A Quora - Why was Kaiser Wilhelm II blamed for WWI?
From
a425couple@21:1/5 to
All on Mon May 29 12:23:18 2023
XPost: soc.history.war.misc, sci.military.naval
Silk Road
·
Follow
AI ExpertMay 14
Why was Kaiser Wilhelm II blamed for WWI?
Kaiser Wilhelm II was the last emperor of Germany and the king of
Prussia from 1888 to 1918. He was also one of the most controversial
figures in history, as he is widely blamed for starting World War I by
his aggressive and reckless foreign policy. But was he really the main
culprit, or was he just a convenient scapegoat for a complex and
inevitable conflict? I will argue that Kaiser Wilhelm II was indeed
responsible for WWI, but not solely or directly. Rather, he contributed
to the war by creating a climate of tension, mistrust and rivalry among
the European powers, by alienating his allies and provoking his enemies,
and by failing to control his own military and political advisers.
One of the main reasons why Kaiser Wilhelm II is blamed for WWI is his
ambition to make Germany a world power that could challenge Britain's
supremacy on the seas and in the colonies. He pursued this goal by
launching a massive naval expansion program, by supporting German
colonial expansion in Africa and Asia, and by seeking alliances with
other countries that shared his anti-British sentiment, such as Austria-Hungary, Italy and Turkey. However, these moves backfired, as
they alarmed Britain and France, who felt threatened by Germany's
growing economic and military strength. They also created tensions
within Europe, as Germany's rivals competed for spheres of influence and resources in the Balkans, the Middle East and Africa.
Kaiser Wilhelm II was known for his erratic and impulsive personality,
which often led him to make rash and provocative statements that
offended other leaders and nations. For example, he congratulated the
Boers for resisting British invasion in South Africa in 1896, he
encouraged the Moroccan rebels to defy French rule in 1905 and 1911, he
called on German soldiers to act like "Huns" during the Boxer Rebellion
in China in 1900, and he declared himself the protector of all Muslims
in 1899. These actions not only damaged Germany's reputation and
credibility, but also increased the hostility and suspicion of Britain,
France and Russia towards Germany. They also undermined his own
diplomatic efforts to maintain peace and stability in Europe.
Kaiser Wilhelm II lacked control over his own government and military.
He often appointed incompetent or inexperienced ministers and generals
who did not share his vision or follow his instructions. He also allowed
them to pursue their own agendas without consulting him or coordinating
with each other. For instance, he did not prevent his foreign minister
from sending a blank check to Austria-Hungary in 1914, which encouraged
them to declare war on Serbia after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
He also did not stop his chief of staff from implementing the Schlieffen
Plan, which involved invading France through Belgium, a neutral country
that had a treaty with Britain. These decisions triggered a chain
reaction that led to the outbreak of WWI.
Kaiser Wilhelm II was responsible for WWI, but not in a direct or simple
way. He was not the mastermind behind the war, nor did he deliberately
plan or want it. Rather, he was a flawed and misguided leader who made
several mistakes that contributed to the war. He pursued an aggressive
and ambitious foreign policy that antagonized other powers. He made
impolitic and inflammatory remarks that offended other nations. He
failed to control his own government and military that acted without his consent or knowledge. He was not the only cause of WWI, but he was
certainly one of the most important ones.
24.2K views
View 410 upvotes
View 23 shares
1 of 14 answers
49 comments from
Jim Goza
and more
Jim Goza
· May 14
He also personally allowed the leader of the Bolshevik movement,
Vladimir Lenin, to pass secretly from his place of exile back to Russia
where Lenin immediately fanned the flames of the Russian Revolution into
a full blown bonfire.
Profile photo for Silk Road
Profile photo for Rene Wells
Rene Wells
· May 15
The Kaiser's leadership and influence waned over the course of the Great
War. The Generals, Hindenburg and Ludendorff, were the ones calling the
shots by then.
The negotiations that led to the ruinous Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, of
course, included German assistance in the safe passage of Lenin and his entourage through Germany territory. This was meant to further
destabilize Russia as factions within the country were well on their way
to fighting it out in a revolution to overthrow the Provisional Kerensky Government (which lasted a mere eight months) and gain control of the
nation. It also, in a way, led to the eventual defeat of Germany itself.
