NETHERLANDS: Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany chopping wood (1937)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- GAUMONT BRITISH NEWSREEL (REUTERS)
To license this film, visit www.britishpat...
Footage of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany chopping wood following announcement he has influenza.
Full Description:
NETHERLANDS:
Kaiser Wilhelm II (Emperor of Germany) in grounds of house / Kaiser Wilhelm II chopping wood
Kaiser Wilhelm II; Germany
Background: Footage of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany chopping wood following announcement he has influenza.
FILM ID: VLVA8DAWBGDVTYXXD8UFGVEVQUF8D
To license this film, visit www.britishpat...
Archive: Reuters
Archive managed by: British Pathé
Playing minecraft before it even existed, what a gamer the Kaiser is
we do a little trolling- Kaiser Wilhelm II
*Kaiser Wilhelm II Gaming*
**Imagine Kaiser using a fist to punch a tree.**
@@ParseeAikoku I dont need to... He in fact does...
With the one hand too!
Look who is back.
👁️👄👁️
Back again
@@PhatphucksforlifeJa
Your daughter is fine
Ja bitte
The most impressive is actually the guy in the background who is chopping away like a mad man holding the wood with the other hand without chopping his hand off.
how else do you chop wood? isn't that the standard method when you are going for small pieces?
@@viktorreiter8811 No. You put the log on the splitting log so that it stands free. Or you baton it. If you like your fingers.
He kind of got the best outcome compared to his cousins George and Nicholas. After WW1, George V was just straight up miserable, and Nicholas, well he was dead. Sure, Wilhelm did lose his empire and his legacy, but at least he made it all the way to the 1940s.
Wilhelm lived a little longer than George but I'm not sure how that makes his outcome better. One died a king, beloved by his people, and the other died an exile who could only watch from the sidelines as his country was taken over by fanatics.
@@quintiniusverginix7827 That's why most would assume King George got the better deal outta the war, but due to the war, his health conditions got worse and he was pretty much killed by his own doctor, he was loved by his people but that ain't helpin him with his health. Compare it to Wilhelm, he lost his empire but atleast lived a relatively peaceful life.
@@TaxEvader08 Better to go down loved by your people and a winner, than die a unknown loser like the Kaiser.
Otto "Iron and Blood" Bismarck:
*"The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia."*
German iron, and Russian blood would keep Germany safe.
Wilhelm II: "I'm available. But it's gonna cost you a place in the sun."
I guess the others weren't interested in moving the deck chairs around a bit, to make room for another "in the sun".
Huh
Willy came too late to the party.
@@kkvsn7294 October/November 1918.
*Why did Wilhelm "have to go"...*
In politics, we are hardly ever given the real reasons why things happen, or why policy decisions are implemented.
Of course yesterday's politics, is today's history...
*The truth behind "why Wilhelm had to go" is there for all to see, and has been written about in great detail in the past.*
It had little to do with WW1, or Wilhelm's "personality disorder" (lol).
As Tolkien states, long forgotten history became legend. Legend turned to myth. And after 100 years the reality of what happened passed out of all knowledge.
Re. why Wilhelm had to go, has simply been forgotten.
*The reality of "what happened" is that soon after his ascent to power (around the time "leaning East" Bismarck took his hat), Wilhelm wanted to unite Europe.*
In his own frustrated later words "with or without GB".
That can be read about in great detail and with sources in largely forgotton works: for example in the first few pages of THE ANGLO-GERMAN ALLIANCE NEGOTIATIONS: MISSED OPPORTUNITY OR MYTH by H.W. Koch (free to read online after registration at JSTOR) or several other free pdf theses on the topic.
Unfortunately most of these scholarly works mostly deal with *how it turned out* and not *the initial intention* by Berlin of such a potentially possible European alliance system with an Anglo-German Alliance at its core.
Only a few historians correctly point out how such an alliance system was never desired by key individual European players, especially in London, and therefore "wishful thinking" from the outset. See the "history" of the apparently "poor dissed London lords" who apparently "really really wanted to become Berlin's BFFs" (sic.), but Berlin had insiduous "world conquering dreams".
According to "Die Legende von der Verschmähten englischen Freundschaft 1898 to 1901" (1929) by Gerhard Ritter, the historian makes clear that it was London which never wanted such an alliance. The talks about a Eurpean alliance system did not "start" (as often stated) "in 1898", but much sooner. Bismarck had already sent the "feelers" much earlier, and Wilhelm intended to follow up on these (see the successful good start with the Helgoland-Zansibar Treaty as an act of good faith by both sides).
