Wilhelm II of Germany

Please visit our new site for the serious history enthusiast: www.historyroom.org
This is an excellent documentary on Wilhelm II which will be very useful for students of the Great War, German nationalism and German history in general. Uploaded for educational purposes only.

[@oasis6767]

You might also be interested in a new paper I recently published, available direct from Amazon. Simply search *'How socialist was National Socialism'* in the Amazon search box.

[@sylestermajor783]

Thanks Doc... I appreciate so much your sharing of knowledge with me...

[@hirokidabar4655]

It wasnt socialist at all... Hitler stated that openly. They were raising the flag of freedom against communist socialists and the zionists manipulated the world to take them down

[@traviscollins830]

What of this history? I am still the Kaiser; the most important man in all the wolrd.

[@jamesm.taylor6928]

It wasn't Socialist at all. That was the whole night of the long knives deal. Rhoem was passed that Hitler completely abandoned the socialism part and embraced the same old industrialist like Krupp. He was becoming more and more vocal about it threatening even to oust Hitler so Hitler killed him and his other enemies and wiped out the SA in a two birds one stone deal. No need for papers to tell me that, thanks though.

[@mdoracarv]

@@hirokidabar4655 Are you crazy or just on drugs?

[@KenDelloSandro7565]

The True fact is that a huge majority of the German people loved the Kaiser . 71% never wanted him to go, he was forced by the other powers.

[@unadin4583]

Do you have a source for that figure? The way I see it is that by the late twenties, the dust from the war had settled and Germans probably could have worked out a deal to allow Wilhelm to return to Germany, not as a ruler but as a private citizen. They never did.

[@awc6007]

Unadin Thats cause he wanted to be restored As Monarch of Germany before he returned. Stubbornly even in his will he wrote that he was not to be buried in Germany until a member of his royal house/Family was made King and or Emperor of Germany. Also Yes the people of Germany did want the monarchy back until the early 1950s. The Kaiser’s grandson Prince Wilhelm Frederick fought in WW2 and was killed during the invasion of Belgium. His funeral which was not a big public event had a turn out of 50,000 plus people. Sadly monarchism died out in both Germany’s during the 1950s and Germany is still a Federal Republic .

[@Thatoneguyfromtheinternet]

In my country(Norway) he was known as Norway friend and visited Norway almost every year for many years. In 1905 , he played an important role in persuading Swedish King Oscar II to not attack Norway after Norway abolished the Union. When Ålesund burned down in 1904 was emperor nearby, he organized help and donated large sums for reconstruction.

[@onelonelypickle]

I also have Erb's palsy like Kaiser Wilhelm II. I never knew that there was someone famous with this condition as well. Very inspiring!

[@gennarojg3]

Wilhelm II was not the person most people teach us he was. My Grandfather met him and he said, that he didn't want the War. He wasn't a war monger.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Yes. "There are always four sides to a story: your side, their side, the truth and what really happened." Jean-Jacques Rousseau

[@ralphbernhard1757]

"The hopes of many Liberals both in Germany and in England for Germany’s reformation died, and fears of where the young William II would lead Europe sprang up. This view and this fear for the future of Europe was held by many in the English press, particularly political cartoonists, (edit: liberals) *who were keen to damn him before his reign even truly began.* Cartoonist Matthew Summerville Morgan portrayed William II in such a way in the June 27, 1888, issue of the magazine Judy in a piece called “The Lost Hero.” A bust of Frederick III surrounded on all sides by wreathes from the nations of Europe and weeping angels dominates the left side of the cartoon. To the right and slightly in the background stands William II, raising his sword and imperial standard to a horizon over which hangs the word “war.” In a similar piece entitled “The New Emperor” in the June 23, 1888, issue of Fun magazine, John Gordon Thompson portrays William II as a child, blowing a trumpet and banging a drum labeled “war” while a woman representing the whole of Europe looks on in frustration, covering her ears." From "Mad as March Hares:" Kaiser Wilhelm II, Great Britain, and the Road to War by Jeffrey Kelly Note. All before even taking a single decision... Interesting.

[@bolivar2153]

@@ralphbernhard1757 It was a view shared by many, including his mother who feared greatly for where Wilhelm's rule would lead Germany. The same fear was also held by individuals within Germany's ruling elite, and was one that continued to be expressed as his rule progressed. These views were not restricted to any one nation. Interesting.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@@bolivar2153 Even more interesting? The concept of the "self-fulfilling prophecy". en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

[@bolivar2153]

I wonder if, in 1888, John Gordon Thompson knew that only 1 year before, in 1887, young Wilhelm II was one of those present at Wilhelm I's "war council" and was pressing for a "preventative war" against their neighbour Russia? (A war that was only narrowly prevented by the intervention of Bismarck and the existence of the Reinsurance Treaty).

