same, only the account name changes according to whether one is logged in or logged out of the own YT account.
Since this is already the second case, I'm sure it's nothing the user does manually, or intentionally.
Historians often refer to the hundred years leading up to WW1 as a time of peace, and that with regards to Europe's bloody history, that people had been spoiled by not knowing what war was like. That so many people cheered when war broke out, is seen as evident of such a widespread "spoiling for a fight"-attitude problem at the base (although I would personally argue that the cameras present and filming, obviously contributed to the "cheering" we witness on these old reels).
Fact remains, that there isn't a single war in history which came about because of people "cheering" or "wanting war".
Never mind how much incitement by a nation's hawks and war mongers, there has never been a war in history which was not mainly the result of those in power deeming it as desirable/inevitable. That fact remains, despite what leaders say today or said in the past.
Politicians and other power mongers lie, so what our leaders say or once said publicly (or wrote down with the intent to be published) should be the *last* pieces of "evidence" we should follow, not the first (logic/reasoning). "Fake news" is no modern phenomena, and simply believing that a version of events was more true "because it was written in a newspaper at the time", or because of leaders who said something 100 years ago made something more true, is erroneous.
The attempt at pointing at "cheering people" who apparently always want war, *simply another attempt by the elites to deflect attention from their own actions (or even more imporantly: their own inactions, when action could have avoided war).* A majority of the people never start wars, and indeed mostly prefer their leaders to avoid it. A truism for all countries, not only the own. Everybody knows today how our leaders lie constantly, and therefore the conclusion that in the past "leaders were better" or more honorable is also erroneous. It is only the fact that today we are a lot more present (TV/internet) and therefore aware of events as they unfold in realtime, that we *think* our leaders are worse than they were 100, or 200 years ago...
*With regards to "peaceful Europe before WW1": Europe was never "at peace".*
Even if one leaves out the countless revolutions, manmade famines, uprisings, and other outbreaks of violence, and only concentrates on the wars between states, and only the 60 years or so before 1914, a clear "pattern" emerges.
1853-1856 Crimean War: (Mainly) Great Britain, France, Turkey and Russia "slugged it out". Everybody else stayed out.
1864 Second Schleswig War: Prussia and Denmark "slugged it out". Everybody else stayed out.
1866 Austro-Prussian War: Austria and Prussia "slugged it out". Everybody else stayed out.
1870-1871 Franco-Prussian War: France and Prussia (coalition)"slugged it out". Everybody else stayed out.
1877-1878 Russo-Turkish War: Russia (coalition) and Turkey "slugged it out". Everybody else stayed out.
1885 Serbo-Bulgarian War: Serbia and Bulgaria "slugged it out". Everybody else stayed out.
1897 Greco-Turkish War: Greece and Turkey "slugged it out". Everybody else stayed out.
1911-1912 Italo-Turkish War: Italy and Turkey "slugged it out". Everybody else stayed out.
1912-1913 First Balkan War: Balkan League (coalition) against Turkey "slugged it out". Everybody else stayed out.
1913 Second Balkan War: Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Romania, and Turkey "slugged it out". Everybody else stayed out.
*1914 Third Balkan War: Austria-Hungary and Serbia set out to "slug it out". Everybody else jumps on the bandwagon...*
Renowned political science scholar John Mearsheimer quote: "Bandwagoning is a strategy for the weak."
Bandwagoning is the policy of fools.
If the argument is "...but, but, but...Germany wanted to bandwagon..." No. There was no intention by Berlin to involve itself in the "Third Balkan War" scenario Berlin/Vienna plotted for in July 1914 "behind closed doors".
That is where that line of reasoning ends.
*Had nobody bandwagoned after July 1914, then the most likely course of history would have been that Serbia would have simply accepted the ultimatum, and the Black Hand would have been swept out of position of power in Belgrad. If not that, it would have remained a limited war, strictly between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, with limited impact on both the people who lived in the affected regions, as well as the history of Europe.*
Same as the dozens of other limited European wars before that, started or schemed for by other powers for their ambitions.