As it turned out "with GB" was not possible because London wanted "Splendid Isolation" as *the* elevated policy standpoint of a few influencial lords.
The "few" with veto powers would have used these powers to torpedo any attempt within the circle of London lords for any form of European unity, either "with or without GB".
*To Quote: "Thirdly - but more contentiously - his veto of an Anglo-German alliance, as late as 1901, has been blamed, notably by Julian Amery in his biography of Joseph Chamberlain, as leading to the First World War and, by implication, to all the horrors which came after." (Amery 1969, p.158: edit for clarification, "third" in a list of the historian's list of key failures re. the Chamberlain Sr. years).*
Just to clarify further. The same British lord who "oh-so honestly" set out try to create an Anglo-German Alliance in 1898 together with Lord Balfour, admitted to vetoing it if there was ever a chance of a version not to the lords' liking under discussion. Same as today, a few key figures can always veto any idea put forward, advocated on, or even decided on by majority concensus, and it did not matter how good such an idea (political proposition) is today, or was at the time.
It was GB which chose "against".
*In 1896, Wilhelm II therefore "turned East" and personally handed the Russian Tzar a memorandum named "On the need to form a politico-merchantile union of European states against the USA".*
In it, Wilhelm expressed his desire to turn Europe ("with or without GB", but still preferably including GB) into a united power which could stand up against the rapidly rising USA.
Hmmmmmmm....interesting.
*"Against the USA" (sic.), and in 1918 Washington DC insisted on exactly this man to abdicate...*
In 1918, Wilson representing the rapidly rising power USA, demanded that Wilhelm II should leave office in order for any peace talks to commence.
Of course, the "dividers" intent on "dividing" European power into manageable bits, sat in Washington DC. With their own entry into WW1, these strategists had got their "foot in the door" of European matters: their willing "little helpers" in London and Paris thereby signed the own death warrants for their own empires.
*Because if you are a dragon (an imperialist power with an "empire"), don't cuddle up to a dragon slayer (a nation whose very foundation was anti-imperialism).*
Wilhelm II had to go, because he wanted a united Europe, to mirror what was happening on the other side of the Atlantic.
It wasn't the "flamboyent Weltpolitic" or "nasty rhetoric" or "wanting to rule the world" (or any of the often overstated "historical details") which made Wilhelm unpopular with the other powers on the fringes of the European continent, but his desire to unite Europe in order to speak with a united voice against the rising USA. Germany's neighbors were unwilling to accept Berlin's "price tag" for such a "united Europe": more influence in the world (and a few more colonies) for Berlin.
Of course, everything has a "price tag".
Even the USA's "help" to "win WW1" had a price tag...
To add to the above.
Our history is often overburdened with judgements, rather than analyses.
A certain standpoint of "my government was better than your government"-attitude plays a large role.
The forms of governments which evolved (timeline) were a result of their geographical locations.
@@ralphbernhard1757 Thank you!
@@HH-fr8xb Pleasure.
In view of the largely Aglo-centrically biased "world" historicity and and historians (incl. German historians), somebody's got to set the record straight, and provide some neutrality.
He lucky not end up like his cousin the tsar
Yeah, despite he's the one who enabled it
RIP Kaiser Wilhelm II. You made Germany strong but are only remembered badly today. REST IN PEACE.
He made Germany a bully. Prussian militarism grew unchecked during his reign. He should've been court martialed for the atrocities his army committed in neutral Belgium.
@@truthseeking6611 Prussian militarism grew? Prussia was “an army with a state” long before him. Those traditions were built into it’s culture. Besides, while he was a horrible foreign politician that alienated a lot of people it was Bismarck that bullied that tricked the French and Austrians into war to help him bully the southern German States into the Reich.
Wilhelm ruled Germany during its most prosperous years, your right in that he was a bit of a bully but domestically he was a very good Emperor, nobody can deny that.
Besides, once the war broke out Wilhelm was pretty much reduced to being a puppet (and he did actually try preventing war with Russia)
@@Swissswoosher His grandfather and Bismarck built an empire that big willy pissed it away in one generation.
