My home city in Norway actually suffered a big fire back in 1904 which resulted in burning down most of the city. 3 days later Kaiser Wilhelm shows up in person with 1 warship and 2 civilian ships to provide food and supplies for the approximately 10 000 people who had just become homeless due to the fire. Not just that, but he also provided extensive amount of funds to reconstruct the city, and this time in stone. The city was rebuilt basically from scratch, and in an architectural style called "Jugendstil" or "Art Nouveau". A lot of these buildings still stand today. As a sign of appreciation we've constructed a monolith in his name in our city park. We also have a nightclub/bar named after him. And one of our main streets in downtown is also named after him. The city's name is Ålesund. Kaiser Wilhelm could have very easily turned a blind eye, but instead he shows up in person and helps reconstruct a relatively unknown city which had been reduced to ashes. If that's not a good leader, then idk what is. Kaiser Wilhelm was a good friend of Norway. He made frequent visits. I've always had positive impressions of him, and ive never blamed him for starting WW1. Atleast not in the same way as Hitler could be blamed for WW2. He was a human being, who probably had his imperfections. But i'd say he atleast tried to be a good leader, and not just towards germans.
@@GamesCooky That's amazing! He was kinder than I thought. I always knew he had flaws like being insecure and impulsive, but I always knew he loved his people, unlike Bismarck who only loved the Prussian elite. It's not fair to blame Wilhelm for the Great War when he did everything to prevent it. In fact, I blame the British for the lead up to it and Austria for starting it. Germany didn't even send a blank cheque, they simply said that Serbia must be taught a lesson and the Austrian ministers interpreted that as an unconditional support.
@@vetarlittorf1807 It would be unfair to compare him to Hitler. WW1 was like a domino effect of diplomatic failures which resulted in all great powers joining the war. Sure, Wilhelm's personality quirks probably didn't make him a very good diplomat. But he shouldn't carry the sole blame for WW1. All participating great powers were to blame for failing to prevent this conflict.
I would like to echo the sentiment of gratitude. Indeed, it probably takes an English lady to look through a web of propaganda and lies. Rarely, if ever, one comes across an account that tries to give an accurate picture rather than a mere character assassination - not least so in Germany. A commentator below calls her 'deluded' but I think she has, after having actually researched the topic, gotten to a fair conlusion. Most people simply reiterate what probably is delusional: the monster, the war-monger, the Germans as the cause of all wars and all evil. However, the main reason for that is, I believe, to whitewash the British and (partly) US role in the wars and the fact that Britain initiated them with the aim (amongst others) to devastate Germany. Anybody trying to challenge the paradigm of the disinterested warden of democracy and justice will be attacked. Now when I say Britain, I refer to a certain 'elite' - a club that deems dominion to be excellence. As a German having lived and travelled extensively in Britain, I know there is another side to that country and to its people - and just as the country is one of gentle hills and tempered climate, there are no few examples of exquisite fairness and equity. Thank you for being one of them. Oh, and I've read the book in a day...
@@fredarcher7264, really? Speaking as an armchair historian, or just an opinionated, uneducated asshole? If anything, you could more easily blame diplomats/world leaders and their dogmatic reliance and adherence to interlacing treaties that DEMANDED countries go to war. But you go ahead and slavishly follow the indoctrination you received at your bullshit primary school.
I really appreciate historians like you and Christopher clark that give a more neutral picture of pre-ww2 Germany. I believe its harmful, among alot of things, to the mentality of contemporary germans to portray, say the kaiser, as malicious and as a predecessor to Hitler. The idea of "Sonderweg" that has been inprinted in germany is far too negative, and serves no other purpose than to highlight that history is truly written by the victor.
There are some photographs online with Wilhelm II and his grandsons and other children. These photos show a side of Wilhelm II that would surprise many and say a lot about The Kaiser. In these pictures, the children, especially his grandsons, are totally at their ease around him and have snuggled up to him. And The Kaiser's demeanour in these photos are also of lightness of contentment.
Always remember that Germany would have been better off governed by the Hohenzollerns than the National Socialists. In 1933 it came down to that as Hindenburg would have liked to restore the monarchy but did not have the force of will. We all know what happened next.
@Fritz Basset, the Hohenzollerns would have been better off governing without endorsing and emancipating the Kosher Mafia as part of the Prussian Empire, and to completely abandon Protestantism and religious viewpoints / prejudices that were a complication for Germany... The National Socialists left a permanent mark of Prussian Spirit. It was a response to the extreme destruction of Imperial Germany and the unfair Treaty of Versailles. National Socialism is merely the appropriate response for such an era and country they lived in as the only possible way Germany could have revived itself and escaped anarchy and total chaos.
The national socialists are also extensively lied about probably to a greater degree than the kaiser. While I dont support all their philosophies particularly the non consensual euthanasia of the retarded, their aims and policies have been so misrepresented that it takes months to unpack the inversions and distortions. I don’t want to be misunderstood, so to be clear I certainly do not support anything such as expansionism, ethnic supremacy, extreme Darwinism etc, these are largely projection and lies used to justify the appalling tragedy that was the Second World War, and how national socialism is portrayed in Hollywood and modern academia is something I would hate as much as you, but the reality is quite different from that which we are indoctrinated. All I’m going to say to spark a discussion, is this: In September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland after 2 years of polish refusal to negotiate over the issue of control of Danzig (a 95% German city) Britain and France declared war on Germany and refused multiple peace offers, however when the USSR invaded Poland 2 weeks later no such international outrage was heard, and when Russia also annexed the Baltic states, Finland and attacked half of Romania in 1940 equally nothing was really said. The important point is that in 1939 the kill count of the new German regime was probably around 1000 executed political prisoners, and around 25,000 people in work camps, contrast to this Stalin’s victims were probably 10 million dead, so from the context of 1940, we sided with the clearly more evil regime and escalated the war out of proportion. I think this should raise an eyebrow at the ‘morality’ of allied intervention
@@thedeterminedseagull4360 saying that for Kaiser Wilhelm II to give up his religious views to completely rule as being something he should have done goes against the man’s beliefs. He was a very religious man like all Prussian kings and actively believed that his mission from God wasn’t to use Germany as an instrument to bring Gods glory on earth, but that his mission was to use whatever he had to help make Germany a better place for its people weather they be Germans, Polish, Danish, Lithuanian, or French. Under his rule minority received better treatment then under any former Prussian king especially the Polish who even his great great great great Uncle King Fredric the Great thought of as lessers. Wilhelm believed that for a nations leader to be effective at leading a prosperous and strong nation they need to be not just a family man, but a religious man, seeing Hitlers lack of faith in God as being a sign of someone not fit to govern over others.
I'm now reading this book and find it both interesting and well written!! An excellent read for those interested in both history and to some degree in a family conflicts and their effects in/on history!!!
I feel very sad for him. He had such a painful early life. The treatments started when he was only a baby which were barbaric and cruel. Then through no fault of his own he was made to feel like a failure by his family over a problem he was born with .
Thank you Mrs Croft for your courage and honesty to tell the true story about this kind, decent and devout Christian man, who dearly loved his grandmother, Queen Victoria, who requested for him to be there at her side in her last days. I will be ordering your book and look forward to reading it!
I have it as an Audiobook on my IPOD. Absolutely outstanding to listen to. After listening to the real truth about the Kaiser, I have a lot of admiration and respect for him. Especially he tried so hard to build an eternal friendship and alliance with the United States of America.
Thanks for responding, Madame. I am certain the information contained therein will be highly educational. You can count on me to spread the word. By the way, I come from Germany. Kaiser Wilhelm II. is portrayed and pictured here as a incompetent person with many, not so good intentions. It tells you something when historians and authors from our surrounding/neighboring countries are looking back and reappraise the past in a much different way than our own folks. We are fed (brainwashed?) so much utter garbage on a daily basis that it has become hard to endure. Usually, truth-seekers have to rely on foreign sources to find out what really happened and not what they want us to believe. Of course, that is not particularly well appreciated by the local powers that be. Thank you for taking part in getting the real truth out, Mrs. Croft.
Madame Croft, thank so much for this insight about the Kaiser. I knew for a long time, from my own humble research, that this man was really innocent. And as English lady, to tell the truth about the Kaiser, takes a lot of courage and sincerity. Chapeau!!! Hopefully I can buy your book in the Netherlands before I go to his last stay in Doorn.
Dear Mrs@@ChristinaCroft , I had a question about the Crown prince Wilhelm. He also had bad reputation during WW1. He is in the history books and documentaries portrayed as: incompetent, advocate of prolonging the war with little regard for the life of his soldiers, arrogant and unreachable for his subordinates. He was by the way also hated by the Nazis. Is this image of the crown prince also a product of the propaganda of the allies?
Christine, I would disagree with you on one point you mentioned in your interview, Kaiser Wilhelm was not an autocrat any more than the president of the U.S. is an autocrat. He appointed the chancellor and the other ministers; however, he was unable to enact laws or to prorogue parliament at a whim. The German Empire and Prussia both had bicameral parliaments which were responsible for passing the laws. As head of the executive branch of government, the Kaiser was responsible for enforcing those laws. There was also an independent judiciary.
In that case Christina was somewhat correct. The Kaiser has a pretty powerful hand in the government and would probably be concidered an autocrat... Just not at a full extent.
Very informative few minutes. Some of these things i knew and some i did not. I am definitely getting the Book, to read for myself and that is a high compliment because i used to read 3-5 large volume books every month, and am down to 1 in the same period, Thanks Christina, Love your voice!
I will definitely have to read this when I find the time. I have always felt bad for the Kaiser, while he was not perfect and had his blunders I do believe he wanted the best for his people. He has been absolutely disgraced by Allied propaganda, even after he went into exile. Now we are left a Germany that is ashamed of its glorious years under the German Empire, partially due to the hatred for the Kaiser, planted by the Allies.
I read “The Sleepwalkers” from C. Clark which - though not completely- points into a similar direction regarding Germany’s role in the outbreak of WWI. Now I am hearing with interest about Croft’s book. Being a German it is good to see that scholars outside Germany take a different position than modern German historiography did since the 1960s, which was confirming Germany’s major guilt compared to other European powers related to the “Kriegsschuldfrage” ( Question who is guilty for the War). I never believed that Germany had a major guilt in that. But the Kaiser was a child of his time as were all the other monarchs and other governments ruling Europe in 1914. They all failed because it was impossible for anybody at that time to understand the consequences of this war. Yet, the victors wrote the history afterwards and Wilhelm was blamed for everything. This did certainly no justice to this man.
Als eine Ergänzung zu Clark möchte ich Wiederkehr der Hasardeure von Wolfgang Effenberger und Willy Wimmer empfehlen. Diese geben einen weiterreichenden Einblick in die Geschichte der Zeit und deren Beziehungen zu unserer Zeit.
Christina-I to enjoyed this interview, and I've always admired how you ( For lack of a better term ) humanized these so-called villains of history. The Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand was another that received a bum rap. From what I've gathered, his plan was for peace for the empire he was to eventually rule, and that was why he was eliminated in my opinion. It seems to me that Franz Joseph is the one who gets a free pass here as he was the one who started everything not the Kaiser. You probably don't remember me, I asked you if would do something on the Boer war some time ago. Anyway I wish you all the best and keep up the excellent work-Dave
As a fifth generation German American, who had family, fought and died in WW1, for the Kaiser, I thank you, ma'am. Thank you so much for showing the truth. I am almost done reading your book and I have been truly astonished. The Kaiser was such a great man, with flaws, like everyone else. Not some warmongering beast, like Hitler. I hope he rest with great peace, now. Thank you, again. My family who fought and died for the Kaiser. Wilhelm Friedrich born December 11, 1880. Kill in action on the 26 of Aug. 1917 Friedrich born September 5, 1884. Kill in action on July 28 1918 in France. Johann Gottfried born August 6, 1886. Went missing in action on the 30 of August 1914. All three brothers never to return back home.