German negotiators, in their ambitious, shortsighted desire for
disastrous reparations from Russia, acquired various western territories
that included the Baltic States, parts of Poland, and the independence
of Ukraine - which would operate as a vassal state, intended to feed
Germans and provide much needed coal. The problem was the number of
German troops - about a million in all - needed to remain in place
across the east to keep the peace. Troops desperately needed that could
not be shifted to bolster and reinforce the Western Front.
My point in this is that the leadership of Generals was pivotal in
winning that aspect of the war, but their territorial ambitions consumed
them. Winning the peace in that theater, which they went on to lose, was critical at this juncture for Imperial Germany. It served to emphasize
the figurehead status of the Kaiser Wilhelm II and his government at
this point, with the two Generals taking the lead on both the direction
over the country's affairs and fighting a war at the same time. Their
blunders in those negotiations served as motivation for the ruinous
terms specified in the Treaty of Versailles a year later - the
victorious Allies pointing out the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk when German negotiators balked at the conditions imposed on them.
In a sense, the events directed by the German General Staff during this
period of history were part of an important sequence that later led to
the eventual ascent of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party and, of course,
bringing about the more deadly Second World War. The Kaiser, through the buffoonish caricature he cultivated over the previous decades, was left
to watch those events unfold around him, completely beyond and out of
his control.
Profile photo for Jim Goza
Profile photo for Kai-Uwe Boeckmann
Kai-Uwe Boeckmann
· May 15
Which ended WW1 in the East.
Profile photo for Syed Hasan Shirazi
Syed Hasan Shirazi
· May 14
It almost seems what you are saying is that the reason WW1 started was
that Germany did not quietly submit to British and French hegemony due
to Kaiser Wilhelm II “ambition to make Germany a world power that could challenge Britain's supremacy on the seas and in the colonies.”
Profile photo for Ali Sheezer
Ali Sheezer
· May 15
Yep. That is really the victor’s narrative. I find it funny that the
blank cheque is seen as a huge crime but the fact that Russia began to
mobilize its forces first (even though partially) is ignored.
Profile photo for Robert Hansen
Robert Hansen
· May 17
Mobilization is not an act of war, and Russian mobilization is not
remotely ignored — everyone who’s eager to uncritically and unthinkingly adopt the Imperial German perspective on the war invokes the Russian mobilization, as if it’s somehow comparable to Austria’s illegitimate invasion of Serbia or Germany’s unprovoked attack on Belgium.
Profile photo for Ali Sheezer
Ali Sheezer
· May 17
I don’t understand why challenging the victor’s view on the First World
War is adopting the Imperial German perspective.
First, Austria-Hungary’s invasion was not illegitimate. Austria-Hungary
had a valid casus belli for invading Serbia since its heir to the throne
had been assassinated in Serbian territory. It did press for demands
that were unacceptable to the Serbian government but that does not make
the invasion itself illegitimate. Keep in mind that international law
did not exactly exist back then. It does not seem to work very well even
today sadly.
Secondly, in the period of the First World War a mobilization was seen
as an act of war since if you were going to mobilize your army you
likely intended to go to war. Russia ordered a partial mobilization,
which was not the same as a full mobilization but sort of tied Germany’s hands.
Thirdly, Germany’s invasion of Belgium occurred after war had been
declared by most belligerents. While Germany did violate Belgian
neutrality, this was not exactly unheard of in that era since many of
the imperial powers had carved their empires through violating similar agreements with stakeholders in other places. Belgium was no stranger to imperalism, with its horrible treatment of its Congo colony being one of
the most abhorrent in modern history. This does not in any way though
make Germany responsible for the First World War.
Profile photo for Robert Hansen
Robert Hansen
· May 17
This is almost all wrong. First, Austria-Hungary’s invasion was not illegitimate. Austria-Hungary had a valid casus belli for invading
Serbia since its heir to the throne had been assassinated in Serbian
territory. It did press for demands that were unacceptable to the
Serbian government but that doe…
(more)
First, Austria-Hungary’s invasion was not illegitimate. Austria-Hungary
had a valid casus belli for invading Serbia since its heir to the throne
had been assassinated in Serbian territory. It did press for demands
that were unacceptable to the Serbian government but that does not make
the invasion itself illegitimate.
The Serbian government acceded to all demands except for one — the fact
that the demands were deliberately crafted to be unacceptable and that
the war was carried out despite Serbia’s leadership being as acquiescent
as it could without completely surrendering its independence proves that
it was just a ruse to lend legitimacy to the Austrian invasion of Serbia.