@@truthseeking6611 Wilhelm was its longest ruling Monarch and in his 30 year reign the Germans gained a colonial empire (still thanks to Bismarcks) , by 1900 the Germany navy could rival the British, Germany was mainland Europe’s most powerful country and 2nd most powerful after Britain, had won 18 Nobel Prizes. Doesn’t sound like a bad job was done (domestically).
He almost destroyed Germany but I don't think he was personaly a bad guy.
Real Germany died in 1918
This makes no sense
I’m sure you would know that, since you were alive in 1918
@@notcharging bro Germany at the moment has taken over europe economically and are the most prosperous nation in the EU what else could they possibly want
@kevhau99 they have no patriotism because of these world wars that they feel ashamed about
@kevhau99 that is true but the bad outweighs the good at that time and what they did during the 2nd world war was just terrible it’s pretty hard to see positivity in you’re country when they did something like that
The man who deforested Netherlands 🇳🇱
IMAO you got me
Kaiser Wilhelm… a true monarch, a true man… a good person who humbly served his country… sadly true Germany died in 1918, but its legacy will forever live.
My home town in Norway suffered a huge fire that almost burned the whole town to the ground back in 1904.
Only 3 days after the fire was put out, Kaiser Wilhelm came with 1 warship and 2 civillian ships with aid to approximately 10 000 people who had become homeless as a result of the fire.
He helped rebuild the city in stone, and in an architectural style called "Jugendstil". Which is an architecture style that has a hint of "German" to it.
Many of these buildings still stand today and have started attracting tourists internationally as a result.
One of the biggest streets in downtown is named after him, and we have a monolith monument in the park to honor his support.
He could have very easily turned a blind eye. But instead he packs up and physically shows up in person to inspect the damages and provide supplies to those affected.
If that's not a good man, then idk what is. The city is called Ålesund.
Germany, and indeed Europe itself, died in 1945. Now it's nothing more than a colony of arabs and africans.
Honestly I would say that was Bismarck. Wilhelm II was a vain guy who had the extraordinary achievement of reversing most of Germany's diplomatic gains and isolating Germany by antagonizing Britain, which helped form the Entente
His abdication was all but deserved, monarchist or no monarchist
@@planetofgamespog8242Now can you say the same for the two dozen or so monarchs in Germany some of whom were popular with the people? His abdication was deserved but it should not have ended in an abrupt ending of the monarchy in Germany, probably Crown Prince Wilhelm should have succeeded him.
@@squeaky206 Your response is tuned to deal with an anti-monarchist, not me specifically. I cannot speak for the other European monarchs as I do not know them as properly as Wilhelm II
As for the Crown Prince... honestly I don't know. I'm not much into democracy (or monarchism), but a leader was definitely needed who could deal with public opinion while pursuing Germany's inevitable resurgence without the insanity of Hitler's plans
He wasn't chopping. He was throwing. That's why he got beat.
Did you watch other videos, or just this one? Or maybe you just don't know that he has only one functioning arm, but an idiot like yourself wouldn't even had the time to look that up.
@@immersegrafx WTH are you talking about? THIS particular video said: "Kaiser chopping wood." Was he chopping wood in the vid or throwing it? I don't care if he had 4 arms. I was just making a joke out of a fact. Now you're making mountains out of molehills. Who hired YOU to be the Kaiser's publicity police? 🙄
@@theprophetofputdowns8114 I mean he did chop wod a lot. The locals even gave him a nickname
@@spongesad8947 what is his nickname
@@theprophetofputdowns8114 case in point is that he was very ashamed of he’s deformed withered arm and while he can chop, almost all footage of him chopping wood was simply chucking wood as to not embarrass himself and besides you wouldn’t expect a 78 year old going out and chopping wood would you?
Went from the emperor of germany to a lumberjack
even though I am a defender of French Alsace Lorraine, I can't hate him, he has a lot of charisma and charm, and he has done a lot for his country, germany should have kept him
He looks so wholesome just standing there throwing wood it’s a shame he was exiled
Elsas-Lothrigen is German. Whether you like it or not.
@@mathskafunda4383 Did george clemenceau asked for your opinion when he make it french ? nah
@@catfood1788 yasss
@@anakinwho8736 Lol, did Kaiser Willhelm the first, and Otto Von Bismark ask your opinion when they made it German? Nah.