Thank you for your kind comment. I am sorry for the deaths of your family members. I too had family members killed fighting for Britain (three great uncles who were very young at the time and two of whom were brothers) and my grandfather was a prisoner of war. He worked in a salt mine and, although he never really spoke of his experiences, he said that the German doctors saved his life on 3 separate occasions: once when he was wounded and captured; and twice when he was injured in the mine. Although they were 'enemies', he spoke highly of the Germans. I agree, Wilhelm was never a warmonger - he did everything possible to maintain peace and then to bring about an end to the war. He was treated abominably by propagandists and the Allies.
Thank you for this book. I will read it sometime. Britain wanted the war for strategic reasons. Britain could not allow Germany to overtake her no matter what. The only solution was the dismemberment of Germany and the destruction of its economy. The Kaiser however could have prevented war by discouraging Austria from attacking Serbia. I doubt the Austrians would have done it alone.
He was a good peacetime monarch. Between 1888-1914 Germany became the most prosperous and advanced nation in the world, which says something. But he simply lacked the steely and ruthless vigour required of a war leader and essentially handed over power to Ludendorff and Hindenburg. As for his good relation with his British grandmother Victoria; she probably noticed his striking likeness with his maternal grandfather Albert, which also could have been the reason why his uncle Edward VII disliked him so thouroughly. Be it conscious or subconscious.
Absolutely, the monstrous anti christian people that run the financial world pulled all the strings...they smile while they stab in the back...have been doing it for centuries. Following the Kaisers refusal to enter into conflict with Turkey (if he supported the zionists request for their demand of isreal state in palestine) spelled the end for the Kaiser. They are a malicious people and make no mistake they plot and carry out their agenda...even if it spans generations.....just as they did with the Czar of Russia. On both occasions they made sure that they annihilated millions of christians & then after all their wheeling and dealing came out the victors and carved up the remains and write history to suit themselves , which is far from reality (leaving out their atrocious deeds and point the finger in the wrong direction). They dominate the world of print, media, music, arts, entertainment, politics, education & most importantly wield the power of the financial world - still always claim the victim or the minority.
As an admirer of Wilhelm 2 I am glad a british lady sets the record straight - this man reigned Germany in the Kaiserreich- a time every decent German holds dear ! The protestant Kaiser was not trying hard - he was getting the job done - study the economy, the arts , society and constitution!
The First Sea Lord, John Fisher, who was religious fanatic that believed (like Cecil Rhodes and so many others) that England was destined to rule the world, suggested several times to Edward VII to attack and destroy the German Navy with a pre-emptive surprise attack without declaration of war, as the Royal Navy had done against the Danish Navy during the Napoleonic Wars. This is well documented, as well as the great number of British articles from 1904 to 1910 calling for the destruction of Germany.
@@vetarlittorf1807 I will have to look in my files. This fragment from Wikipedia about anti-German hysteria in Britain BEFORE WW1 will be a good introduction: "Newspaper publisher Lord Alfred Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe in 1894 commissioned author William Le Queux to write the serial novel The Great War in England in 1897, which featured France and Russia combining forces to crush Britain. Happily, German intervention on Britain's side turned back France and Russia. Twelve years later, however, Harmsworth asked him to reverse enemies, making Germany the villain. The result was the bestselling The Invasion of 1910, which originally appeared in serial form in the Daily Mail in 1906. Harmsworth now used his newspapers like "Daily Mail" or "The Times" to attack Berlin, inducing an atmosphere of paranoia, mass hysteria and Germanophobia that would climax in the Naval Scare of 1908-09"
I bought this book a while ago but haven't had a chance to read very far. I think it will be especially interesting now that I have read The Romanovs by Simon Sebag Montefiore which deals with the same bits of history at the end, and mentions the Kaiser a few times.
Dear Mrs. Croft, thank You so much for this interview. It made me order the book. I am looking forward to read it !Your book will be a good addition to the very objective biography Christopher Clark has written. It is good to know, that the - though monumental, but very tendentious three volumes of John C. G. Röhl - are no longer the only current voice on this Topic !!As Your interview-Partner said, it is particularily intersting to hear about the emperor's attitude towards the nationalsocialistic regime. May i add a quote, the Kaiser made, after Hearing about the terrible 'Reichscristal-Night: He said: " For the first time in my live i am ashamed to be a German". If he would have lived Long enough to hear about the Holocaust, he defenetily would have condemmed it in a similar way. As You mention Sir Winston Churchill, who we all owe the libartion of Europe form Faschism: Towards the end of the Second World War he said, that it was a big mistake to dethrone the Kaiser, because he never would have given Hitler the Office of the Reichkanzler...For me the most moving Picture of the last century is a photograph taken during a maneuver in Silesia ( i think it was in 1909), to which Churchill was invited to attend by the Kaiser. It Shows the two men in a conversation.What a pitty, that these two great men, did not had the Chance to work together for a prosperous and peaceful future of our both countries an the whole of Europe.
+Semper .Talis Thank you for your lovely comment; I am so pleased you enjoyed the interview - there was so much more to say and I hope to discuss this subject further shortly. I had not heard the Kaiser's response to the 'crystal night' - it says so much - thank you for telling me of it. I know the picture you mean about the Kaiser and Churchill together. Had he been allowed to remain Kaiser, the whole future of Europe would, I am sure, have been so different and so much more peaceful. Thank you again for commenting and I hope you enjoy the book!
Poor Wilhelm, a victim at birth, victimized, villainized and betrayed by both nation and his foes, Bismarck warned him he listened but his hands were tied in the end,
I am glad that there is an attempt to paint a more balanced picture of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Croft's points are well taken that his image in the UK and the USA was distorted. However, the Kaiser was not blameless for Germany getting into WWI. Even if we accept the argument that there were strong forces in Britain and France advocating war with Germany from 1905 onwards Croft fails to mention that Germany gave aid and comfort to those forces by going on a naval armaments binge that only confirmed Britain and France's worst fears. Croft also fails to mention that the Kaiser made a fateful blunder in giving Austria-Hungary the blank check to pursue Serbia. Everyone knew that Serbia was protected by Russia and that going too far there would lead to Russian intervention. Keep in mind Germany declared war on Russia once the Tsar mobilized his forces and declared war on France and Belgium a few days later. Thus, the Kaiser threw the first punch. The Kaiser invaded neutral Belgium in order to invade France for the quickl kill. Thus, while I agree that Wilhelm was not a monster like Hitler he was in no way innocent. He showed very bad judgment that led to a disaster that is still with us today. Croft does make a good point that neither the British, French nor the Belgians were wholly innocent. Britain and France had secretly planned for the war and Belgium was neutral in name only. Had Britain refused to go to war then it is unlikely that Russia would have mobilized. Thus, most of the belligerants were at fault and Germany was a little more at fault and took the fatal steps that launched the war.
Rick Jones well, Wilhelm II actually advised austria-hungary to arrange themselves with serbia. it was Moltke who gave austria-hungary the blank check and assured german protection without the Kaisers knowledge or approval.
Rick Jones perhaps if you read the speech given by the American/Jewish business man Benjamin FREEDMAN at the WILLARD Hotel in Washington DC another reason for this war would be revealed to you. I agree with Christina Craft that Wilhelm II was greatly demonized by the ZIONISTS and the Britishers who many such as Churchill needed financial support from the Rothschild bankers.
Kaiser Wilhelm II did not create the plan for invading neutral countries and he personally opposed the invasion of Belgium. What, however, was Germany supposed to do, once the country was encircled?
Absolutely, Ruth! Churchill behaved appallingly throughout the war, forcing the Germans into unrestricted submarine warfare by his false flags and naval vessels disguised as merchant ships. He actually said that he LOVED war and he must take a lot of the blame for the loss of life on the Lusitania.
It seems that all these wars are banker wars with the added benefit to some who like Churchill need to achieve fame and glory. My heart goes out to all those who suffered such misery due to the few who salivate over mayhem and destruction. Thank you for your honest research Ms Craft.
I listened to your interview. Bought the book online tonight because of this interview. I have always tried to be fair to Wilhelm, and although I did not like him much at first given my American education, I started to question the events that started WWI and Germany's guilt....and although both the Kaiser and Germany were no angels, I do not think either are treated well, and I'm shocked at German historians who chose to separate themselves by jumping on the band wagon. I;m rather surprised than an Englishwoman would write such a book. I find the most anti-German people tend to be either Jewish (understandable) or British....which I find rather puzzling given Britain suffered a lot less than most other countries in WWI and WWII so I suspect your comments about propaganda ring true. That said, you must be a very courageous person. I hope your opinion has not resulted in any abuse. I suspect I may be reading more of your books.
Thank you for your very kind and interesting comment and thank you for buying the book. Like you, I grew up believing Wilhelm was a warmonger and an unpleasant man but, as I began to look more deeply into the actualities of events leading to WW1, I realised that this was not the case at all. I think the propaganda here in Britain was so successful that it is still believed today and I hope my book goes some way to setting the record straight.
This is Very True I was very shocked wenn i found this out and Wasn't he Making Germany a Constitutional Monarchy I allways Thought that Churchill was a Hero but wenn i found out that he Just Raised Neutral Flags and Then attacked the German Uboots I hated him from that Point on. I would Like to see this Book Famous So the World Can find out.
His problem was that he did not realise that Von Moltke and the German General Staff were hell bent on destroying Russias military capability before the French had finalised the upgrading of Russias military by 1918. Wikipedias “July Crisis “ has the gory detail
if you found this brilliant book informative and enlightening, you may also like a comparable work on the last Emperor of Austria-Hungary. It id titled "Karl und Zita" but unfortunately can only be found in German. An English version is very sorely needed,
I need to look into this, see what side is really true. History IS written by the victors much of the time He did say this pretty cool quote though: "The Germans will curse the flag with the swastika and one day burn it!" He also said after one of the Nazis Pergues "For the first time I am ashamed to be German" As a citizen of America (who fought for the allies because he attacked us) I can definitely say I've been raised around the traditional Pre-Hitler Version of him It doesn't matter, World War One was just a regular war. There were no badguys or good guys, just nations fighting eachother
There is something bothering me in mind... I admire the Kaiser and all, but I know that he sent a telegram to Hitler (referring to him as "Mein Führer") in 1940, congratulating him for the fall of France. Now, I know that Wilhelm and Hitler had a cold frenemy feeling towards each other, since Hitler banned all monarchist parties and symbols when the Nazis took power, but it feels strange when he congratulated him for defeating France. I also have some other questions: What did Wilhelm think of Poland's independance after the Great War? Why did he refuse the offer to seek asylum in Britain and the Throne of a Defeated World War 2 Germany from Winston Churchill? And finally, was he really anti-semitic?