If the Austrians themselves thought their war of aggression lacked
legitimacy, then why are you taking a position even more favorable than
the one they held of themselves? Kaiser Wilhelm himself even remarked
that the Serbian acceptance of almost every Austrian demand left them
without any cause for war.
This is like how neonazis deny the Holocaust even though all of the
actual Nazis admitted it happened, and that’s what separates your full-hearted embrace of pro-German propaganda narratives from some
imaginary challenge to an imaginary ‘Victor’s history.’
Secondly, in the period of the First World War a mobilization was seen
as an act of war
No, it was not. There was less than no international norm holding that mobilization was remotely comparable to a declaration of war. This
concept only existed privately within the heads of German military
planners, because they had bet their hopes of victory on maximum
immediate aggression against France and Belgium. No other country
treated mobilization as being akin to war and there was no international
norm that mobilization was an aggressive action.
Thirdly, Germany’s invasion of Belgium occurred after war had been
declared by most belligerents.
Only Austria and Germany had issued declarations of war up to this
point. Austria’s war of aggression against Serbia activated Russia’s defensive obligations, and Germany responded to Russian mobilization
with a prompt declaration of war, despite the fact that Russia had not
declared war on any of the Central Powers and that British diplomats
were attempting to defuse and mitigate the situation. France began
mobilizing and demanded Germany stand down — within a day, Germany had declared war on France and begun moving against Belgium.
Hilariously, there was still no state of war between Austria and Russia
for a week, until Austria declared war on Russia.
If you knew what you were talking about, you would have said —
“Germany’s invasion of Belgium occurred after Germany already declared
war on France and Russia, so uhhhhh… Belgium was bad anyway!”
The war was caused by Germany’s blank check encouraging Austria’s
pursuit of an unnecessary and illegitimate imperial war against Serbia,
and it was escalated from a regional conflict that could be resolved
through international mediation into a world war because Germany
retaliated to France and Russia activating their defensive obligations
with declarations of war. The point of no return was crossed when
Germany forced Britain to uphold its defensive obligations by invading
neutral Belgium, putting a final end to British mediation efforts.
Only a delusional person invested in regurgitating pro-German propaganda
could interpret Russians moving about within Russia as the true cause of
the war, let alone comparable to the consistent pattern of war-seeking decisions on part of Germany and Austria. This is why Italy broke with
the Central Powers — it had no obligation to join them in their blatant
war of aggression.
Ali Sheezer
I agree with Austria-Hungary’s demands being deliberately ---
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
From
Jim Wilkins@21:1/5 to
All on Mon May 29 18:42:48 2023
XPost: soc.history.war.misc, sci.military.naval
"a425couple" wrote in message news:GY6dM.635824$
Lfzc.4565@fx36.iad...
...Keep in mind that international law
did not exactly exist back then. It does not seem to work very well even
today sadly. ...
---------------------------
The causes of WW1 are numerous and still debatable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I
My favorite what-if is the Kaiser paying more heed to Bismarck who had
served his father so well. But he was head-strong in the manner of Frederick the Great, just not as talented.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord
"One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not
be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause
damage."
In another version dumb ambitious officers should be shot.
International law certainly could have existed if the other European powers
had been less eager to fight and more willing to follow the Tsar's lead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_naval_arms_race
A peaceful encounter in Africa where the French and British railroads were meant to cross was inflated domestically nearly to war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashoda_Incident
The modern Olympics were created to physically prepare the French for the inevitable rematch against Germany to revenge the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/pierre-de-coubertin
Very few saw the advantage rapidly improving firepower would give the
defense, resulting in a grinding stalemate presaged by the US Civil War's trench sieges to starvation at Vicksburg and Petersburg. Europeans observers dismissed the US battles as too amateurish to apply to them, despite
suffering even worse at Sevastopol. As late as 1916 the British expected
horse cavalry to sweep through the German lines after a breakthrough on the Somme. They didn't get far. After Napoleon a century of limited atypical
wars didn't clearly warn how different wars of the future would be from the relatively civilized and tolerable ones of past.
The USA has tried hard, within budget limits, to stay prepared for all
levels of warfare, not just small ones against poorly equipped opponents.
The results from Ukraine suggest that we succeeded. The aircraft carriers in particular have been vital against opponents without air power, to limit conflicts, but their survival against the big league is still an open
question that is too classified to discuss meaningfully.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)