[@mrgigachad9225]

Imagine thinking that Germany started WW1.

[@Itried20takennames]

They did.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@@Itried20takennames GB started both world wars (by declaration) in order to protect the British Empire. You'd have to convince the reader that they were also necessary to avoid greater calamity at the time. WW2 was sadly necessary in 1939, due to the bumbled peace after WW1. Why would you say WW1 was necessary?

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@Doug Bevins So? On the 24th August 1939, Stalin gave a "blank cheque" to Hitler to invade Poland. So I guess Stalin "started it" then...correct? Blair gave Bush a "blank cheque" to invade Iraq in 2003, rather than telling Bush that there would be no British support for such folly. Well, see what happened.... Gotta love "blank cheques"...

[@timteichmann6830]

@@ralphbernhard1757 so you say Austria started it?

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@@timteichmann6830 WW1 was a series of events resembling domino stones toppling over. Each stone, toppling the next one in the line. Each nation's leader was only responsible for own actions. Not the actions of others. Before WW1, there weren't any binding defense pacts (like NATO today, or the British-French-Polish Defense Treaty which was signed in 1939), so the only ones responsible for the free choices which were made in 1914, or during the course of WW1, were the leaders of each nation. Something known as "jumping on the bandwagon".

[@ignaasfalk1806]

It's amazing how all of these great monarchs that fought against one another were all so closely related.

[@unadin4583]

Indeed, it's no surprise how many of these monarchs were overthrown after WW1. They couldn't even maintain peace within their own family.

[@Annasea666]

Inbreeding. It's still the bane of British Monarchy. Fortunately Princess Diana injected some unrelated non-royal blood into the line. Otherwise Windsors would be the same as Hapsbergs, genetically polluted to the point not one could rule anything

[@peterhunt1968]

Nothing great about Wilhelm: an immature, malignant narcissist.

[@athenstar10]

Queen Victoria must be such a granny.

[@marine4lyfe85]

It seems obvious from this documentary that the victors write the history books.

[@willigelfert174]

i thought exactly the same.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

“If everybody always lies to you, *the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer…* And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. *And with such a people you can then do what you please.”* -Hannah Arendt The unfortunate effect of constant misdirection and deceit is that we are noticing a "shift" taking place in the world. A "shift" towards popularism, and "dear infallible leaders"...

[@bolivar2153]

@@ralphbernhard1757 She certainly wouldn't advocate your selective dismissal of 99% of the facts in order to make your "story" fit. This would, in fact, be what she specifically warns against.

[@unadin4583]

Scott: Couple of thoughts: 1. If you watch this documentary from beginning to end, I think it presents a fair assessment of Wilhelm. The problem is that it starts off with these very incendiary comments about him wanting to conquer Europe. It's not a bad documentary in its entirety, but it gets off to a bad start. 2. There was a similar comment to yours posted a few months ago. I think the concept of victors always writing history is somewhat overused. In ancient times, one civilization would conquer another and completely erase its history. In modern times it is a bit different. Often times, the victor will allow the defeated to repeat their own narrative. For example, I grew up in the northeastern USA, but my high school history textbook presented a narrative of the south seceding for many reasons other than slavery. Many Japanese continue to believe that they fought WW2 in order to liberate their neighbors from European colonial oppression. 3. Over the past few years, I have come to the conclusion that some of the worst slander and scapegoating of Wilhelm came not from the victorious nations, but from his own generals. After the war, Hindenburg, Ludendorff, and others had political aspirations of their own. With Wilhelm safely tucked away in Holland, they placed much of the blame on him. They also scapegoated another general, Moltke, who had died before the end of the war.