I understand the kaiser appreciated the offer of sanctuary made in1940 but felt it would have been inappropriate for him to go to stay in an enemy country. The reality of course that it would have lost what feelings ordinary Germans may have felt for him and put members of his family and their possessions at risk. I think the telegram to Hitler was understandable as he like many Germans must have been pleased to see their enemies defeated and it might have been surly of him not to congratulate the current leader. Mercifully he never lived to see the suffering and destruction that also came with the nazi government
Many people in those days in Europe had varying degrees of anti Semitic feelings and unfortunately the kaiser’s habit of getting carried away with his remarks and speeches didn’t help. There are many instances of him showing support for his Jewish subjects and his friendships with Jewish people so I don’t believe his anti Semitic feelings were deeply founded
1) Asylum in Britain: I think he understood that Britain had brought war on Germany and refused therefore. 2) "Anti-Semitic" is such a broad word. However, if you mean that he was anti-Jewish as in against Judaism or indeed felt that Jews 'as a race' were condemnable, then he certainly wasn't. Why? Some claims of "anit-semitism" have been raised bc of his connection with the court preacher Adolf Stoecker. In his young years, before becoming Kaiser, he did indeed say someting about the "influence of the Jewish press". However, he later distanced himself from Stoecker who, on the Kaiser's demand had to leave his post at the court. Wilhlem had a good number of Jews very close to him, despite being criticized for it ("Kaiserjuden"). He promoted an unprecedented number of Jews into the position of professor, he made B Dernburg (a Jew) head of the colonial affairs. He personally gave to the bullding of the biggest German Synagogue in Berlin. He repeatedly expressed his disgust at anti-Semitism e.g. in France with the Dreyfuss-affaire which he called the ugliest form of it; in WW I some generals wanted a counting of Jews in the army, to single them out. The Kaiser vetoed it as discriminatory. He also commented later on the Reichskristallnacht, saying he was "devastated" and that "he was ashamed" and "no decent person could tolerate it". In fact, much earlier he had refused calls by some of Germany's autocrats to expell Jews by pointing out that this would be a desaster for Germany. In his years of exile, he did criticize some Jewish movement, but from the above it should be abundantly clear that he was not anti-semitic in any sense.
lol why wouldn’t he congratulate the fall of France? France declared war on Germany and any German would feel pride in defeating a world power in just 6 weeks, especially since Germany failed to do so in 4 years of ww1. Wilhelm was critical of Jews for their business practices, however this never materialised in laws or state policy unlike the 3rd empire.
It is available on Amazon worldwide - thank you for asking! www.amazon.co.uk/Innocence-Kaiser-Wilhelm-II-First/dp/1514759977/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+innocence+of+kaiser+wilhelm&qid=1568452155&s=gateway&sr=8-1
I swear upon my life that I shall see justice done for Germany, and all other nations that have been ethnically and territorially wronged-whenever something evil is reversible-it must be reversed; there are some who make appeals to pragmatism; to them I say: justice is imperative, and it must be done, whatever the cost may be; there some who say it was too long ago; to them I say: as long as the evil persists, justice has her demands, demands that we must strive in the fullest to achieve; then there are those who deny the injustice to begin with; to them I say: these injustices are real, and would be real even if every man, woman, and child denied them; for what is right and what is wrong transcend our feeble minds and command us all to action, whether we say she they do so or not.
I do agree sir, modern Europe is also fast becoming a shithole and putting things right would not only reverse evil, but make things much brighter for the future!
Good interview! Had the exact same impression about him. He was abdicated in the Netherlands & kept under house arrest. Having read, was only able to leave the house premises with a permission - not really 'exhile' was it?
Although Bismarck was a genius, he was the one who wired the German Empire while writing the constitution. He actualy proposed later to disband the empire.
I remember reading his condemnation of National Socialism. Not only did he come off sounding humane, he came off sounding profound. He may not have been a philosopher-king, but he was certainly no dummy. I disagree with Professor (?) Croft's argument that the victorious Allies would have felt defensive about approving the removal from power of a ruler with a spotless personal reputation. Karl of Austria-Hungary has been beatified by the Catholic Church, which is to say he's one proven miracle from sainthood. The Allies still had no objection to seeing him sent packing.
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.
I remember reading something about a yacht party that he was at. Maybe it was in Germany. There's this video of this woman talking about meeting him when she was little on a boat. Could be my brain putting things in the wrong order.
Dear Ms. Croft, I am sure, but he was the textbook example of the Peter principle. But Hell is paved with good intentions. The "Reisekaiser" was also, very probably manic-depressive.
Do you know, why he fired Bismarck? Bismarck was very reactionary, he fuelled a conflict with the Catholics and treid to supress the social democrat movement. He also blocked every attempt by the Kaiser to make laws protecting the working class. This is why the Kaiser fired him, and rightfully he did!
@@AnnieBlackmore You're mistaken in that judgment... The Social Democrats were a real problem and menace for Germany but also the fact that the Socialists were a rising threat all over Europe towards later part of the 19th century and early 20th century... You obviously have not read Kaiser Wilhelm's remarks later on about how he wanted to behead all the social democrats! Kaiser Wilhelm II had great spirit, his heart was in the right place but he was too hasty with decisions and speaking before he thought many times, and this was a major character flaw which also made him not realize the true enemies until it was far too late, sadly...
You know why he fired Bismarck. The eisenkanzler wanted to enforce draconian, labour laws, oppress the lower classes, expell some 20% of the German population for being poles or socialists, and finally disband the entire country just because his junker aristocracy was losing its grip over power to the democratic Reichstag. These Bismarck fanboys always attribute all good to Bismarck and bad to Wilhelm. Besides, as head of state and emperor, he had all rights to dismiss his chancellor.
The Determined Seagull The SDP in the Imperial era was far more loyal to emperor and Reich than other socialist parties. They were t a threat and Bismarck would have turned them into one. Take the Kulturkampf for example.
What you are implying in your response is that the Kaiser in general was out of control when it came to his military. Now, I and few, are not in a position to contradict this. But the buck stops with....! You do not build armed ships and submarines to gain trade. Were you in a position to question his uncle, King Edward VII, or any of his ministers, they would certainly correct your misapprehension. To assert, as you do, 'the French were already in Belgium' is a bit like saying 'the English were already in Scotland'. You must know that Francophone Belgium is intrinsically party of France. Just as Monaco is. You will know the reasons for the 19th C creation of Belgium (a buffer state). I don't think the residents of Scarborough would have been very impressed by your special pleading on behalf of Kaiser Wilhelm. BOTH sides behaved abominably in WW1. (I was a friend of Haig's son). But, just sometimes, universal consensus gets it right, and there is any number of more distinguished older historians than yourself who would have agreed with me, not you. Germany, at that time, whether or not the Kaiser was in control, was a belligerent state. Ask the French, who lost many more than we did during that conflict. As said, any apologist for Hitler could make a good case for his 'humanity' (there is no documentary evidence of his authorizing the holocaust). Be careful in your use of the term 'evil'. This is a religious/moral concept. As I understand it, 'Vicky' , holed up at the German court, was from the outset suspicious of her son's character. If you want to understand this. just view all the newsreel footage of his aggressive militaristic posturing on U-tube. It's all there!
I think it is a great pity that Ella did not feel the same way about Wilhelm, as she would have made a wonderful German Empress. I believe Wilhelm did contribute to the rumours about Serge, but so did a great many other people.
Christina Croft I hope you haven't forgot, that with Auguste Viktoria we had a great empress! Unfortunately most of the Germans have already forgotten her!
I am sorry, AdderEMD, you are quite right and I have not given her a great deal of attention at all. I am so pleased the Wilhelm made a point of praising her in public :-)
Oh I think it did not need the Kaiser to spread these rumors. Sergej was sexually very active so there were many people who could spread the rumors (or the truth to say it better)
On the contrary....Bismarck was trying to provoke the sociaists into protests so that he could urn the army on them to crush them. Wilhelm refused to use his troops against his own people and, when Bismarck continued his machinations and countermanded Wilhelm's orders to different miisterial departments, Wilhelm had no option but to pressurise him to resign.
Christina. I esteem your scholarship. I will read your book. However, I will take a lot of convincing, as will many others - the majority - that the Kaiser 'was desperate to avoid war'. If this were the case, why did he spend 20 years building up his navy to contest the Royal Navy's supremacy on the high seas? Why did he invade Belgium? We all know about his relationship with his grandmother and his mother; his withered arm, childhood torture etc. (fewer know about his homosexuality!). Contingent upon his personality, these factors can scarcely mitigate his political/military decisions. Several of my ancestors bit the dust in Flanders, including my dear grandmother's first and only love. All for nothing! As an 8 yr old in 1962 on a transatlantic liner I sat opposite what I thought to be a very old man. He wasn't. He was blind. He slurped his soup. He had been gassed. The Germans were the first to use gas in warfare. This is historical fact. Why did WW1 break out? Read AJP Taylor. If your desire is to redress the propaganda imbalance with regard to the arch-criminals of history, why not tackle Hitler? He loved dogs. He loved classical music, especially Wagner. He was, it seems, loving to his paramours. His vegetarianism would no doubt win him brownie points in the present. BUT.... he was in fact an egotistical thug, in thrall to a perverted, nationalistic, racialist ideology. Almost as poor a military strategist as Churchill, he was also a coward.. Hence his demise. Read Hugh Trevor-Roper. History is a pick an' mix. As someone brighter than I once opined, 'The future is always the same; the past is always changing'. But you should think long and hard before attempting to redress the accepted version of your Kaiser. ALL sides behaved reprehensibly during the first world war, and the German people were unjustifiably punished by the French at Versailles. I'm guessing you are younger than I? i.e., less prone to the repercussions of wars and the like. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I do hope you will be convinced when you've read the book, Andrew. I would never ever make excuses for Hitler, who was thoroughly evil, and, in spite of his apparent success in WW2, I have little respect for Churchill. The Kaiser is an entirely different person. Yes, he wanted a great navy but, as the First Lord of the British Admiralty said, he had every reason to want one to prosper German trade. Why should he not have a navy? It was never his intention to use it against Britain. The Kaiser opposed the invasion of Belgium but, in fact, the French were already in Belgium when the German arrived. I am only slightly younger than you are - about 8 years - and my grandfather was a prisoner of war in WW1. He told me the Germans were good to him and saved his life on 3 separate occasion. One of my great uncles was gassed; 2 of my great aunts' husbands were killed all fighting for Britain and I admire their courage. By the time gas was used, the Kaiser had been completely side-lined by his Generals. He forbade the bombing of London and the attacks on the East Coast but his orders were ignored. Re. his relationship with his mother - yes, it was difficult for several years, but, for the most part we only read her side of the argument, and even Queen Victoria warned her that she was being unfair to Wilhelm and was being misled by her friends who opposed him. There is much more to say....but it would take an entire book to explain...
Christopher Clark has found the power of Kaiser quite limited in Germany even before mid 1914. After that he was even more figurehead and later Allied made him scapegoat.
I'm irritated, that my namesake is emphasizing the personal side of the kaiser's character, by sounding off like his publicity manager. None of what she says on this issue, negates what Wilhelm was ultimately responsible for. To all those watching this---I suggest you seek out the brilliant BBC Docudrama--'' 37 Days'' , based entirely on all the original main character's involved, almost minute by minute, leading right up to the very moment war was declared, and why. Every statement and decision made, and even telephone discussion, was documented, and archived for a hundred years. They have been held in top secrecy by all the governments involved. First class actors re-enact those who spoke these lines, and a remarkable likeness has been created. I cannot imagine a better recreation than this--as I say, based entirely on original Foreign Office records--AND it's German counter half.