The Russian Tzar is on record for stating that Belgrad should simply accept the ultimatum. True: that would have spared Europe a disasterous war. That is of course "only half the story" again: He could have also stated that St Petersburg had the power to deny Serbia any support in case they did not accept the ultimatum in full. Russia had no obligation to "stand by Serbia". That means its decision to defend Serbia was choice.
Reality: Russia set out to expand its sphere of influence at the expense of Austria-Hungary, and to encircle Austria-Hungary together with a "new best friend" Serbia (grand strategy), and therefore did not do the right thing: stay out.
*With regards to negotiating to avoid war in 1914:*
Those who would have proudly pointed at the Concert of Europe, should have already recognized how it was being undermined and hollowed out by the actions of "hawks" on the own side. Later on as imperialism gained momentum, even the "conferences to ease tensions" clearly only had the intention to fortify pre-arranged alliances, and not to "be flexible" based on the truth or reality of the crisis.
Conclusion: The Concert was already "formally a dead letter".
If nothing could be expected from any talking, except only reaffirming the two blocks, then "adios Europe".
*1911/12 would have been the moment I would have personally packed my bags and left Europe, had I lived there at the time, as the impacts of the crises started hitting closer and closer to home.*
Look at what was really happening.
At Algeciras in 1906, the plight of the "little guy" *and only victim* Morocco was clearly only of secondary consideration, and the political events/decisions were "along party lines" as we would say in politics today. That was made even more clear a few years later during the Second Moroccan Crisis, when "the little guy" was sold out completely in order to give a "don't like it up'em" to the other side, at the expense of a minor nation/state.
The victim was clearly Morocco.
The oppressors: The so-called "good guys".
There was no "flexible response" with regards to Morocco, since the decisions fell along alliance lines. The decisions were preconceived and not based on any laws, logic, reasoning, or even moral values.
"Us" vs. "them".
*From a perspective of 1911/12, why should any future crisis have been any different?*
One of the most profound "missing details" of the July Crisis was that there was not the usual "war scare", which obviously made the other powers suspicious.
There was no "war scare" by Austria-Hungary *because* a resulting "conference" was already a predetermine matter.
The same "alliance" which had allied against Germany/Austria-Hungary in 1911, would again ally against them in July 1914 with the same predetermined outcome: because they intended to pull the noose tighter around Berlin/Vienna/Budapest's necks.
There was therefore no reason to believe any talking would have resulted in any different outcome in July 1914.
*Europe wanted it that way, Europe got it that way.*
When GB made this noble but pointless gesture of "talking", not even the own "best friends" Russia and France were exited about the prospect of a conference. In fact, the initial "positive response" bears the handwriting of "preparing the own defense", as exemplified by Chamberlain "preparing his own defense" in regards to the Jameson Raid (see below comment). Politicians, especially those who need popular support in democracies, obviously have these "response A, B, C and D" in the drawer, in order to have a plausible answer for every potential outcome.
*These are all political strategies, not to be confused with bias or "feelings"...*
As for Europe: Every "chest thump" moment in history from "around 1900" onwards was simply just more "chest thumping into the own graves".
That counts for all equally.
At "around 1900" the issue was that Europe became victims of their own strength and the narcissism it resulted in.
Today, they will become victims of their weakness and insecurity.
They are exactly where the American Century wants them: Not too strong. Not too weak. Just right...
Correct. Without the promised support of Germany, Austria-Hungary would have had little option but to secure a mediated/negotiated settlement with Serbia, knowing as they did, that their actions were bound to provoke a Russian response. Seeking German backing was absolutely crucial for them in being able to take the hard stance they did and provoke the war they desired, even at the known risk of Russian intervention, and thus a greater European war as the alliance dominoes fell.
They simply weren't interested in the response. They had designed it so it would be impossible to accept. NO ONE who read the ultimatum believed that ANY nation could possibly accept such terms.
Yes, Nicholas did suggest they accept, but he did so simply as a means to arrest the fateful process and he was very much relying upon the pressure of the international community for mediation in the matter. The Austro-Hungarians had set a 48 clock ticking, and had ruled out the possibility of any peaceful settlement from the very outset. They had decided that both Serbia and Russian interests in the Balkans were to be crushed.