[@bolivar2153]

​@@unadin4583 Correct, both von Moltke and von Falkenhayn found themselves on the receiving end of much undeserved negative criticism, their "error" largely being the early realisation of Germany's position and fortunes, or lack thereof, in the war. The entire sequence of scapegoating that continued throughout the war would eventually culminate in the "stab in the back" myth. Wilhelm received increasing amounts of this as the war progressed and Germany's fortune's went from bad to worse. Much of this was equally undeserved, so far as conduct of the war was concerned, as by 1916 he was largely "out of the loop", having been effectively side lined by Von Hindenburg and Ludendorff, shuffled out of harm's way, and being nothing more than a "rubber stamp" for their leadership. I think Wilhelm has no one else but himself to blame for this, however. With his bravado and bluster in the years leading up to the war, his continued determination to proclaim his "personal rule" to anyone who would listen, he therefore set himself up as the figurehead for the nation, the focus of blame from within Germany when things went wrong and the "personification" of the enemy for the belligerent nations.

[@newbeginnings8566]

Another German who had a never to be forgotten, nor repeated style of moustache....

[@mike89128]

Just days before WW1 broke out, he was on board a British Battleship, part of a British Fleet in Germany at his invitation. At a reception he said he didn't think war was necessary and diplomacy will find a solution. 'Stephen King-Hall. "North Sea Diary." King-Hall was a young Royal Navy Lt. on board HMS Southhampton, part of the fleet in Kiel Harbor that day. Fascinating reading about Navy Life during First World War on the North Sea.

[@SixxFootThree]

I've always been perplexed as to why that mainly Kaiser Wilhelm and Germany were blamed for WW1 and not Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary?

[@ini3686]

this

[@TheFurryHuskyWolf]

+Jesse Lee I see it like this, the Austo-hungarian empire was dissolved by the end of the war, and what was left of that was Austria, Austria was not big enough, or had enough economic power to repay the Triple Entente their allies for the war, so they blamed Germany whom had a much better potential for economic growth, so basically it was all about the munny

[@ThomasHarding1990]

+Jesse Lee He was Franz Joseph I of Austria. (BUT King of Hungary.)

[@marcfedak]

+Jesse Lee , interesting question that I also wondered about, given how the Nazis later rose to power partly because they appealed to a widespread feeling among the post WWI German public that the Allies unfairly blamed them for starting WWI. I suspect that the Allies held Germany responsible because Germany was more successful and aggressive militarily in WWI than Austro-Hungary was, and because Germany caused more damage to the eventual victors, especially France. That said, Austro-Hungarian Count Berchtold increased the likelihood of WWI starting with his ultimatum to Serbia, which was deliberately made with the expectation that Serbia would not accept it. From there, the alliance system and intense imperial rivalries brought in the rest of the major European powers of the time.

[@Jewbear1884]

+Jesse Lee Austria Hungary wasn't really powerful enough to have made the other powers get involved in the war unlike Germany, which was left in a pretty damn solid position in the aftermath of the magnificent bastard Otto Von Bismark. If the conflict were just between Austria-Hungary and the Balkans it would've just been one of many little wars, but Germany opted to give them a blank check, meaning they would give the Austrians all the help they could give. This basically kicked off the first World War.

[@margiesoapyhairbillian4754]

this is the best video I have seen about the Kaiser.

[@jaredmn8580]

Wilhelm still had such a regal look to him even when in exile.

[@Nick-qs5ll]

He didnt start the war

[@alanjohnson6398]

Germany declared war on France and Russia. I understand it was a complicated situation but I think its difficult to argue that Germany didnt start the war. I understand. Franz Joseph really initiated the conflict but Wilhelm turned it into a continental war. But, again, I do understand that it is a very complicated matter.

[@sidonay2735]

Alan Johnson Ahem, they were, for a long time, backing each other (Germany and Austria), Russia came in because of the war declaration of the Austrians, Germany came in, then we came in because we were salty about Alsace-Lorraine.

[@martincook318]

No he didn't Start world war 1 so he didn't give the order to invade Neutral Belgium and Breaking the London Agreement which Guaranteed Belgium's Naturally,he didn't start world war one which ended with over 10 Million killed and Many injured both Mentally and physically and left Most of Northern France lay destroyed and some of his own Troops killed some of the Belgium Men and Rapped some of there Women,no I've got no Sympathy for him and when he died in 1941 only Hitler went to his Former Kings Funeral

[@TheEdwardrommel]

@@martincook318 Hitler did not go to the Kaiser's funeral but he did send representatives against the Kaiser's wishes to have a non-nazi funeral.

[@henryharaldgraves259]

@@martincook318 Hey brainwashed fella just a question why was the meeting between Grey and prince Lischnowsky erased from almost all history books? Would be quiet obvious if it was common knowledge that you Brits initiated that war and later when you got surprised by the submarines and you ran out of supplies you've dragged us into the war. Wasn't it Churchill who ordered the Lusitania to slow down and how about the Juno? I'm convinced Europe would be in a better shape today if we had sided with Germany instead with you!