Hello Philip. I have seen the excellent 37 days and have also read many, many other documents, and, regarding the series, I find very little in it to contradict my claims. I don't know whether or not you have read my book, but it contains evidence for all my statements, and I hold firmly to the fact that William was not responsible for the war. Thank you for commenting.
p croft.- what a load of tosh...bbc propaganda...jewish controlled; would expect nothing less! Same control is what instigated WWI & 2...oh and don't forget the napoleonic wars...& the civil wars throughout europe & then the war on Lebanon, Libya, Afganistan, Iraq, vietnam & mass annihilation of 100 million christians in what was Russia (inc Ukraine) & the current war on Syria...now been going for 5 years.....nothing brilliant about the content of that tripe you support; but rather fantastical...that some still believe that contrived garbage...United Nations, global corporations,,,,including the BBC & UK crown corporation, law society & judicial corp & IMF & world bank group totally enslaving mankind...which christian leader is your antichrist conglomerate going to blame for the last 100 years of atrocities on world. Just a small snip of what the world is still suffering today at the hands of the shysters you support. www.collective-evolution.com/2018/01/29/agent-orange-24-bone-chilling-photos-of-the-war-crime-the-us-government-got-away-with/ & www.scribd.com/document/150782415/Iraqi-Birth-Defects-Worse-Than-Hiroshima & www.mintpressnews.com/depleted-uranium-iraq-wars-legacy-cancer/193338/ & www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/13/world-health-organisation-iraq-war-depleted-uranium Either you are totally ignorant...but in this day an age is not really acceptable or you are part of the same ilk..covering up the crimes of your brethren.
Another autocrat who could not distinguish the difference between dealing with people versus a nation. You can't rage against a nation and not understand there will be ramifications that are very different than directing anger against a person. He pillaged Namibia, bullied Cameroon from France, and stormed thru Belgium as if it was irrelevant. He deserves his reputation.
The Kaiser opposed the invasion of Belgium and was completely unaware of the horrors in Namibia until after the event. He was not really an autocrat as the German Emperor because he was subject to the Reichstag.
This is clearly not a historian, if this interview is anything to go by. "He could have been an excellent kaiser, but for a 100 years he has been seen in a terrible light." is just the start of the non-sequitors and endless groundless revisions. Wilhelm was of course not 'responsible' for the war, and yes his parents and childhood were risible but this degree of fanciful revisionism is laughable at best. His instability and Trump-like profound narcissism were a primary force of instability for decades. (man, am I gonna get it for these comments :) )
Someone who relies on a sober, objective and credible reading of all available sources and presents their findings in a sound context. The wartime propaganda that you seem to rely on (the UK press could at times before the war be utterly obsequious in regard to Willy) show how poor Wilhelm's character was assassinated may have worked on the British public (and British wartime propaganda WAS way over the top, as was the mendacity of certain British naval planners) but serious historians - in this case John Rohl's 3 volume masterpiece stands out - look far beyond this. His post-war anti-semitic ramblings, as but one example, certainly don't speak well for posterity. Please don't take this personally and accept my apologies for having no desire to read your book - time constraints! - but Wilhelm was not a victim in any meaningful way. The evidence overwhelming indicates that he was a deeply flawed, racist, egomaniacal hysteric autocrat bent on the militaristic supremacy of Germany. In my humble estimation he was mostly a buffoon whose childhood sufferings - Hinzpeter has a lot to answer for! - made him utterly unsuited to wield the surfeit of power he held, esp at such a critical point in Europe's developemnt. Nicholas II was just as disastrous, but for different reasons... Warm regards & all the best
@@tymanski1 "Anti Semitic rambles..." How so? Exactly what do you mean? This is hard to imagine, since he supported Hertzl. Please tell your source. As to "historians", please consider this: Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm was the most advanced country on this planet, particularly socially. Consequently, as early as 1886 the campaign "Germany must Perish" was launched in British papers. Compare the lifes of a British worker and a German worker at the time and there you will have one reason for war and massive anti-German propaganda. After all, at a time when a British subject could be sent to the colonies for stealing a loaf of bread, the German worker had health insurance, retirement and paid vacation; child labour was abolished in 1895.
The evidence is overwhleming that these advanced social safety nets were in place in spite of Wilhelm, certainly not because of any of his personal initiatives. In fact one of (the many) the contributing factors to the war breaking out in 1914 was the warmongering German general staff terrified of a reichstag that was becoming increasingly dominated by socialists (good ol kulturkampf) that would be less enthusiastic for war - for the moment the Kaiser still unilaterally controlled foreign policy and the army. As a simple response on sources, I mentioned John Rohl's authoritative biography on Willy. Once you've read that (I'm betting you haven't) you can reference the hundreds of primary sources in the bibliography. A less sprawling recent collection of essays is 'The Kaiser: New Research on Wilhelm II's Role in Imperial Germany'. Being in favourr of a Zionist movement that promises to 'rid' Europe of most of its Jews would indeed be something Willy would be behind. Don't forget that the National Socialist program was in favour of emigration right up to 1941. As an historian and teacher, I don't rely on imagination much; it's still hard to imagine how 60 million American voted for an orange turd. And like trump, Wilhelm was a deeply flawed insecure narcissist with far too much power. Peace.
@@tymanski1 Well, it seems we mean two different men. I don't know about your evidence and since you give no sources, I can't say anything about this. But I am speaking of the man, who made Germany the most prosperous nation on this planet with the richest population as an average. This is also, why socialists and communists weren't too successful at the time in Germany. As to Jews, they had full citizen's rights since 1822, I believe. Anyhow, much much earlier than in your country. We had many, many jewish politicians and others in the highest positions. If anyone would have minded them, Russian jews certainly wouldn't have been given refuge. Many Russian Jews also studied at German universities, since they were not admitted to Russian ones. The book you mentioned I do not know and I wouldn't read it, since I only read autobiographies of historic people, if available. And Wilhelm II writes very intelligently and with great warmth.
This is wrong, wrong, wrong history. Special pleading. This Kaiser, whatever his personal merits, was quite determined to break his grandmother's nation's international hegemony, and would go to any lengths to achieve his aim.. He nursed a grudge from birth. The result of his personal ambition was millions of dead in the mud of Flanders. Thanks to the treacherous Dutch he survived into a happy old age. By rights he should have been hanged, just as the WW2 war-mongers were (except of course the cowards who committed suicide). To try to whitewash his image is an historical crime, and an insult to all those of several nations who died young (unlike he!) as a result of his violent arrogance.
I appreciate your point of view but you are quite mistaken. The Kaiser did everything in his power to prevent war. By 1912, he had little authority over his ministers, and he loved England (and his English grandmother) and was desperate to avoid war. May I recommend you read the book as the evidence for what I have written/said it contained in it. As the great niece of a young English man who was killed at Ypres, and whose story I heard since my childhood, I spent many, many years of my life trying to find out why he died and why the war broke out. This book is the result of a great deal of research.
Andrew Gibbon-Wilson "Cowards who committed suicide..." Disagree. This was seen as the highest sacrifice to be given to one's country, and as a matter of personal integrity. Hitler wrote about this principle in "Mein Kampf", in the chapter describing democracy as opposed to Germanic democracy, where the chieftain or leader assumes very personal responsibility - with his own life when failing.
The Kaiser certainly did not commit suicide. He lived on to enjoy his luxurious retirement thanks to the Dutch. Those Nazi criminals who did, merely did so to avoid the ignominy of the noose. Not in the least interested in 'His Struggle'. What about all those millions who had to 'struggle' to survive thanks to his perverted pursuit of his ideology. History has made its judgement and this is the correct one. No special pleading for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, or any of the other megalomaniacs who besmirched the culture of the last century.
@@andrewgibbon-williams7974 Well Sir, you are riding a very high horse. But if this is your opinion, well then it's your opinion; knowledge it is not. I prefer to go deeper into subjects. "History has made its judgement". No. The winner has written history. And "besmirched" is the winner as well. In WW I for Versailles, and what followed, in WW II the UK for declaring war on Germany, and the allies for the mass murder on German citizens, the destruction of around 1000 cities and towns, and forced starvation on the German populous until 1948. We in Germany are confronted heavily with these ca 30 years of history, and I feel it is high time the other parties do the same as far as their countries are concerned. One last thing: House Doorn was bought by the Kaiser; he was no financial burden on his Dutch relatives!
Of course I agree, Elizabeth: the victors write and pervert the history. The mass murder of innocent German citizens by Bomber Harrris and his ilk was indeed a war crime. Hitler's Germany had already been vanquished. There is no excuse. But you always have to bear in mind that the Luftwaffe had no intention of sparing London. Many thousands died as a result of the blitz. Perhaps your grandparents voted for a 'gangster regime'. Who knows? It was not the British who reaped revenge; it was the Russians. Primarily. No post-war-born German should feel any guilt. My generation of German friends are the most open-minded and civilized in Europe, taking up the great culture of Germany which preceded the Nazis. It must be very difficult growing up on soil on which mass-barbarity - unknown since the Middle Ages - took place. I sympathize. If the Kaiser still had the Deutsche marks to buy Doorn then he shouldn't have had. It was all inherited money anyway. Probably from his grandmother.
My home city in Norway actually suffered a big fire back in 1904 which resulted in burning down most of the city.
3 days later Kaiser Wilhelm shows up in person with 1 warship and 2 civilian ships to provide food and supplies for the approximately 10 000 people who had just become homeless due to the fire.
Not just that, but he also provided extensive amount of funds to reconstruct the city, and this time in stone. The city was rebuilt basically from scratch, and in an architectural style called "Jugendstil" or "Art Nouveau".
A lot of these buildings still stand today. As a sign of appreciation we've constructed a monolith in his name in our city park. We also have a nightclub/bar named after him. And one of our main streets in downtown is also named after him. The city's name is Ålesund.
Kaiser Wilhelm could have very easily turned a blind eye, but instead he shows up in person and helps reconstruct a relatively unknown city which had been reduced to ashes. If that's not a good leader, then idk what is.
Kaiser Wilhelm was a good friend of Norway. He made frequent visits. I've always had positive impressions of him, and ive never blamed him for starting WW1. Atleast not in the same way as Hitler could be blamed for WW2. He was a human being, who probably had his imperfections. But i'd say he atleast tried to be a good leader, and not just towards germans.
What a beautiful comment! Yes, he was a good man with a very kind heart! It is lovely that the Norwegian city honoured him :-)
What city was that?
@@vetarlittorf1807 It’s called Ålesund. It’s on the western coast somewhere between Bergen and Trondheim.
@@GamesCooky That's amazing! He was kinder than I thought. I always knew he had flaws like being insecure and impulsive, but I always knew he loved his people, unlike Bismarck who only loved the Prussian elite.
It's not fair to blame Wilhelm for the Great War when he did everything to prevent it. In fact, I blame the British for the lead up to it and Austria for starting it. Germany didn't even send a blank cheque, they simply said that Serbia must be taught a lesson and the Austrian ministers interpreted that as an unconditional support.
@@vetarlittorf1807 It would be unfair to compare him to Hitler.
WW1 was like a domino effect of diplomatic failures which resulted in all great powers joining the war.
Sure, Wilhelm's personality quirks probably didn't make him a very good diplomat. But he shouldn't carry the sole blame for WW1.
All participating great powers were to blame for failing to prevent this conflict.
Thank you so much for this book. It took a brave English lady to write it.
Thank you so much :-)
Brave but deluded.
I would like to echo the sentiment of gratitude. Indeed, it probably takes an English lady to look through a web of propaganda and lies. Rarely, if ever, one comes across an account that tries to give an accurate picture rather than a mere character assassination - not least so in Germany. A commentator below calls her 'deluded' but I think she has, after having actually researched the topic, gotten to a fair conlusion. Most people simply reiterate what probably is delusional: the monster, the war-monger, the Germans as the cause of all wars and all evil. However, the main reason for that is, I believe, to whitewash the British and (partly) US role in the wars and the fact that Britain initiated them with the aim (amongst others) to devastate Germany. Anybody trying to challenge the paradigm of the disinterested warden of democracy and justice will be attacked. Now when I say Britain, I refer to a certain 'elite' - a club that deems dominion to be excellence. As a German having lived and travelled extensively in Britain, I know there is another side to that country and to its people - and just as the country is one of gentle hills and tempered climate, there are no few examples of exquisite fairness and equity. Thank you for being one of them. Oh, and I've read the book in a day...