If only he returned
What I can do is imaging this video full coloured
Im Back **terminator intensifies**
Instead of guns he weilds an axe due to the fact he liked to chop wood like alot alot
He hated J*ws too . So think about it .
@@anurag8768 he not
FROM KAISER TO WOOD CHOPPER
Germans look handsome.
But not hitler, lol
@@chaser4life444 actually he did everything for the Germans.
@@chaser4life444 Hitler wasn’t German he was Austrian.
@@melkor3496 ikt 🤣
@Adolf Hitler no
0:03 The face of a man who knows the true meaning of falling-off
You were a wonderful man Kaiser Wilhelm ii. It is an absolute tragedy that you are remembered as a warmonger, which your sir were most certainly not.
Queen Victoria’s grandson
Notorious grandson actually who hated his grandmother's country.
@@jamesbond4810 But not his dear Großmutter.
@@jamesbond4810 and the grandson who got treated harshly by the family. The grandmother who doesn't care about him and the mother who hated him for his disable arm
@@jamesbond4810 It was far more jealousy than hatred, in my opinion. There was a great deal about England that he dearly loved.
Yes
The words that the Kaiser himself regarding Hitler cuts really deep. He had no love for the man, nor what he stood for.
Der Kaiser ist immer in unserem Herzen.⚔️🖤🤍❤️⚔️
Your heart must be in hell then
Dude is so sweet just chopping his wood
I'm sure, such sweet grandpa will never start a world war.
@@NoK2L30 He didn't, Serbia & Austria & Russia did.
Wow they had runescape in 1937?
He was hated for defending his ally
Yeah
No. He was hated because he spent the better part of roughly 25 years planting the seeds and paving the way for the first World War.
Backing out of a balance of alliance with Russia that caused it to ally with France, trying to manipulate the Spanish-American War for Germany's own benefit, engaging in a naval arms race with Britain, the Yellow Peril, the First and Second Moroccan Crises, etc.
All of these can be directly tied back to Wilhelm's arrogance.
IMO, there are 5 reasons the war broke out
1. Wilhelm's failure to prevent the blank-cheque being sent to Austria
2. Russia's "I'm gonna save the Slavs!" bs
3. The countless alliances and defence pacts
4. Austria's harsh ultimatum to Serbia
5. Ultranationalism in Europe
But sadly in most cases, history is written by the victors, so Kaiser Wilhelm II, the man who turned Germany into a military and economic powerhouse, and didn't oppress and keep the people poor like Russia, is called a madman and a mass murderer and a warmonger. Yet as a colonial power, Germany was far better than Britain, because from the 1890s-1900s, only about 100,000-200,000 died due to German cruelty, as compared to like what 10-15 million people needlessly dying under British Rule. Not saying that Germany was good, but it seems it was far better than Britain ever could be.
@@shubhnamdeo2865only if those pesky americans didnt get involved😂
@@shubhnamdeo2865 😂😂What's with all the lies Indian boy? where you get them numbers from for a start? 😂It was more like Germany was jealous of Britain and her empire. You don't know what you are talking about.
he was first cousins to Tsar Nicholas and King George, coincidence?
He was Not cousin to tsar nicholas
He was third cousin to Tsar Nicholas, but first cousin to King George V of Great Britain
Ik i just didnt Point it out.
They all have the same grandma
Well they all got the beard now
the kaisers version of chopping wood looks an awful lot like hes just chucking it at servants to chop for him.
It is probably because he did not want the cameras to film his deformed arm.
case in point is that he was very ashamed of he’s deformed withered arm and while he can chop, almost all footage of him chopping wood was simply chucking wood as to not embarrass himself and besides you wouldn’t expect a 78 year old going out and chopping wood would you?
Time to restore Kaisereich!
Exiled Kaiser's hobby: - 5.00% Consumer Goods
Exiled Kaiser of German Empire's hobby is wood chopping and woodcraft.
He often 'sells' what he made in cheep prize, and The Netherlands government opens auction with 'Kaiser approved'.
October/November 1918.
*Why did Wilhelm "have to go"...*
In politics, we are hardly ever given the real reasons why things happen, or why policy decisions are implemented.
Of course yesterday's politics, is today's history...
*The truth behind "why Wilhelm had to go" is there for all to see, and has been written about in great detail in the past.*
It had little to do with WW1, or Wilhelm's "personality disorder" (lol).
As Tolkien states, long forgotten history became legend. Legend turned to myth. And after 100 years the reality of what happened passed out of all knowledge.