[@kaiserwilhelmii337]

You be got to admit I’ve got a swag

[@bvgs1388]

Please return we need you

[@TheKing-mm4me]

The drippiest Kaiser

[@hajime2k]

You and your cousin Nicolas II have a way of turning lands of grain into ashes and bloody lakes.

[@xmilkx1897]

This is getting out of hand now there are two of them

[@hajime2k]

@@xmilkx1897 The West remembers.... Your fall from grace.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

The cool thing about a divide and rule system, is that it does not matter what any individual emphasizes: It exists in parallel to whatever the observer wishes to amplify...

[@ralphbernhard1757]

*In the smallest "nutshell" one can find, it was London (the state) which made Germany (the newly united state after 1871) the default rival in peace, and default enemy in war as a matter of policy. Its elites then set out to make "enemies out of old friends/friends out of old enemies".* While this might sound very "conspiratorial", it is exactly what happened, and it happened out in the open for all to see, and all to analyse while it happened. Unfortunately, same as today, it happens far too slowly for most current witnesses to notice. The reality is that most people are simply too pre-occupied with daily chores and problems, or don't care (indifference) or don't know (aka ignorance), or if they do, they don't act or don't now how things are connected (complacency)... In case they do study and wish to know about history, confusing "causes" and "effects" is one of the basic logical fallacies. Simply "pin a flag on a timeline somewhere suitable", downplay events before that, and start "writing history". Fact? London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends", not lasting alliances. Search for French historian Pozner: "Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin" on the Yale University Channel. *From "open hand" to "clenched fist" in 20-30 years.* "Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. *That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.* Of course people don't want war. Why should a poor fool on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best thing he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?" Hermann Goring

[@sergeantscumbag2116]

This documentary has a lot of inaccuracies

[@FranciscodeJesusFlagelado]

Like? Say that I don't watch

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@@FranciscodeJesusFlagelado For example that Wilhelm wasn't "just being difficult" or a nutcase, but was just...ahem..."trolling the mainstream media", and was just...cough, cough..."being sarcastic" ;-)

[@taylorthomas4962]

Almost the whole thing is biased, non-historical, and slanted. Aka propaganda. Notice the accent the narrator is speaking in...

[@dylanthepickle6428]

@@taylorthomas4962 are you an expert on the subject matter?

[@bolivar2153]

@@taylorthomas4962 "propaganda" is universal and not restricted to one single country. It would be naïve to suggest otherwise.

[@unadin4583]

Regarding all of the comments accusing this documentary of having an anti-German bias, let me say the following: 1. This documentary is not about a country or a war, but a person. 2. Disliking Donald Trump does not make one anti-American and disliking Wilhelm II does not make one anti-German. 3. One thing I picked up from this documentary is that Wilhelm's mother's side of the family (i.e. the British side) had as much influence on his character and personality as his father's side, and that the Windsors at this time were not the most harmonious family. In other words, the documentary is not really anti-German but anti-Windsor. 4. Another thing I saw in this documentary is that Germans did not particularly like Wilhelm II either. His generals and admirals were willing to humor him by taking part in his stupid male bonding rituals, but it does not appear as though they really respected him much. When WW1 broke out, they did not trust his judgment, and generally kept him out of the decision making process. By the end of the war, he was clearly not a very popular guy in Germany. At the time of his escape to Holland, Wilhelm faced the possibility of imprisonment by the western allies. However, by the late twenties, after the dust from the war had settled, the Germans probably could have worked out a deal to allow him to return home, and maybe even make him a symbolic monarch, but they didn't. Even Hitler refused to do this. 5. One final thought. Many would argue that regardless of anything that Wilhelm II did or didn’t do, a war between Germany and Russia (and France) was inevitable. I think that’s probably true. However, there is quite a bit of debate about whether England’s participation in the war was inevitable. Personally, I don’t think it was, and I think that it was the result of years of bad diplomacy on Wilhelm’s part. Regardless, even if Britain’s entry into the war was inevitable, America’s entry was not. To the extent that one does not view England or America's involvement as inevitable, one could say that Wilhelm II is not responsible for STARTING WW1 but rather, LOSING WW1. In other words, even if you think that the central powers were the “right side” in WW1, you would still have good reason to dislike Wilhelm II.