*provides no evidence for his point
@@fredarcher7264, really? Speaking as an armchair historian, or just an opinionated, uneducated asshole? If anything, you could more easily blame diplomats/world leaders and their dogmatic reliance and adherence to interlacing treaties that DEMANDED countries go to war. But you go ahead and slavishly follow the indoctrination you received at your bullshit primary school.
I really appreciate historians like you and Christopher clark that give a more neutral picture of pre-ww2 Germany. I believe its harmful, among alot of things, to the mentality of contemporary germans to portray, say the kaiser, as malicious and as a predecessor to Hitler. The idea of "Sonderweg" that has been inprinted in germany is far too negative, and serves no other purpose than to highlight that history is truly written by the victor.
Nice profile pic
There are some photographs online with Wilhelm II and his grandsons and other children. These photos show a side of Wilhelm II that would surprise many and say a lot about The Kaiser. In these pictures, the children, especially his grandsons, are totally at their ease around him and have snuggled up to him. And The Kaiser's demeanour in these photos are also of lightness of contentment.
Kaiser Willhelm II is my hero, I'm 100% getting this book...
Always remember that Germany would have been better off governed by the Hohenzollerns than the National Socialists. In 1933 it came down to that as Hindenburg would have liked to restore the monarchy but did not have the force of will. We all know what happened next.
@Fritz Basset, the Hohenzollerns would have been better off governing without endorsing and emancipating the Kosher Mafia as part of the Prussian Empire, and to completely abandon Protestantism and religious viewpoints / prejudices that were a complication for Germany... The National Socialists left a permanent mark of Prussian Spirit. It was a response to the extreme destruction of Imperial Germany and the unfair Treaty of Versailles. National Socialism is merely the appropriate response for such an era and country they lived in as the only possible way Germany could have revived itself and escaped anarchy and total chaos.
Ja
The national socialists are also extensively lied about probably to a greater degree than the kaiser. While I dont support all their philosophies particularly the non consensual euthanasia of the retarded, their aims and policies have been so misrepresented that it takes months to unpack the inversions and distortions. I don’t want to be misunderstood, so to be clear I certainly do not support anything such as expansionism, ethnic supremacy, extreme Darwinism etc, these are largely projection and lies used to justify the appalling tragedy that was the Second World War, and how national socialism is portrayed in Hollywood and modern academia is something I would hate as much as you, but the reality is quite different from that which we are indoctrinated. All I’m going to say to spark a discussion, is this:
In September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland after 2 years of polish refusal to negotiate over the issue of control of Danzig (a 95% German city) Britain and France declared war on Germany and refused multiple peace offers, however when the USSR invaded Poland 2 weeks later no such international outrage was heard, and when Russia also annexed the Baltic states, Finland and attacked half of Romania in 1940 equally nothing was really said.
The important point is that in 1939 the kill count of the new German regime was probably around 1000 executed political prisoners, and around 25,000 people in work camps, contrast to this Stalin’s victims were probably 10 million dead, so from the context of 1940, we sided with the clearly more evil regime and escalated the war out of proportion. I think this should raise an eyebrow at the ‘morality’ of allied intervention
@@thedeterminedseagull4360 saying that for Kaiser Wilhelm II to give up his religious views to completely rule as being something he should have done goes against the man’s beliefs. He was a very religious man like all Prussian kings and actively believed that his mission from God wasn’t to use Germany as an instrument to bring Gods glory on earth, but that his mission was to use whatever he had to help make Germany a better place for its people weather they be Germans, Polish, Danish, Lithuanian, or French. Under his rule minority received better treatment then under any former Prussian king especially the Polish who even his great great great great Uncle King Fredric the Great thought of as lessers. Wilhelm believed that for a nations leader to be effective at leading a prosperous and strong nation they need to be not just a family man, but a religious man, seeing Hitlers lack of faith in God as being a sign of someone not fit to govern over others.
I'm now reading this book and find it both interesting and well written!! An excellent read for those interested in both history and to some degree in a family conflicts and their effects in/on history!!!
I feel very sad for him. He had such a painful early life. The treatments started when he was only a baby which were barbaric and cruel. Then through no fault of his own he was made to feel like a failure by his family over a problem he was born with .
Ja Ich sad
Thank you Mrs Croft for your courage and honesty to tell the true story about this kind, decent and devout Christian man, who dearly loved his grandmother, Queen Victoria, who requested for him to be there at her side in her last days. I will be ordering your book and look forward to reading it!
I have it as an Audiobook on my IPOD. Absolutely outstanding to listen to. After listening to the real truth about the Kaiser, I have a lot of admiration and respect for him. Especially he tried so hard to build an eternal friendship and alliance with the United States of America.
I just bought the book and can't wait to read it. Thank you for getting the true facts of the Kaiser out, Mrs. Croft.
Thank you so much for buying the book. I hope you enjoy it. If you do, please spread the word!
Thanks for responding, Madame. I am certain the information contained therein will be highly educational. You can count on me to spread the word. By the way, I come from Germany. Kaiser Wilhelm II. is portrayed and pictured here as a incompetent person with many, not so good intentions. It tells you something when historians and authors from our surrounding/neighboring countries are looking back and reappraise the past in a much different way than our own folks. We are fed (brainwashed?) so much utter garbage on a daily basis that it has become hard to endure. Usually, truth-seekers have to rely on foreign sources to find out what really happened and not what they want us to believe. Of course, that is not particularly well appreciated by the local powers that be. Thank you for taking part in getting the real truth out, Mrs. Croft.
Your book should be required reading for anyone teaching WW1 history
Thank you so much!
Madame Croft, thank so much for this insight about the Kaiser. I knew for a long time, from my own humble research, that this man was really innocent. And as English lady, to tell the truth about the Kaiser, takes a lot of courage and sincerity. Chapeau!!! Hopefully I can buy your book in the Netherlands before I go to his last stay in Doorn.
Thank you for your lovely comment. It was fortunate that Wilhelm found a refuge in your beautiful country.
Dear Mrs@@ChristinaCroft , I had a question about the Crown prince Wilhelm. He also had bad reputation during WW1. He is in the history books and documentaries portrayed as: incompetent, advocate of prolonging the war with little regard for the life of his soldiers, arrogant and unreachable for his subordinates. He was by the way also hated by the Nazis. Is this image of the crown prince also a product of the propaganda of the allies?
Christine, I would disagree with you on one point you mentioned in your interview, Kaiser Wilhelm was not an autocrat any more than the president of the U.S. is an autocrat. He appointed the chancellor and the other ministers; however, he was unable to enact laws or to prorogue parliament at a whim.
The German Empire and Prussia both had bicameral parliaments which were responsible for passing the laws. As head of the executive branch of government, the Kaiser was responsible for enforcing those laws. There was also an independent judiciary.
Thank you for clarifying :-)
In that case Christina was somewhat correct. The Kaiser has a pretty powerful hand in the government and would probably be concidered an autocrat... Just not at a full extent.
@Tsar Nicholas II and here we are, we see eachother once again
@@hodor9851 correct!
I'm a prussian. Thanks for this book.
Very informative few minutes. Some of these things i knew and some i did not. I am definitely getting the Book, to read for myself and that is a high compliment because i used to read 3-5 large volume books every month, and am down to 1 in the same period, Thanks Christina, Love your voice!
Thank you, John :-)
I will definitely have to read this when I find the time. I have always felt bad for the Kaiser, while he was not perfect and had his blunders I do believe he wanted the best for his people. He has been absolutely disgraced by Allied propaganda, even after he went into exile. Now we are left a Germany that is ashamed of its glorious years under the German Empire, partially due to the hatred for the Kaiser, planted by the Allies.
I read “The Sleepwalkers” from C. Clark which - though not completely- points into a similar direction regarding Germany’s role in the outbreak of WWI. Now I am hearing with interest about Croft’s book. Being a German it is good to see that scholars outside Germany take a different position than modern German historiography did since the 1960s, which was confirming Germany’s major guilt compared to other European powers related to the “Kriegsschuldfrage” ( Question who is guilty for the War). I never believed that Germany had a major guilt in that. But the Kaiser was a child of his time as were all the other monarchs and other governments ruling Europe in 1914. They all failed because it was impossible for anybody at that time to understand the consequences of this war. Yet, the victors wrote the history afterwards and Wilhelm was blamed for everything. This did certainly no justice to this man.
Als eine Ergänzung zu Clark möchte ich Wiederkehr der Hasardeure von Wolfgang Effenberger und Willy Wimmer empfehlen. Diese geben einen weiterreichenden Einblick in die Geschichte der Zeit und deren Beziehungen zu unserer Zeit.
Christina-I to enjoyed this interview, and I've always admired how you ( For lack of a better term ) humanized these so-called villains of history. The Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand was another that received a bum rap. From what I've gathered, his plan was for peace for the empire he was to eventually rule, and that was why he was eliminated in my opinion. It seems to me that Franz Joseph is the one who gets a free pass here as he was the one who started everything not the Kaiser. You probably don't remember me, I asked you if would do something on the Boer war some time ago. Anyway I wish you all the best and keep up the excellent work-Dave
Thank you, Dave. I couldn't agree with you more about Franz Ferdinad! I sincerely believe that, had he lived, history would have been very different.
Looking forward to reading this book. Thank you for your scholarship.
Thank you, Charliejdk :-)
Thank you for your outstanding books!
+Linda Watkin Thank you so much, Linda. I greatly appreciate your kindness in commenting :-)
Gott schütze den Kaiser!
As a fifth generation German American, who had family, fought and died in WW1, for the Kaiser, I thank you, ma'am. Thank you so much for showing the truth. I am almost done reading your book and I have been truly astonished. The Kaiser was such a great man, with flaws, like everyone else. Not some warmongering beast, like Hitler. I hope he rest with great peace, now.
Thank you, again.
My family who fought and died for the Kaiser.
Wilhelm Friedrich born December 11, 1880. Kill in action on the 26 of Aug. 1917
Friedrich born September 5, 1884. Kill in action on July 28 1918 in France.
Johann Gottfried born August 6, 1886. Went missing in action on the 30 of August 1914.
All three brothers never to return back home.
Thank you for your kind comment. I am sorry for the deaths of your family members. I too had family members killed fighting for Britain (three great uncles who were very young at the time and two of whom were brothers) and my grandfather was a prisoner of war. He worked in a salt mine and, although he never really spoke of his experiences, he said that the German doctors saved his life on 3 separate occasions: once when he was wounded and captured; and twice when he was injured in the mine. Although they were 'enemies', he spoke highly of the Germans. I agree, Wilhelm was never a warmonger - he did everything possible to maintain peace and then to bring about an end to the war. He was treated abominably by propagandists and the Allies.
@@ChristinaCroft God bless you, ma'am. I am sorry for your lost, too, and thank God, your grandfather returned. Thank you for sharing.
Friedrich passed on my birthday. RIP to all of them, brave to give up their lives to fight. ❤❤
Was linked this video on Facebook. Just ordered the book!
+Emile Knetemann Thank you!! :-)
Thank you for this book. I will read it sometime.
Britain wanted the war for strategic reasons. Britain could not allow Germany to overtake her no matter what. The only solution was the dismemberment of Germany and the destruction of its economy.
The Kaiser however could have prevented war by discouraging Austria from attacking Serbia. I doubt the Austrians would have done it alone.
Poor man. I want to cry.
Yasmin Baron he started world war 1 and you want to cry??? You’re a fucking idiot!!!
@@Patrick3183 it was Gavrillo Princip who started the war not Wilhelm
Thank you Maam to have corrected the líes of the Victors !