Re. why Wilhelm had to go, has simply been forgotten.
*The reality of "what happened" is that soon after his ascent to power (around the time "leaning East" Bismarck took his hat), Wilhelm wanted to unite Europe.*
In his own frustrated later words "with or without GB".
That can be read about in great detail and with sources in largely forgotton works: for example in the first few pages of THE ANGLO-GERMAN ALLIANCE NEGOTIATIONS: MISSED OPPORTUNITY OR MYTH by H.W. Koch (free to read online after registration at JSTOR) or several other free pdf theses on the topic.
Unfortunately most of these scholarly works mostly deal with *how it turned out* and not *the initial intention* by Berlin of such a potentially possible European alliance system with an Anglo-German Alliance at its core.
Only a few historians correctly point out how such an alliance system was never desired by key individual European players, especially in London, and therefore "wishful thinking" from the outset. See the "history" of the apparently "poor dissed London lords" who apparently "really really wanted to become Berlin's BFFs" (sic.), but Berlin had insiduous "world conquering dreams".
According to "Die Legende von der Verschmähten englischen Freundschaft 1898 to 1901" (1929) by Gerhard Ritter, the historian makes clear that it was London which never wanted such an alliance. The talks about a Eurpean alliance system did not "start" (as often stated) "in 1898", but much sooner. Bismarck had already sent the "feelers" much earlier, and Wilhelm intended to follow up on these (see the successful good start with the Helgoland-Zansibar Treaty as an act of good faith by both sides).
As it turned out "with GB" was not possible because London wanted "Splendid Isolation" as *the* elevated policy standpoint of a few influencial lords.
The "few" with veto powers would have used these powers to torpedo any attempt within the circle of London lords for any form of European unity, either "with or without GB".
*To Quote: "Thirdly - but more contentiously - his veto of an Anglo-German alliance, as late as 1901, has been blamed, notably by Julian Amery in his biography of Joseph Chamberlain, as leading to the First World War and, by implication, to all the horrors which came after." (Amery 1969, p.158: edit for clarification, "third" in a list of the historian's list of key failures re. the Chamberlain Sr. years).*
Just to clarify further. The same British lord who "oh-so honestly" set out try to create an Anglo-German Alliance in 1898 together with Lord Balfour, admitted to vetoing it if there was ever a chance of a version not to the lords' liking under discussion. Same as today, a few key figures can always veto any idea put forward, advocated on, or even decided on by majority concensus, and it did not matter how good such an idea (political proposition) is today, or was at the time.
It was GB which chose "against".
*In 1896, Wilhelm II therefore "turned East" and personally handed the Russian Tzar a memorandum named "On the need to form a politico-merchantile union of European states against the USA".*
In it, Wilhelm expressed his desire to turn Europe ("with or without GB", but still preferably including GB) into a united power which could stand up against the rapidly rising USA.
Hmmmmmmm....interesting.
*"Against the USA" (sic.), and in 1918 Washington DC insisted on exactly this man to abdicate...*
In 1918, Wilson representing the rapidly rising power USA, demanded that Wilhelm II should leave office in order for any peace talks to commence.
Of course, the "dividers" intent on "dividing" European power into manageable bits, sat in Washington DC. With their own entry into WW1, these strategists had got their "foot in the door" of European matters: their willing "little helpers" in London and Paris thereby signed the own death warrants for their own empires.
*Because if you are a dragon (an imperialist power with an "empire"), don't cuddle up to a dragon slayer (a nation whose very foundation was anti-imperialism).*
Wilhelm II had to go, because he wanted a united Europe, to mirror what was happening on the other side of the Atlantic.
It wasn't the "flamboyent Weltpolitic" or "nasty rhetoric" or "wanting to rule the world" (or any of the often overstated "historical details") which made Wilhelm unpopular with the other powers on the fringes of the European continent, but his desire to unite Europe in order to speak with a united voice against the rising USA. Germany's neighbors were unwilling to accept Berlin's "price tag" for such a "united Europe": more influence in the world (and a few more colonies) for Berlin.
Of course, everything has a "price tag".
Even the USA's "help" to "win WW1" had a price tag...
To add to the above.
Our history is often overburdened with judgements, rather than analyses.
A certain standpoint of "my government was better than your government"-attitude plays a large role.