[@amosababio5458]

In the Schlieffen plan, Germany will pass through Belgium. This was aimed at winning a quick victory and knocking France out of the war. Now at the height of the European crisis, Great Britain assured the Belgian government that their neutrality would not be violated. And so the invasion of Belgium by Germany and the atrocities associated with the invasion invited Britain into the war. First an ultimatum is sent from London to Berlin, demanding they withdraw. It is ignored and Britain declares war.

[@Annasea666]

Wilhelm's own (British ) mother despised him. Pretty much so did Granny, Queen Victoria. I'm not a Kaiser fan but he wasn't really given a chance to grow into a decent human being

[@unadin4583]

@@Annasea666 Well actually Victoria adored him, but after she died he became that relative that no one wants around.

[@paulanonym4616]

Pleas translat. Spielt ja auch keine Rolle ob seine Generalität ihn mochte oder nicht er wurde auch nicht mehr vom Volk bejubelt als der Englische König oder der Norwegische, aber Wilhelm war des Krieges müde da ehe in sowieso nicht beginnen wollte und wurde somit Stück für Stück vom eigenen Generalstab außen vor gelassen sonder bis zur Niederlage auch noch angelogen. Ludendorff und Hindenburg haben mehrmals aktiv die Friedens gesuchte des Kaisers bei kotiert um auch ihre Position zu sichern. Hindenburg hatte auch nicht die möglich genutzt als Reichskanzler Wilhelm wenigste als König von Preußen wider ein zu setzen , davon abgesehen wen das Deutsche reich Expandieren wollte warum dann 1914 und nicht zur einer fiel günstigeren Zeit wie 1904 als das Russische reich entwaffnet war.

[@georgeelmerdenbrough6906]

@@Annasea666 He was not capable of growing

[@fatalcase962]

Sometimes i fantasize about going back in time and warn them that the war earns you nothing but blood and lives.

[@ladyrachel13]

He speaks English well. I always thought of Kaiser Wilhelm as being a mysterious individual.

[@maggiemae7749]

If this was a family affair why didn't they just have a duel instead of millions of innocent people dying?

[@Ben-DPPU]

UK declared war on Germany - not the other way around as the introduction makes believe.

[@collinblake7972]

“He liked to play childish games on members of his cabinet and military staff… he punched his head of the navy in the stomach during a storm.” WHAT

[@newbeginnings8566]

Not exactly childish.. Under normal conditions a victim would not be laughing off these actions..

[@jakecavendish3470]

There was a popular song in the 1920s: "Billy Billy, his moustache was very silly, his arm was on the wonk and drank too much plonk, and he had a one inch willy." Queen Mary sang it at parties apparently

[@phoenix99941]

As a Canadian, whose great grandfather fought on the side of the World War I Allies against Germany, I will say that at the very least, the beginning comments in this video are pro-British and anti-German propaganda. My country and Britain had their differences with Germany intervening in Belgium that was officially neutral, but that does not make me look at Germany with total scorn. Why should have Germany have stood by and let the British Empire dominate over Europe and the world via its massive economy and navy? Why that anymore than why should China stand by and let the United States dominate the world today? There is no reason, and the only people who claim that there is a reason for Germany to have accepted British dominance are those who did support, or would have supported, Britain's dominance and Germany's acquiescence.

[@gordywestmids]

rfavro No idea where you get the idea that the British Empire 'dominated' Europe. The continental European empires, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia were 'land' empires that required large armies. The British, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish had 'colonial' empires that depended on having strong navies. Can't quite follow your argument that Britain 'dominated' Europe.

[@gordywestmids]

rfavro "Why should have Germany have stood by and let the British Empire dominate over Europe ....." Dominate over Europe? - Britain's possessions in Europe = Malta, Gibraltar, The Channel Islands - wow, that's 'domination.'?

[@sinogarcon]

You forgot another tiny possession, Cyprus.

[@lexaproqueen9681]

I understand that Wilhelm was highly nationalistic and wanted to expand Germany’s Imperial prestige, which caused problems but Germany didn’t start the war like they seem to assert here. This account seems to be a bit propagandized to suit the narrative of the victors.

[@lexaproqueen9681]

Once again, I’m not saying that Germany acted blamelessly but the Germans invaded Belgium because France had already declared war on them because of their alliance with Russia. Yes, Germany was the aggressor when it came to Belgium but the war was underway among at least four of the major European powers and Serbia already so my comment stands. Those networks of alliances between the different nations that brought the war to the scale that it was were also a reflection of the deep nationalism and militarism being exhibited by many of the European powers at the time, as well. Germany was not the only nation acting aggressively before the war, nor was as it responsible for starting it. I acknowledge that it did play a major role in escalating the war once it was underway though and maybe more so than others. Still, the video seems to place an inordinate amount of blame specifically on Germany when it was really years of geo-strategic game playing and building ethic tensions across Europe, especially in the Balkans, that are responsible for the war.