The "Third Balkan's War" was never that to begin with. Both Germany and Austria-Hungary are looking at it in far wider terms than that. Their folly and short-sightedness was in believing that no one else would so; in believing that if they were prepared to risk war to get their aims, that no one else would be prepared to do so to stop them.
The real question is whether Ritter is right, and they simply got EVERYTHING wrong they possibly could, or did they know what they were doing all along, and they simply seized the chance as the offensive realists posit?
"Bandwagoning is the policy of fools."
Quite a number of strategists and political scientists cite von Tirpitz's naval strategy as a clear example of Germany attempting to "bandwagon" onto Britain.
Interesting thought, Ralph.
@@bolivar2153 I will gladly have a discussion with these experts, pointing out that it was GB which refused any mutually agreeable treaty/accord with Germany, based on her own policy position of "Splendid Isolation".
No treaty = Germany would build a fleet to defend herself.
Cause - effect.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Fools or not? Fools is your claim, not mine, nor anyone else's that I can determine. Let's see if you can apply your own claims without bias, shall we?
@@ralphbernhard1757 "Germany would build a fleet to defend herself"
A decade and a half devoted to a fleet that was incapable of serving it's purpose(s) and a decade and a half of neglect with regards an army that proved incapable of fulfilling it's task. Clearly fools then ;-)
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!
So why is Wilhelm blamed for "starting WW1" because of not doing anything to stop it from happening...but 20 years later, Stalin is not blamed for "starting WW2" because of not doing anything to stop it from happening?
Just curious...
Somalian NS Well, I was expecting a lot of stupid answers to my question, but...congratulations...you are my valedictorian already...
You are wrong BTW.
At the moment a lot of Jews living in Israel fear gradually becoming outnumbered, while at the same time the voluntary emigration, plus the apprehension and reluctance of Jews to immigrate to Israel, is reaching new heights.
Aaaaand, guess what their top favorite country is?
telegraph.co.uk
***** Why?
***** My comment is simple.
If Germany started WW2 (criteria = first shots fired), then it is Austria-Hungary which started WW1 (same criteria).
If Germany started WW1 (criteria = ruler didn't do anything to stop the war), then WW2 was started by Stalin (same criteria).
If most of the blame for WW1 is placed on Germany (criteria = the causes), then most of the blame for WW2 should be shared by Hitler/Germany and the Stalin/SU (same criteria).
Simple :-)
***** I actually believe that people, all people, should be free to choose their own destiny....
Ralph: I think Wilhelm II did a bit more than fail to stop it. He made a deliberate decision not to renew the non-aggression treaty Bismarck had negotiated with Russia. His insistence upon building up Germany's navy and introduction of compulsory military service for German men stoked an arms race with Britain and France. I also think that his constant promises of support to the Austro-Hungarians emboldened them to take a more aggressive approach in their dealings with Russia. Wilhelm II may have had some last minute misgivings about war in the summer of 1914, but his years of bad diplomacy and saber rattling had put all of Europe on edge.
A correction to Herr von Bernhard's claim : "Reality: ANY model will attract psychos like moths to the flame [...]"
Psychopaths are typically drawn to roles where they can exert control, influence others, and achieve personal gain. These opportunities exist in any system-be it a liberal democracy, a dictatorship, a socialist state, or a theocracy. The nature of the system may change the methods of achieving power, but the underlying drive remains the same.
Throughout history, individuals with psychopathic traits have risen to power in various types of regimes. Dictatorships, monarchies, communist states, and even religious organizations have all seen leaders who exhibit these traits. This suggests that the presence of such individuals is not unique to liberal democracies or capitalist systems.
Proof for the above correction provided by Herr von Bernhard himself.
"Wilhelm II was an evil man. Most likely a psychopath." - Herr von Bernhard
The narrator's voice is the most soothing I've ever heard.
She sounds like an English nanny reading a bedtime story.
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
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.
Finally this discussion ended, after 2-3 years
I can write 3-4 essays, like the ones in the below comments section, every day for the rest of my life.
Nothing "stops" because *you* want it to stop.
It has only just started.
The time is approaching.