The forms of governments which evolved (timeline) were a result of their geographical locations.
Bro wrote a whole essay
You maybe cool but you’re not Kaiser Wilhelm the II chopping wood cool
I feel like the little pause at the end almost fits the atmosphere. The sudden cut leaves a dire atmosphere right after a seemingly lighthearted video. It's like when you realize this is someone who changed the world and the lives of tens of millions forever.
Funny he was still alive playing minecraft while the Nazi party rose to power
Dam Thats Me!
Fitness is my passion
Well somebody hasn’t changed (I’m totally not crying 😢)
To think WW1 started somewhat because of a family argument. King Geroge the 5th, Tsar Nicholas the 2nd, and Kaiser Wilhelm the 2nd are all cousins
Yep, I saw a documentary on that. The royal families used to meet each year for a catchup and the men went on shooting expeditions. They sat in the drawing room with their smocking jackets on, talking about how to divide Africa and the Middle East amongst the royal families.
0:11 literally me wanting to know who asked
Pretty good strength he had while being at 78 years of age when using it the proper way instead of him using it to for example cut off Doorn ears while he was getting away.
Even i hate modern germany but i always love kaiser and kaiserriech my great great grandfather fought in ww1 and kaiser give him order now i find it when my great grandfather died 2 years ago
Looks like Kaiser Wilhelm II was already playing Minecraft.
My second predecessor Wilhelm 2 was not exiled outside of Germany. He was still the last Monarch of Prussia, and therefore he was living in buildings owned by the Kingdom of Prussia. The Kingdom of Prussia did not own any properties in Germany, so he had to live outside of Germany.
Looks like Kaiser was already playing Minecraft.
Should he have won ww1?
Probaly
If usa didn't get involved he wouldve won
Yeah most likely
*Most definetly.*
Traitor flees his country like a coward
what he was exiled are you dumb
I love that men 😍😍💜
Most people forget kaiser Wilhelm II is one of the worst monarchs of Germany. Fired otto von Bismarck who wanted to use diplomacy in international scene while the kaiser wanted to build a navy the size of UK for some reason. His polcies which conflicted with Bismarck eventually lead Germany to be isolated and surrounded from all sides and then losing a war they never had a chance of winning. Otto von Bismarck worked 30 years to unite Prussia and create a strong Germany through diplomacy and politics while the kaiser wanted war and at the same time larping about labour rights. Prussia was lost because of Kaiser Wilhelm II and so was the rise of the Nazis. Easily the worst german monarch.
Not at all
Eh, alot of reasons why i disagree. The man was old and sick, didnt want to give into the demands of workers, and it's unlikely one man like him would've saved the German Empire's collapse if he had been in charge. Besides, he wasn't even going to be alive during it.
@@Allenatel The Kaiser literally butted heads with Bismarck regarding the increasing role of the king in political opinions and affairs and at the early reign of the Kaiser he apparently "cared" about the rights of the mine workers which led to him clashing with otto von Bismarck and Bismarck responded by not signing the labour rights laws which was required by German constitution. Bismarck wanted diplomacy but the young Kaiser at first pretended to care about the laborers and then went on to build a navy the size of the UK for some reason? He was one of the worst monarchs in the Prussian empire while Bismarck played it right.
Tirpitz's "risk fleet" strategy specifically states that Germany was NOT going to aim for parity with the Royal Navy, but was aiming at countering the British intention of blockading Germany in case of a continental war, meaning that what the OP claims is a "false premise" (see definition) on which he then bases a further flawed analyis. One cannot use unproven theories as a basis to create further theories.
Use my strong hand
He suffered more than Napoleon 3. Napoleon 3 died just a few years later. Wilhelm II had to suffer 2 decades of exile, mockery and disillusion.
ik
👌
German emporer and King of prussia is his title. Kaiser of germany is not correct.
In the end he still hides his deformative hand behind his back. Lol
Wilhelm Ii has abdicated to his reign in 1918, 23 years before he died in 1941
its interesting to think about the fact that he's always hiding his deformed hand in videos and photos.
O Homem tinha uma postura de monarca até jogando os tijolos
Tanta roba il Kaiserone 🫡
Bros still committed to the arm thing in exile 😂
Oh look that's me.
The geopolitical implications of trying to "cordon off" rivals are strikingly similar...