[@scottmcdonald6201]

@Dragomir Ronilac Which empire occupied like a quarter of the world's landmass? C'mon, let's not act as if Germany was the only faction to pursue imperial ambitions.

[@asgaard636]

@Dragomir Ronilac That was was started before Germany ever invaded Belgium. Serbia started that war. Who backed Serbia?

[@mdquaglia]

The narrator's voice is the most soothing I've ever heard.

[@unadin4583]

She sounds like an English nanny reading a bedtime story.

[@kevinvalentinocasanova8416]

Germany didn’t start ww1

[@ralphbernhard1757]

No, but it didn't stop it either.

[@kevinvalentinocasanova8416]

Ralph Bernhard Britain and France didn’t stop it also

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@@kevinvalentinocasanova8416 Yes, that is also correct. No nations' leaders stopped it, even though they could have.

[@dannywlm63]

But they lost it lol

[@melonslice1991]

@@dannywlm63 i don't get how a war where millions of people died is funny to you?

[@squamish4244]

This doc is informative about Wilhelm's weaknesses, but is one-sided about its portrayal of pre-WWI leaders. Many of the same failings were present in Nicholas II of Russia, who was the first person to order his armies to mobilize in July 1914. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was moribund and unstable, and Franz Joseph had not implemented reforms. The Serbian government was corrupt and did not crack down on the violent revolutionaries. So we have multiple parties who were at least as responsible as Wilhelm for starting the war and perhaps even moreso, in the estimation of many analysts. The author of The War That Ended Peace, Margaret Macmillan, writes that the tragedy of the death of Franz Ferdinand was compounded by the fact that not only did his death trigger the war, but also that he was the only man capable of stopping it.

[@jfrobinson]

valinor100 Good points -- what an amazing circle of idiocy on multiple sides that caused most of the misery of the 20th century.

[@squamish4244]

Gazzara5 Easiest scenario to avoid complete disaster *once* war had broken out, because it would have perhaps meant a rapid or significantly hastened German victory, mild peace terms and less strain on the political systems of the great powers.

[@Aeros802]

Gazzara5 Indeed. Upon closer inspection on the most important effects of the American entry into WWI as well as WWII was that the wars prolonged itself and led to much further deaths.

[@squamish4244]

Aeros802 I meant the British decision to commit itself militarily, taken on August 4, 1914. Otherwise France would have probably fallen to the Germans in a matter of a few months, meaning lenient peace terms and Russia abandoning its own war effort after the collapse of the Western Front. The American entry was not made until April 1917, by which time millions were dead, Russia was in revolution and Germany continued the fight because it believed there was a chance to defeat the British and French in the west before American troops arrived in large numbers. The United States only really made a difference in 1918. In WW2, the American entry at a much earlier date sealed the fate of the Nazis and hastened their defeat, saving millions of lives. The situation can't be compared because Nazi Germany was a very different entity than Imperial Germany and had to be defeated at all costs.

[@squamish4244]

Gazzara5 Yes. It's clear that the creaky old monarchies of Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey were headed towards a British-style peaceful transition to parliamentary democracy given a few more decades. E.g. in Russia I would have given absolute monarchy no more than to the end of Nicholas II's reign - he was begrudging of any democratic reform but reforms were happening anyway.

[@bolivar2153]

@Ralph Bernhard Just wondering, before I delve in to detail in your latest opinion piece, can we expect your "article" about Carl Schmitt and his role as a top Washington DC advisor any time soon? Genuinely interested in this claim.

[@MrShaneVicious]

0:18 That was the Crown Prince Wilhelm speaking. There is actually a video of him saying that.

[@eatablecookie858]

I hope you realize that at the start of the video, the voice is not the kaiser but is instead his son the crown prince. Look up the KZbin video "Deutscher Kronprinz Wilhelm complete Interview in Fox Movietone News 1932".

[@Erwin_Munchen]

Emperor Wilhelm 2 he is a great monarch, diplomat, general, king, emperor, politician, patriot of his country, an incredible person. Symbol of the nations.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Yes, maybe. Problem is when you have leaders advocating "born to lead", you might soon see young men writing "born to die" on steel helmets...