For 50 years after 1945 the citizens of the USA have lived the "good life" at the expense of the rest of the world in the immediate post-WW2 years, when the rest of the planet was so weak it could not avoid US institutions/military/NGOs from imposing themselves, and vacuuming off enormous gain...
No, that ratio is down to 30% of the world's wealth.
It's decreasing...
*What does the USA look like today? What will it look like when this amount of wealth of the world reaches 20%, or then 10%?* When US citizens finally get closer to a "fair share" of the world's resources/wealth, and have to make do with *the same* amounts as everybody else, they will finally find out what level of psychopathy they have systemically enabled inside, operating from within their OWN country/state.
_When they can no longer vacuum off the wealth of the world, in an unfair manner (50% for us, the 4% of the planet), they will start finding out what human nature is like._
When 4% of the planet, have to make do with 4-5% of the world's wealth and resources, they will become everything they have always criticized.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And that is what they did.
America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues.
Set up "patterns" of European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).
A discussion is meant to be an exchange of ideas. However, Ralph is merely delivering a diatribe. He shows no willingness to accept or even consider viewpoints other than his own; he is sermonising.
Everybody has their favorite part of a movie.
In the Matrix, for some it is when Neo follows the white rabbit, or takes the Red Pill, and for others some or other cool superhuman fight scene.
*Do you want to know what the truly indicative part was? It was when Neo was standing in the corridor and the "images" and "stories" he saw before that disappeared from his vision, and he suddenly "saw" the entire PROGRAM of the world, but not with "eyes".*
Everything before that had been merely ancillary details. Ninety-nine percent, ancillary details.
THE MATRIX: GEOPOLITICAL AND GRAND STRATEGY ANALYSIS
Rise up above the 2D Checkers board, and rise up over the 3D Chess players, and see the imperialist PROGRAMMING of the world.
The templates to break free from the narratives and all the bs. you grew up with are in the below comments section, free of charge.
*The imperialist systems of gain, and the imperialist strategies they try to implement, gathering in their hordes of the uninformed they intend to do the heavy lifting for them, while they gain in the background. NOT coincidental. Invisible to most. ALL strategies of power.*
Oh, and never mind SIR Bolivar.
He isn't even "playing 2D checkers," since all he can do is rattle down pre-chewed narratives, lain into his mouth. He is a just another one dimensional brain, repeating what others have written FOR him. Like a little mutt yapping at my ankles. Annoying, yet amusing at the same time ;-)
Kissinger: "It is ridiculous that the civilized world is held up by 8 million savages ... Can't we overthrow one of the sheikhs just to show that we can do it?" [FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1969-1976, VOLUME XXV, ARAB-ISRAELI CRISIS AND WAR, 1973, 363. Memorandum of Conversation]
The rulers/sheikhs who they favored (FAVORITISM = an imperialist divide and rule strategy for the entire Middle East), to control the "savages," ruling within the lines imperialists had previously drawn on the map FOR these "savages" (WW1 era imperialism), dared question the directives of their mastahs. All just "dogs" in "mangers," (Churchill) for imperialists in search of gain.
SIR Bolivar: "...but, but, but, Willi was a wacist. He said 'yellow pewil' ... he soooo bad... boo hoo. My best fwiends never did anything wong...sniff, sniff."
-------------------------------------------
The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power).
The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself.
This is the theory.
According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules.
According to the concept of "meaning of words" (aka definitions) all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to *disunity* in another region of the planet (another continent).
*The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.*
We won twice. Now my American Son is stationed in Germany.
Why is having a son stationed thousands of miles away, a big win?
For the above mentioned "setups" to work, it needs a lot of fathers who are indifferent to their sons being stationed thousands of miles away from home...
I assume you think it is "contributing to ze peace"?
LOL
@@ralphbernhard1757 I would imagine having a soldier stationed in Germany, but not actually having to fight them for once, is considered a win by most of the civilised world, Ralph.
@@bolivar2153 *Imagine not needing "a son" stationed in Germany, because the own political system is actually balanced, and not imperialistic (after 1776), or neoimperialistic in nature as a matter of conception* ...
(Neocons/neolibs)
@@ralphbernhard1757 Imagine if Germany/Europe thought it was capable of defending and policing itself instead of requesting the presence of foreign forces?