In the late-19th Century, France fought back against the German attempts to isolate it politically, by cordoning off Germany and the Central Powers with a ring of alliance partners.
France, in the west, a hostile Russia (as the "dissed girlfriend") in the east.
GB's RN in the position to cut off the north, in case of war. That only left a small corridor of access either through Serbia, or Austria-Hungary's ports in the Adriatic (threatened by British hegemony over Greece).
Today, we see a similar strategy concerning China, or "Chy-naaah", as some say (LOL).
Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines controlling sea access to the east. Trump playing it nice with Putin/Russia at the time, apparently didn't work out. Shame. Of course, Russia would have cut off the north-west/north-east.
A more hostile India, will cover the south-west sector...almost there.
That only leaves a narrow corridor of access to the south, in the South China Sea. The Sprattly Islands...
History might not always be 100% the same, but it certainly rhymes. In the bigger picture Putin played the same role as "Wilhelm II".
*Not exact, but close enough to explain historical paralels.*
Just like Wilhelm's Germany once refused the requests of the "alpha" (London) to become a tool for an "empire".
I assume (without evidence) that Putin refused the USA's requests to become a tool to encircle China. Of course, it's all about "Chy-naah" and the "bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb Iran"-wishes of a certain fraction in Washington DC. That was clear even before Trump turned up, trying to jank "little rocket man" off the Beijing leash...
*The historical "narrative" re. Germany/Wilhelm II is dead wrong.*
At the time, say the late 1890s, the British Empire approached Berlin, with a request/suggestion for an alliance (see Balfour/Chamberlain).
Of course, such an "alliance" had the main objective of turning Berlin into a temporary "best friend" and "lightning rod" for Russian and French venom, boiling up due to imperialistic differences of the three powers (GB/France/Russia).
Berlin was not that naive.
It wanted to be considered an alliance partner on eye level, with the own risks it would be taking (wedged in between Russia and France) suitably considered in such an "alliance".
It would have meant that London would have to voluntarily step down from its self-appointed role of "balancer of powers/decider of wars", and accept Berlin on the top "rung" of "Empires". Or, imagine an athlete, having to share the top position on the podium...
Of course, by the late 19th century, Berlin had also already become London's "default rival/default enemy in war" (***= footnote, see below), as decided per "economy/weight", same as "Chy-naah" starting becoming the new alpha's "default rival/default enemy in war" around the turn of the century (around 2000).
Unfortunately London did not understand how "balance of power" works.
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war.
London's "fatal mistake", was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would save the "Empire"...
London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
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. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers, as a matter of policy, London set off to look for "new friends"...
EPISODE 1:
"By 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain "continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
*Sooooo gweat.*
*Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends" and ruling the world together as equals.*
*What could possibly go wrong?*
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
Brits being squeezed like a lemon by US banks, having their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, being refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's expansion, munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe they should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their markets.
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
*Fill in the gaps.*
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
Then there was another war. A result of the failed peace of the 1st: the totally flawed decision to concentrate most resources in an attempt to "flatten Germany". Reality? A large Strategic Air Force is one of the most expensive forms of warfare ever devised. "Flattening Germany" as a matter of policy, as flawed as trying to "snuggle up" to a faraway "empire", in order to try and save the own...
Search, "Georg Freidrich Prinz von Preussen"
his left arm is withered btw which is why he hides it
Three Emperors and three Kaisers of three Roman Empires of Europe lost it all to a weak king whose country became a puppet in the hands of the USA after only a few years. What a tragedy of the history. (Kaiser Wilhelm II, Franz Joseph I and Mehmed Reshad V) (the 4th Roman Emperor of Europe Tsar Nicholas lost it to his own people not to UK) That’s how whatever remained from Rome totally disappeared.
My king
His one arm is deformed
i love the kaiser!
i wish the german empire back!
W you
The Polish and Russian will kick your ass
@@toohdvaetihom7088 when i said i hate Rusia
Real Prussia /Germany blood died in 1945 only skeleton left in today generations
1947*
ALL HAIL THE KAISER WILLHELM II
Interesting
still hiding his arm
The USA and divide Europe and rule the world...
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
Regarding in practice:
After her defeat in 1871, and being isolated by all of her neighbors, France started "making eyes at" Washington DC (as exemplified by the Statue of Liberty "gift to the American people"). Since the Franco-Prussian War had already removed the biggest obstacle to a French/US rapprochement, which was Napoleon "meddle in Mexico" the III, this war thereby inadvertently opened the door to better relations between Washington and Paris. Of course, the divider must be receptive to such advances.