[@Erwin_Munchen]

No, it may well. He is a brilliant monarch. These soldiers in helmets were dying for their homeland. And not yours and your imagination. The fact that young people are dying for their homeland is rather an honor, and not what you mean. He is truly great. There is no great great honor how to perish for the motherland for the king for the country. Unlike you, I have the honor.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@@Erwin_Munchen One definition of "honor" is "the quality of knowing and doing what is morally right" or to "fulfil (an obligation) or keep (an agreement)." If my nation is attacked without due cause, I will defend it. That is my duty, and I will honor it. I assume this is what you mean. If my nation is the one attacking another, without due cause, or in dishonor, there no obligation on my part. I have no obligation to serve leaders (or nations) engaging in acts of provocation, fight for disingenuous causes, or who act recklessly. That is what I mean. Of course you can see it whichever way you wish, and fight for whichever cause your leaders tell you to. There are certainly enough who see it that way, so go for it...it's a free world.

[@Erwin_Munchen]

Honor is a person’s worthy of respect and pride; its relevant principles [1]. Honor can be perceived as a relative concept, brought to life by certain cultural or social traditions, material causes or personal ambitions. On the other hand, honor is interpreted as a person’s inherent feeling, an integral part of his personality. In the traditional system of cultural values ​​of many peoples [what?], The category of honor is in a more important place than human life. The dictionary of V. I. Dahl defines honor as “internal moral dignity of a person, valor, honesty, nobleness of the soul and a clear conscience”, but also as “conditional, secular, worldly nobility, often false, imaginary”.  Honor is an internal right given to oneself to evaluate oneself and one’s existence in terms of self-esteem. Objective factors that give the right to honor are chastity and nobility. Chastity is the ideal axiological norm of the natural state. Nobleness is the ideal axiological norm of a personal state. Archimandrite Plato. Orthodox moral theology. You tell me your opinion is permissible. I love my country people culture history. Not without reason we are not going to battle. We are a peaceful nation and warriors do not want, we want peace and prosperity. I AM PERSONALITY as well as my compatriots. We fight when our country is in danger, when we are declared a warrior, when we were attacked. We are not fighting for the ambitions of our politicians, but for the defense of the fatherland. this is the difference between us. My people and I want the peace and prosperity of my country. That means honor. you have your own opinion your leader is your right because we live in a free world. We defend our homeland when it is in danger. I believe that the honor is respecting oneself respecting one’s own country and having one's own dignity. I ask you not to make excuses. You usually follow the instructions of the government war means war peace means peace take Zululand from the Boers so please. We ordinary do not follow the ambitions of politicians. We are for the honor of the country. Honor is self-awareness. But I don’t see you in this. A leader flourishes his people and not a leader oppresses (to the poor). A man who respects himself, a country, has dignity is an honor. Pseudo chauvinists come and go. And leaders live forever. What you wrote is pointless. Wilhelm 2 people of honor. And I don’t see honor with you. Good luck to you

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@@Erwin_Munchen Wilhelm II supported the Boers, that includes the rule of the Boers over the Zulu. He wanted to make the homelands of the Boers (Transvaal Republic) a German protectorate. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruger_telegram The Boers looked down on Africans, including the Zulu, and treated them with dishonor. Are you South African?

[@TheByteknight]

There's something about the Kaiser that both angers me and feels sorry for him at the same time. He was a pompous arrogant buffoon with a love/hate relationship with England. At the same time he was also a manipulated man by conservatives who had him turn against his liberal parents. These same conservatives who threw him under the bus in 1918 when the war was lost.

[@Prussiaboo]

0:02 That is not the voice of Kaiser Wilhelm II but of his son Kronprinz Wilhelm. Seach for the video "Deutscher Kronprinz Wilhelm complete Interview in Fox Movietone News 1932"!

[@ralphbernhard1757]

That's just a minor detail. When you leave, you'll be very proud that you've spotted it though. Do you think there is anything else "wrong" with the picture, which you might have missed?

[@bolivar2153]

@@ralphbernhard1757 Hard to fit everything about Wilhelm II into a 47 minute film, but I think it touches upon a lot of the highlights.