Thank you :-)
This was a man who gave up his throne and took most of the blame for WW1 on his shouilders for the sake pf peace.
...and for the good of his country, although he was betrayed by the subsequent Treaty of Versailles.
He was a good peacetime monarch.
Between 1888-1914 Germany became the most prosperous and advanced nation in the world, which says something. But he simply lacked the steely and ruthless vigour required of a war leader and essentially handed over power to Ludendorff and Hindenburg.
As for his good relation with his British grandmother Victoria; she probably noticed his striking likeness with his maternal grandfather Albert, which also could have been the reason why his uncle Edward VII disliked him so thouroughly. Be it conscious or subconscious.
Absolutely, the monstrous anti christian people that run the financial world pulled all the strings...they smile while they stab in the back...have been doing it for centuries. Following the Kaisers refusal to enter into conflict with Turkey (if he supported the zionists request for their demand of isreal state in palestine) spelled the end for the Kaiser. They are a malicious people and make no mistake they plot and carry out their agenda...even if it spans generations.....just as they did with the Czar of Russia. On both occasions they made sure that they annihilated millions of christians & then after all their wheeling and dealing came out the victors and carved up the remains and write history to suit themselves , which is far from reality (leaving out their atrocious deeds and point the finger in the wrong direction). They dominate the world of print, media, music, arts, entertainment, politics, education & most importantly wield the power of the financial world - still always claim the victim or the minority.
@@waltertaljaard1488 True... Ludendorff was at least a loyal and significant, very intelligent figure... Hindenburg ended up being incompetent.
Do you think Wilhelm had a quick wit and humor? That's how I image him being because of his insecurities about his withered arm.
Would love to know the movie
Not to forget he was called "the peace kaiser" by a very relevant American newspaper article. I think it was The New York Times...
Yes, the peace Kaiser; and Roosevelt called him 'the apostle of peace.' Thank you for your comment!
@@ChristinaCroft no problem ;D
I'd love to buy this book!
Thank you for sharing this christina!
Very interesting interview and I have enjoyed reading Queen Victoria's Grandsons.
+expatmartin Thank you very much :-)
I shall include this book for my library.
As an admirer of Wilhelm 2 I am glad a british lady sets the record straight - this man reigned Germany in the Kaiserreich- a time every decent German holds dear ! The protestant Kaiser was not trying hard - he was getting the job done - study the economy, the arts , society and constitution!
Thank you - I agree!
The First Sea Lord, John Fisher, who was religious fanatic that believed (like Cecil Rhodes and so many others) that England was destined to rule the world, suggested several times to Edward VII to attack and destroy the German Navy with a pre-emptive surprise attack without declaration of war, as the Royal Navy had done against the Danish Navy during the Napoleonic Wars. This is well documented, as well as the great number of British articles from 1904 to 1910 calling for the destruction of Germany.
I'd be very interested in reading those articles? Can you point me to them?
@@vetarlittorf1807 I will have to look in my files. This fragment from Wikipedia about anti-German hysteria in Britain BEFORE WW1 will be a good introduction:
"Newspaper publisher Lord Alfred Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe in 1894 commissioned author William Le Queux to write the serial novel The Great War in England in 1897, which featured France and Russia combining forces to crush Britain. Happily, German intervention on Britain's side turned back France and Russia. Twelve years later, however, Harmsworth asked him to reverse enemies, making Germany the villain. The result was the bestselling The Invasion of 1910, which originally appeared in serial form in the Daily Mail in 1906. Harmsworth now used his newspapers like "Daily Mail" or "The Times" to attack Berlin, inducing an atmosphere of paranoia, mass hysteria and Germanophobia that would climax in the Naval Scare of 1908-09"
I bought this book a while ago but haven't had a chance to read very far. I think it will be especially interesting now that I have read The Romanovs by Simon Sebag Montefiore which deals with the same bits of history at the end, and mentions the Kaiser a few times.
The purpose of historians is to keep the record straight despite all feelings towards the contrary.
Which is largely what Christina is doing. It’s shocking how the mainstream is more or less a political agenda rather than objective
Dear Mrs. Croft, thank You so much for this interview. It made me order the book. I am looking forward to read it !Your book will be a good addition to the very objective biography Christopher Clark has written. It is good to know, that the - though monumental, but very tendentious three volumes of John C. G. Röhl - are no longer the only current voice on this Topic !!As Your interview-Partner said, it is particularily intersting to hear about the emperor's attitude towards the nationalsocialistic regime. May i add a quote, the Kaiser made, after Hearing about the terrible 'Reichscristal-Night: He said: " For the first time in my live i am ashamed to be a German". If he would have lived Long enough to hear about the Holocaust, he defenetily would have condemmed it in a similar way. As You mention Sir Winston Churchill, who we all owe the libartion of Europe form Faschism: Towards the end of the Second World War he said, that it was a big mistake to dethrone the Kaiser, because he never would have given Hitler the Office of the Reichkanzler...For me the most moving Picture of the last century is a photograph taken during a maneuver in Silesia ( i think it was in 1909), to which Churchill was invited to attend by the Kaiser. It Shows the two men in a conversation.What a pitty, that these two great men, did not had the Chance to work together for a prosperous and peaceful future of our both countries an the whole of Europe.
+Semper .Talis Thank you for your lovely comment; I am so pleased you enjoyed the interview - there was so much more to say and I hope to discuss this subject further shortly. I had not heard the Kaiser's response to the 'crystal night' - it says so much - thank you for telling me of it. I know the picture you mean about the Kaiser and Churchill together. Had he been allowed to remain Kaiser, the whole future of Europe would, I am sure, have been so different and so much more peaceful. Thank you again for commenting and I hope you enjoy the book!
cool- i'm going to order this. thanx-john von schramm
Thank you, John!
Poor Wilhelm, a victim at birth, victimized, villainized and betrayed by both nation and his foes, Bismarck warned him he listened but his hands were tied in the end,
I am glad that there is an attempt to paint a more balanced picture of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Croft's points are well taken that his image in the UK and the USA was distorted. However, the Kaiser was not blameless for Germany getting into WWI. Even if we accept the argument that there were strong forces in Britain and France advocating war with Germany from 1905 onwards Croft fails to mention that Germany gave aid and comfort to those forces by going on a naval armaments binge that only confirmed Britain and France's worst fears. Croft also fails to mention that the Kaiser made a fateful blunder in giving Austria-Hungary the blank check to pursue Serbia. Everyone knew that Serbia was protected by Russia and that going too far there would lead to Russian intervention. Keep in mind Germany declared war on Russia once the Tsar mobilized his forces and declared war on France and Belgium a few days later. Thus, the Kaiser threw the first punch. The Kaiser invaded neutral Belgium in order to invade France for the quickl kill. Thus, while I agree that Wilhelm was not a monster like Hitler he was in no way innocent. He showed very bad judgment that led to a disaster that is still with us today. Croft does make a good point that neither the British, French nor the Belgians were wholly innocent. Britain and France had secretly planned for the war and Belgium was neutral in name only. Had Britain refused to go to war then it is unlikely that Russia would have mobilized. Thus, most of the belligerants were at fault and Germany was a little more at fault and took the fatal steps that launched the war.
Rick Jones well, Wilhelm II actually advised austria-hungary to arrange themselves with serbia. it was Moltke who gave austria-hungary the blank check and assured german protection without the Kaisers knowledge or approval.
Rick Jones perhaps if you read the speech given by the American/Jewish business man Benjamin FREEDMAN at the WILLARD Hotel in Washington DC another reason for this war would be revealed to you. I agree with Christina Craft that Wilhelm II was greatly demonized by the ZIONISTS and the Britishers who many such as Churchill needed financial support from the Rothschild bankers.
Kaiser Wilhelm II did not create the plan for invading neutral countries and he personally opposed the invasion of Belgium. What, however, was Germany supposed to do, once the country was encircled?
Absolutely, Ruth! Churchill behaved appallingly throughout the war, forcing the Germans into unrestricted submarine warfare by his false flags and naval vessels disguised as merchant ships. He actually said that he LOVED war and he must take a lot of the blame for the loss of life on the Lusitania.
It seems that all these wars are banker wars with the added benefit to some who like Churchill need to achieve fame and glory. My heart goes out to all those who suffered such misery due to the few who salivate over mayhem and destruction. Thank you for your honest research Ms Craft.
God bless for exposing the truth, Christina.
I listened to your interview. Bought the book online tonight because of this interview. I have always tried to be fair to Wilhelm, and although I did not like him much at first given my American education, I started to question the events that started WWI and Germany's guilt....and although both the Kaiser and Germany were no angels, I do not think either are treated well, and I'm shocked at German historians who chose to separate themselves by jumping on the band wagon. I;m rather surprised than an Englishwoman would write such a book. I find the most anti-German people tend to be either Jewish (understandable) or British....which I find rather puzzling given Britain suffered a lot less than most other countries in WWI and WWII so I suspect your comments about propaganda ring true. That said, you must be a very courageous person. I hope your opinion has not resulted in any abuse. I suspect I may be reading more of your books.
Thank you for your very kind and interesting comment and thank you for buying the book. Like you, I grew up believing Wilhelm was a warmonger and an unpleasant man but, as I began to look more deeply into the actualities of events leading to WW1, I realised that this was not the case at all. I think the propaganda here in Britain was so successful that it is still believed today and I hope my book goes some way to setting the record straight.
This is Very True I was very shocked wenn i found this out and Wasn't he Making Germany a Constitutional Monarchy
I allways Thought that Churchill was a Hero but wenn i found out that he Just Raised Neutral Flags and Then attacked the German Uboots
I hated him from that Point on. I would Like to see this Book Famous So the World Can find out.
Shoutout to my boi Kaiser Wilhelm
His problem was that he did not realise that Von Moltke and the German General Staff were hell bent on destroying Russias military capability before the French had finalised the upgrading of Russias military by 1918. Wikipedias “July Crisis “ has the gory detail
Wow! His mother was beautiful 13:48!
You also forgot one thing: Wilhelm was one handsome guy when he was young.
if you found this brilliant book informative and enlightening, you may also like a comparable work on the last Emperor of Austria-Hungary. It id titled "Karl und Zita" but unfortunately can only be found in German. An English version is very sorely needed,
Thank you for the recommendation! I do hope they will translate the Karl book into English as it sounds wonderful.
❤️ Thank You ❤️
I need to look into this, see what side is really true. History IS written by the victors much of the time
He did say this pretty cool quote though:
"The Germans will curse the flag with the swastika and one day burn it!"
He also said after one of the Nazis Pergues "For the first time I am ashamed to be German"
As a citizen of America (who fought for the allies because he attacked us) I can definitely say I've been raised around the traditional Pre-Hitler Version of him
It doesn't matter, World War One was just a regular war. There were no badguys or good guys, just nations fighting eachother
80 IQ take, pretty embarrassing how you still believe the mainstream view of ww2
There is something bothering me in mind... I admire the Kaiser and all, but I know that he sent a telegram to Hitler (referring to him as "Mein Führer") in 1940, congratulating him for the fall of France. Now, I know that Wilhelm and Hitler had a cold frenemy feeling towards each other, since Hitler banned all monarchist parties and symbols when the Nazis took power, but it feels strange when he congratulated him for defeating France. I also have some other questions:
What did Wilhelm think of Poland's independance after the Great War?
Why did he refuse the offer to seek asylum in Britain and the Throne of a Defeated World War 2 Germany from Winston Churchill?
And finally, was he really anti-semitic?