What was "in it" for Washington DC?
Simple: After almost a century of British and French attempts of playing "divide and rule/conquer" in North America, trying to avoid a single hegemony here (Washington DC) to advance own interests at the expense of North American unity, it was now Washington DC's turn to start playing some "division" back at Europe...
First "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic, straight into the wide open loving tender arms of the eagerly awaiting American Internationalism? (soon to become the all-powerful American Century)
Answer: Isolated France/Paris, in conflict or dissed by her neighbors.
Who would have ever thought that dissing a neighbor could ever have consequences...
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's leaders, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it."
Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans did...
The next "tool" to come swimming across the Atlantic with a Great Rapprochement, amongst other less "valuable" suitors (like Germany, see below comment), was London. It was London which had the "policy" standpoints which would make any binding geopolitical/grand strategy treaties with continental powers in peacetimes virtually impossible. It was also London which intended to keep the continent of Europe in a situation of constant tension, exploiting the already existing tensions by pacifying these when it suited London, or amplifying these when some form of benefit could be descerned (multiple examples in the thread below).
These were her own historical attempts at "dividing the continent" and "ruling the world" which wiser heads in London were already beginning to question as they obviously noticed a shift in the global balance of power.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-1900s, the USA already had little to fear militarily (unless of course Europe should inexplicably become united and speak with a single powerfull voice, by settling the multitude of differences).
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped in to avoid any form of continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible. At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide, using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars (multiple examples in the thread below).
A disunited Europe at this point, suited Washington DC just fine.
Is that it?
that bull chap
Meanwhile in Germany......
he was killed
Me when I’m searching what to watch on Netflix 0:12
Wilhelm is 😮
Always hiding the left arm..lol. he was so ashamed of being deformed
Like Roosevelt always sitting, hiding the effects of polio?
Or Churchill drinking to hide his lisp?
He got that shame from his mother. Even though she tried to help the arm by the knowledge of the day, she regarded him as physically inferior to her other children.
Sad
So thats why nederlands are too flat
Sic transit gloria mundae.
Rest in Peace my Kaiser and Bismarck. I am German conservative, and I love Prussia and middle European conservatism which is anti-American capitalist. I am against Americanism and I am ashamed to speak in English for others to understand. We germans need to leave NATO & EU, and make a democratic empire
Und dann benutzt Du die Farben der Verräter?
A Democratic Empire ? How ? To unify German and Austria ? To restablish the monarchy ? The German needs the EU Market for its industry.
@@fernandocarloto2291 No we do not. The EU needs us. Because they milk us like a cow.
Wood...ehhehehe
He was NOT Kaiser of Germany in 1937. He abdicated to his cousin Prince Imperial Adolf Hitler the Hohenzollern in 1918. He was former Kaiser of Germany and the Final Emperor of Prussia in 1937.
Wha. . ?
WTF ? Go to learn more History !
His problem was. That he trusted too much LENNIN! Lennin was the one, who did beat the Kaiser and his Second REICH! not the punitive ALLIES! ☝️🙄
bro...
Lenin died before WW2 lmao
If you really wanna believe that the Allies did nothing then stay in your Soviet little world
The German Empire defeated Russia and Lenin never fought Germany
Have you ever read a history book bro?
What
Uhm…I’m pretty sure the second reich pushed Russia all the way to St. Petersburg(which was Russia capital at the time)and made them sue for peace.
@@akkiaddizone6889 he said the Kaiser and the second reich not the fuhrer and the third reich
Jestem ciekaw jak on sypiał?Tyle milionów ludzi wysłał do piachu.
O kurcze nie spodziewałem się że tu polaka znajdę
Jak na to logiczne patrząc to Wilhelm ii musiał pomóc Austro-Wegrą bo byli najbardziej z sobą związani, i przegrali wojne i Wilhelm spierdolił do Holandii i tam resztę życia spędził, i jako polityk on raczej nie przejmował się ofiarami wroga, z resztą to przez ten zamach w Sarajewie się to rozpoczęło więc oni po prostu można to tak ująć że bronił kolegę
I powiedz mi jak Hitler sypiał
@@narkoman3236 +
@@narkoman3236 with a bullet in his head