I understand the kaiser appreciated the offer of sanctuary made in1940 but felt it would have been inappropriate for him to go to stay in an enemy country. The reality of course that it would have lost what feelings ordinary Germans may have felt for him and put members of his family and their possessions at risk. I think the telegram to Hitler was understandable as he like many Germans must have been pleased to see their enemies defeated and it might have been surly of him not to congratulate the current leader. Mercifully he never lived to see the suffering and destruction that also came with the nazi government
Many people in those days in Europe had varying degrees of anti Semitic feelings and unfortunately the kaiser’s habit of getting carried away with his remarks and speeches didn’t help. There are many instances of him showing support for his Jewish subjects and his friendships with Jewish people so I don’t believe his anti Semitic feelings were deeply founded
1) Asylum in Britain: I think he understood that Britain had brought war on Germany and refused therefore.
2) "Anti-Semitic" is such a broad word. However, if you mean that he was anti-Jewish as in against Judaism or indeed felt that Jews 'as a race' were condemnable, then he certainly wasn't.
Why? Some claims of "anit-semitism" have been raised bc of his connection with the court preacher Adolf Stoecker. In his young years, before becoming Kaiser, he did indeed say someting about the "influence of the Jewish press". However, he later distanced himself from Stoecker who, on the Kaiser's demand had to leave his post at the court. Wilhlem had a good number of Jews very close to him, despite being criticized for it ("Kaiserjuden"). He promoted an unprecedented number of Jews into the position of professor, he made B Dernburg (a Jew) head of the colonial affairs. He personally gave to the bullding of the biggest German Synagogue in Berlin. He repeatedly expressed his disgust at anti-Semitism e.g. in France with the Dreyfuss-affaire which he called the ugliest form of it; in WW I some generals wanted a counting of Jews in the army, to single them out. The Kaiser vetoed it as discriminatory. He also commented later on the Reichskristallnacht, saying he was "devastated" and that "he was ashamed" and "no decent person could tolerate it". In fact, much earlier he had refused calls by some of Germany's autocrats to expell Jews by pointing out that this would be a desaster for Germany.
In his years of exile, he did criticize some Jewish movement, but from the above it should be abundantly clear that he was not anti-semitic in any sense.
lol why wouldn’t he congratulate the fall of France? France declared war on Germany and any German would feel pride in defeating a world power in just 6 weeks, especially since Germany failed to do so in 4 years of ww1.
Wilhelm was critical of Jews for their business practices, however this never materialised in laws or state policy unlike the 3rd empire.
Wow, there's a book about this? how can I get it
It is available on Amazon worldwide - thank you for asking! www.amazon.co.uk/Innocence-Kaiser-Wilhelm-II-First/dp/1514759977/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+innocence+of+kaiser+wilhelm&qid=1568452155&s=gateway&sr=8-1
Im so interested in learning more about The Kaiser Wilhelm so interesting
I swear upon my life that I shall see justice done for Germany, and all other nations that have been ethnically and territorially wronged-whenever something evil is reversible-it must be reversed; there are some who make appeals to pragmatism; to them I say: justice is imperative, and it must be done, whatever the cost may be; there some who say it was too long ago; to them I say: as long as the evil persists, justice has her demands, demands that we must strive in the fullest to achieve; then there are those who deny the injustice to begin with; to them I say: these injustices are real, and would be real even if every man, woman, and child denied them; for what is right and what is wrong transcend our feeble minds and command us all to action, whether we say she they do so or not.
I do agree sir, modern Europe is also fast becoming a shithole and putting things right would not only reverse evil, but make things much brighter for the future!
Good interview! Had the exact same impression about him. He was abdicated in the Netherlands & kept under house arrest. Having read, was only able to leave the house premises with a permission - not really 'exhile' was it?
Not house arrest, asylum, under the protection of Queen Wilhelmina He was free to go were he pleased, technically.
It was von Moltke who caused Wilhelm's downfall.
Jurgen Heyn The younger? Or older?
The Von Moltke who was at that time chief of staff. A pure neurotic, who sent already troops before informing the Kaiser
Jurgen Heyn Yes the Kaiser said “Do not mobilize”
@@iDeathMaximuMII The younger.
iDeath MaximuM II Obviously The Younger who was Germany’s WW1 Chief of Staff and top adviser
Although Bismarck was a genius, he was the one who wired the German Empire while writing the constitution. He actualy proposed later to disband the empire.
This was my Great- Great-GrandFather
Brava!
I just received my copy of her book in the post
I hope you enjoy it :-)
I with I could have bought it from you to get it autographed.
Everyone here who watched fall of eagles
I remember reading his condemnation of National Socialism. Not only did he come off sounding humane, he came off sounding profound. He may not have been a philosopher-king, but he was certainly no dummy.
I disagree with Professor (?) Croft's argument that the victorious Allies would have felt defensive about approving the removal from power of a ruler with a spotless personal reputation. Karl of Austria-Hungary has been beatified by the Catholic Church, which is to say he's one proven miracle from sainthood. The Allies still had no objection to seeing him sent packing.
SerboSlavs started 1st world war, Gavrilo Princip.
Where can I buy your book for a cheap price? I tried to amazon but it says it’s not available in my region
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.
Willy was in England when the war started, and was on the frontlines when it ended.
No...his brother Henry was in England. The last time Wilhelm visited England was 1911 for the unveiling of the Victoria monument.
I remember reading something about a yacht party that he was at. Maybe it was in Germany. There's this video of this woman talking about meeting him when she was little on a boat. Could be my brain putting things in the wrong order.
You're right :-) He was touring the Norwegian fjords in late July 1914.
Can't wait to read your book. These shipping times are a bummer.
I wonder if he had ADHD, hense your mentioning of being outspoken and speaking without thinking.
7:10 that’s why China will never invade Formosa probably
Wilhellm II was a flawed man couse of his young childhood and neglect of his mother, its tragic how everything ended up to be
Oh god I’ve already transitioned into an unironic monarchist, now I’m gonna be an unironic Kaiserboo too?
kaiser..
But he had some qualities : he was a great woodcutter, despite his withered arm. Read John Röhl's three volumes, which is the definitive biography.
He had many qualities, as my book shows :-)
Dear Ms. Croft, I am sure, but he was the textbook example of the Peter principle. But Hell is paved with good intentions. The "Reisekaiser" was also, very probably manic-depressive.
He fired Bismarck and that is unforgivable
Why?
Do you know, why he fired Bismarck? Bismarck was very reactionary, he fuelled a conflict with the Catholics and treid to supress the social democrat movement. He also blocked every attempt by the Kaiser to make laws protecting the working class. This is why the Kaiser fired him, and rightfully he did!
@@AnnieBlackmore You're mistaken in that judgment... The Social Democrats were a real problem and menace for Germany but also the fact that the Socialists were a rising threat all over Europe towards later part of the 19th century and early 20th century... You obviously have not read Kaiser Wilhelm's remarks later on about how he wanted to behead all the social democrats! Kaiser Wilhelm II had great spirit, his heart was in the right place but he was too hasty with decisions and speaking before he thought many times, and this was a major character flaw which also made him not realize the true enemies until it was far too late, sadly...
You know why he fired Bismarck. The eisenkanzler wanted to enforce draconian, labour laws, oppress the lower classes, expell some 20% of the German population for being poles or socialists, and finally disband the entire country just because his junker aristocracy was losing its grip over power to the democratic Reichstag. These Bismarck fanboys always attribute all good to Bismarck and bad to Wilhelm. Besides, as head of state and emperor, he had all rights to dismiss his chancellor.
The Determined Seagull The SDP in the Imperial era was far more loyal to emperor and Reich than other socialist parties. They were t a threat and Bismarck would have turned them into one. Take the Kulturkampf for example.
Like how the allies showed him with a big nose to insult and that was okay, ohh how in just a few years that'll be bad.
What you are implying in your response is that the Kaiser in general was out of control when it came to his military. Now, I and few, are not in a position to contradict this. But the buck stops with....! You do not build armed ships and submarines to gain trade. Were you in a position to question his uncle, King Edward VII, or any of his ministers, they would certainly correct your misapprehension. To assert, as you do, 'the French were already in Belgium' is a bit like saying 'the English were already in Scotland'. You must know that Francophone Belgium is intrinsically party of France. Just as Monaco is. You will know the reasons for the 19th C creation of Belgium (a buffer state). I don't think the residents of Scarborough would have been very impressed by your special pleading on behalf of Kaiser Wilhelm. BOTH sides behaved abominably in WW1. (I was a friend of Haig's son). But, just sometimes, universal consensus gets it right, and there is any number of more distinguished older historians than yourself who would have agreed with me, not you. Germany, at that time, whether or not the Kaiser was in control, was a belligerent state. Ask the French, who lost many more than we did during that conflict. As said, any apologist for Hitler could make a good case for his 'humanity' (there is no documentary evidence of his authorizing the holocaust). Be careful in your use of the term 'evil'. This is a religious/moral concept. As I understand it, 'Vicky' , holed up at the German court, was from the outset suspicious of her son's character. If you want to understand this. just view all the newsreel footage of his aggressive militaristic posturing on U-tube. It's all there!
Hello. I am grandson of Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova, daughter of Nikolas ll. What is the war with Russia? Brother, sister...
Ja Ich was innocent
*OPPOSE HITTLER INTENSITIES*
Wilhelm II was in love with Elizabeth Feodorovna (Sergei Alexandrovich Romanov's wife). Was he whom spread gossips on Sergei homosexuality?
I think it is a great pity that Ella did not feel the same way about Wilhelm, as she would have made a wonderful German Empress. I believe Wilhelm did contribute to the rumours about Serge, but so did a great many other people.
Thanks for your answer. But what about Sergei Alexandrovich sexuality? was he a real husband to Ella?
Christina Croft I hope you haven't forgot, that with Auguste Viktoria we had a great empress! Unfortunately most of the Germans have already forgotten her!
I am sorry, AdderEMD, you are quite right and I have not given her a great deal of attention at all. I am so pleased the Wilhelm made a point of praising her in public :-)
Oh I think it did not need the Kaiser to spread these rumors. Sergej was sexually very active so there were many people who could spread the rumors (or the truth to say it better)
Very interesting but i certainly dont agree with all that was said.
If Wihelm II valued peace he wouldn't have antagonized Bismarck and forced him to resign
On the contrary....Bismarck was trying to provoke the sociaists into protests so that he could urn the army on them to crush them. Wilhelm refused to use his troops against his own people and, when Bismarck continued his machinations and countermanded Wilhelm's orders to different miisterial departments, Wilhelm had no option but to pressurise him to resign.
Christina. I esteem your scholarship. I will read your book. However, I will take a lot of convincing, as will many others - the majority - that the Kaiser 'was desperate to avoid war'. If this were the case, why did he spend 20 years building up his navy to contest the Royal Navy's supremacy on the high seas? Why did he invade Belgium? We all know about his relationship with his grandmother and his mother; his withered arm, childhood torture etc. (fewer know about his homosexuality!). Contingent upon his personality, these factors can scarcely mitigate his political/military decisions. Several of my ancestors bit the dust in Flanders, including my dear grandmother's first and only love. All for nothing! As an 8 yr old in 1962 on a transatlantic liner I sat opposite what I thought to be a very old man. He wasn't. He was blind. He slurped his soup. He had been gassed. The Germans were the first to use gas in warfare. This is historical fact. Why did WW1 break out? Read AJP Taylor. If your desire is to redress the propaganda imbalance with regard to the arch-criminals of history, why not tackle Hitler? He loved dogs. He loved classical music, especially Wagner. He was, it seems, loving to his paramours. His vegetarianism would no doubt win him brownie points in the present. BUT.... he was in fact an egotistical thug, in thrall to a perverted, nationalistic, racialist ideology. Almost as poor a military strategist as Churchill, he was also a coward.. Hence his demise. Read Hugh Trevor-Roper. History is a pick an' mix. As someone brighter than I once opined, 'The future is always the same; the past is always changing'. But you should think long and hard before attempting to redress the accepted version of your Kaiser. ALL sides behaved reprehensibly during the first world war, and the German people were unjustifiably punished by the French at Versailles. I'm guessing you are younger than I? i.e., less prone to the repercussions of wars and the like. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I do hope you will be convinced when you've read the book, Andrew. I would never ever make excuses for Hitler, who was thoroughly evil, and, in spite of his apparent success in WW2, I have little respect for Churchill. The Kaiser is an entirely different person. Yes, he wanted a great navy but, as the First Lord of the British Admiralty said, he had every reason to want one to prosper German trade. Why should he not have a navy? It was never his intention to use it against Britain. The Kaiser opposed the invasion of Belgium but, in fact, the French were already in Belgium when the German arrived. I am only slightly younger than you are - about 8 years - and my grandfather was a prisoner of war in WW1. He told me the Germans were good to him and saved his life on 3 separate occasion. One of my great uncles was gassed; 2 of my great aunts' husbands were killed all fighting for Britain and I admire their courage. By the time gas was used, the Kaiser had been completely side-lined by his Generals. He forbade the bombing of London and the attacks on the East Coast but his orders were ignored. Re. his relationship with his mother - yes, it was difficult for several years, but, for the most part we only read her side of the argument, and even Queen Victoria warned her that she was being unfair to Wilhelm and was being misled by her friends who opposed him. There is much more to say....but it would take an entire book to explain...
Christopher Clark has found the power of Kaiser quite limited in Germany even before mid 1914. After that he was even more figurehead and later Allied made him scapegoat.
@@pelontorjunta Since the Daily Telegraph affair in 1908, the Kaiser's influence has declined noticeably.
I'm irritated, that my namesake is emphasizing the personal side of the kaiser's character, by sounding off like his publicity manager. None of what she says on this issue, negates what Wilhelm was ultimately responsible for. To all those watching this---I suggest you seek out the brilliant BBC Docudrama--'' 37 Days'' , based entirely on all the original main character's involved, almost minute by minute, leading right up to the very moment war was declared, and why. Every statement and decision made, and even telephone discussion, was documented, and archived for a hundred years. They have been held in top secrecy by all the governments involved. First class actors re-enact those who spoke these lines, and a remarkable likeness has been created. I cannot imagine a better recreation than this--as I say, based entirely on original Foreign Office records--AND it's German counter half.
Hello Philip. I have seen the excellent 37 days and have also read many, many other documents, and, regarding the series, I find very little in it to contradict my claims. I don't know whether or not you have read my book, but it contains evidence for all my statements, and I hold firmly to the fact that William was not responsible for the war. Thank you for commenting.
p croft.- what a load of tosh...bbc propaganda...jewish controlled; would expect nothing less! Same control is what instigated WWI & 2...oh and don't forget the napoleonic wars...& the civil wars throughout europe & then the war on Lebanon, Libya, Afganistan, Iraq, vietnam & mass annihilation of 100 million christians in what was Russia (inc Ukraine) & the current war on Syria...now been going for 5 years.....nothing brilliant about the content of that tripe you support; but rather fantastical...that some still believe that contrived garbage...United Nations, global corporations,,,,including the BBC & UK crown corporation, law society & judicial corp & IMF & world bank group totally enslaving mankind...which christian leader is your antichrist conglomerate going to blame for the last 100 years of atrocities on world. Just a small snip of what the world is still suffering today at the hands of the shysters you support. www.collective-evolution.com/2018/01/29/agent-orange-24-bone-chilling-photos-of-the-war-crime-the-us-government-got-away-with/ & www.scribd.com/document/150782415/Iraqi-Birth-Defects-Worse-Than-Hiroshima & www.mintpressnews.com/depleted-uranium-iraq-wars-legacy-cancer/193338/ & www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/13/world-health-organisation-iraq-war-depleted-uranium Either you are totally ignorant...but in this day an age is not really acceptable or you are part of the same ilk..covering up the crimes of your brethren.
Another autocrat who could not distinguish the difference between dealing with people versus a nation.
You can't rage against a nation and not understand there will be ramifications that are very different than directing anger against a person. He pillaged Namibia, bullied Cameroon from France, and stormed thru Belgium as if it was irrelevant.
He deserves his reputation.
The Kaiser opposed the invasion of Belgium and was completely unaware of the horrors in Namibia until after the event. He was not really an autocrat as the German Emperor because he was subject to the Reichstag.
This is clearly not a historian, if this interview is anything to go by. "He could have been an excellent kaiser, but for a 100 years he has been seen in a terrible light." is just the start of the non-sequitors and endless groundless revisions. Wilhelm was of course not 'responsible' for the war, and yes his parents and childhood were risible but this degree of fanciful revisionism is laughable at best. His instability and Trump-like profound narcissism were a primary force of instability for decades. (man, am I gonna get it for these comments :) )
How would you define an historian?
Someone who relies on a sober, objective and credible reading of all available sources and presents their findings in a sound context. The wartime propaganda that you seem to rely on (the UK press could at times before the war be utterly obsequious in regard to Willy) show how poor Wilhelm's character was assassinated may have worked on the British public (and British wartime propaganda WAS way over the top, as was the mendacity of certain British naval planners) but serious historians - in this case John Rohl's 3 volume masterpiece stands out - look far beyond this. His post-war anti-semitic ramblings, as but one example, certainly don't speak well for posterity. Please don't take this personally and accept my apologies for having no desire to read your book - time constraints! - but Wilhelm was not a victim in any meaningful way. The evidence overwhelming indicates that he was a deeply flawed, racist, egomaniacal hysteric autocrat bent on the militaristic supremacy of Germany. In my humble estimation he was mostly a buffoon whose childhood sufferings - Hinzpeter has a lot to answer for! - made him utterly unsuited to wield the surfeit of power he held, esp at such a critical point in Europe's developemnt. Nicholas II was just as disastrous, but for different reasons... Warm regards & all the best
@@tymanski1
"Anti Semitic rambles..." How so? Exactly what do you mean? This is hard to imagine, since he supported Hertzl. Please tell your source. As to "historians", please consider this: Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm was the most advanced country on this planet, particularly socially. Consequently, as early as 1886 the campaign "Germany must Perish" was launched in British papers. Compare the lifes of a British worker and a German worker at the time and there you will have one reason for war and massive anti-German propaganda. After all, at a time when a British subject could be sent to the colonies for stealing a loaf of bread, the German worker had health insurance, retirement and paid vacation; child labour was abolished in 1895.
The evidence is overwhleming that these advanced social safety nets were in place in spite of Wilhelm, certainly not because of any of his personal initiatives. In fact one of (the many) the contributing factors to the war breaking out in 1914 was the warmongering German general staff terrified of a reichstag that was becoming increasingly dominated by socialists (good ol kulturkampf) that would be less enthusiastic for war - for the moment the Kaiser still unilaterally controlled foreign policy and the army.
As a simple response on sources, I mentioned John Rohl's authoritative biography on Willy. Once you've read that (I'm betting you haven't) you can reference the hundreds of primary sources in the bibliography. A less sprawling recent collection of essays is 'The Kaiser: New Research on Wilhelm II's Role in Imperial Germany'. Being in favourr of a Zionist movement that promises to 'rid' Europe of most of its Jews would indeed be something Willy would be behind. Don't forget that the National Socialist program was in favour of emigration right up to 1941. As an historian and teacher, I don't rely on imagination much; it's still hard to imagine how 60 million American voted for an orange turd. And like trump, Wilhelm was a deeply flawed insecure narcissist with far too much power. Peace.
@@tymanski1
Well, it seems we mean two different men. I don't know about your evidence and since you give no sources, I can't say anything about this. But I am speaking of the man, who made Germany the most prosperous nation on this planet with the richest population as an average. This is also, why socialists and communists weren't too successful at the time in Germany. As to Jews, they had full citizen's rights since 1822, I believe. Anyhow, much much earlier than in your country. We had many, many jewish politicians and others in the highest positions. If anyone would have minded them, Russian jews certainly wouldn't have been given refuge. Many Russian Jews also studied at German universities, since they were not admitted to Russian ones. The book you mentioned I do not know and I wouldn't read it, since I only read autobiographies of historic people, if available. And Wilhelm II writes very intelligently and with great warmth.
This is wrong, wrong, wrong history. Special pleading. This Kaiser, whatever his personal merits, was quite determined to break his grandmother's nation's international hegemony, and would go to any lengths to achieve his aim.. He nursed a grudge from birth. The result of his personal ambition was millions of dead in the mud of Flanders. Thanks to the treacherous Dutch he survived into a happy old age. By rights he should have been hanged, just as the WW2 war-mongers were (except of course the cowards who committed suicide). To try to whitewash his image is an historical crime, and an insult to all those of several nations who died young (unlike he!) as a result of his violent arrogance.
I appreciate your point of view but you are quite mistaken. The Kaiser did everything in his power to prevent war. By 1912, he had little authority over his ministers, and he loved England (and his English grandmother) and was desperate to avoid war. May I recommend you read the book as the evidence for what I have written/said it contained in it. As the great niece of a young English man who was killed at Ypres, and whose story I heard since my childhood, I spent many, many years of my life trying to find out why he died and why the war broke out. This book is the result of a great deal of research.
Andrew Gibbon-Wilson
"Cowards who committed suicide..." Disagree. This was seen as the highest sacrifice to be given to one's country, and as a matter of personal integrity. Hitler wrote about this principle in "Mein Kampf", in the chapter describing democracy as opposed to Germanic democracy, where the chieftain or leader assumes very personal responsibility - with his own life when failing.
The Kaiser certainly did not commit suicide. He lived on to enjoy his luxurious retirement thanks to the Dutch. Those Nazi criminals who did, merely did so to avoid the ignominy of the noose. Not in the least interested in 'His Struggle'. What about all those millions who had to 'struggle' to survive thanks to his perverted pursuit of his ideology. History has made its judgement and this is the correct one. No special pleading for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, or any of the other megalomaniacs who besmirched the culture of the last century.
@@andrewgibbon-williams7974
Well Sir, you are riding a very high horse. But if this is your opinion, well then it's your opinion; knowledge it is not. I prefer to go deeper into subjects. "History has made its judgement". No. The winner has written history. And "besmirched" is the winner as well. In WW I for Versailles, and what followed, in WW II the UK for declaring war on Germany, and the allies for the mass murder on German citizens, the destruction of around 1000 cities and towns, and forced starvation on the German populous until 1948. We in Germany are confronted heavily with these ca 30 years of history, and I feel it is high time the other parties do the same as far as their countries are concerned. One last thing: House Doorn was bought by the Kaiser; he was no financial burden on his Dutch relatives!
Of course I agree, Elizabeth: the victors write and pervert the history. The mass murder of innocent German citizens by Bomber Harrris and his ilk was indeed a war crime. Hitler's Germany had already been vanquished. There is
no excuse. But you always have to bear in mind that the Luftwaffe had no intention of sparing London. Many thousands died as a result of the blitz. Perhaps your grandparents voted for a 'gangster regime'. Who knows? It was not the British who reaped revenge; it was the Russians. Primarily. No post-war-born German should feel any guilt. My generation of German friends are the most open-minded and civilized in Europe, taking up the great culture of Germany which preceded the Nazis. It must be very difficult growing up on soil on which mass-barbarity - unknown since the Middle Ages - took place. I sympathize. If the Kaiser still had the Deutsche marks to buy Doorn then he shouldn't have had. It was all inherited money anyway. Probably from his grandmother.
He received bad press just because those who truly started the war Russia and England who refuse to listen to Austria problems.