[@dorianphilotheates3769]

20:44 - “George V...sporting a German helmet...” - Bit of trivia for anyone interested: it was common for European royalty on official State visits to wear the uniforms of one another’s countries. George V for example, had been created a Prussian Field-Marshal by the Kaiser whilst still Prince of Wales, just as Wilhelm II had been made a British Field-Marshal by King Edward VII. In the next scene, in fact, the Kaiser is wearing the regimental uniform of a Colonel of the British Royal Horse Guards (now the ‘Blues and Royals’ - one of the two cavalry regiments of the Household Brigade, in which Princes William and Harry serve, and of which Anne, the Princess Royal, is Col-in-Chief). ADDENDUM: Excellent channel, BTW - many very interesting topics; only just found it and subscribed! Greetings from Greece!🇬🇷

[@supersonicdickhead374]

During the period it was common to hear, from open windows on warm spring days, "Gunter! How many times have I told you not to leave that damned spiked helmet on my chair!?"

[@jennysoto8135]

Excellent documentary. Thank you very much .❤

[@gregdorl9957]

Fascinating insight to a troubled and flawed man.. thank you so much

[@albaproductions9602]

Being half German I find this documentary very interesting, Thank you for putting this up.

[@kaiserwilhelmii1695]

Mein gott, why blame me when it was actually that fool Hotzendorf?

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@Phillip Robinson In case you decide to come here, and read, please remember: *Words* (like the Magna Carta) do not cancel out the *power* of deeds (actions), as carried out as *actual events* according to observed reality (such as events explained by the divide and rule strategies of the elites). *That reality makes any accumulation of "words" the ancillary in any depiction of historicity, and the events the indicative.* Events which are proven to have happened, are the imperative or cardinal choice. "Words" can become platitudes, if what they intend to achieve, are not put into effect, whereas events cannot.

[@connorbarratt7217]

The audio at the end is not ex-Kaiser Wilhelm, but his son the Crown Prince.

[@Gkm-]

Yes

[@Bacchus]

If his father had reigned longer, this man might've had more time to prepare for his future role as Emperor. Instead, poor old Fritz died before he could do all the plans him and Victoria planned for years. I swear, if Emperor Friedrich III didn't have that cancer, he would've had more stronger and friendlier ties to Russia and Britain. Things would've been different.

[@unadin4583]

Bacchus: I agree that things would have been different and probably better if Friedrich had lived a few years longer. I think that the main difference is that Bismarck would have had time to make preparations for a post-Bismarck Germany.

[@veigaanaosodecalcinha1459]

true

[@disneyplay4]

@@veigaanaosodecalcinha1459 porra de nome é esse kkkkkk

[@brober]

Same with Nicholas II.

This is NOT the voice of Kaiser Bill, but that of the Kronzprinz Wilhelm!!!!

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@Nassim In case you are still reading, I'm trying to post a longer essay which seems to become blocked. I'll try and use trial and error to figure where the issue is.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

In this essay, the focus will be on revealing the divide and rule strategy with a few core elements and techniques explained by using specific examples of how it is intentionally implemented, or how it is unintentionally effected from within any hierarchical system by the privileges awarded by the tiers of power (ranks), by a system of meritocracy (psychology) or otherwise, of the divide and rule system (power). Note that one can discover unknown potential strategies of divide and rule/conquer, both in a historical context as well as in the present, in all systems of human interaction, by comparing events which are known to have happened. All known historical examples and specific techniques of an admitted strategy of divide and rule/conquer being implemented, are then simply compared to known other events: One must elevate the events above all else and in this regard too much knowledge is a scourge because it acts as a distraction. *Every system of hierarchy, if not strictly following a neutral set of generally acceptable rules which are fair and universally applied regardless of the hierachy, is prone to become a divide and rule/conquer system at the drop of a dime.* Any system of human cooperation which is hierarchical in nature and operates with an intent of gain ("payoffs" in Game Theory), which is not 100% congenial is susceptable to becoming a playgound for divide and rule/conquer strategies of players with a competitive advantage. All individually allocated power, large and small in nature, which is not for the common good of all can quickly become an instrument of a divide and rule/conquer strategy even without the full knowledge of the actors implementing it. Divide and rule/conquer strategies can be effected with or without any form of consent or written contracts and treaties. In other words, the only way to avoid implementing unintentional policies of divide and rule/conquer, is to be completely fair and by actually implementing universally valid principles as guidelines and laws which count equally for all; an utopian society from the current perspective. That said, not all systems are competitive, in the same way not all individuals are competitive in nature. Systems which are not hierarchic nor operate with an intent of gain on any global scale, are outside of the scope of the theory presented, which is the majority of mankind just wishing to eke out a living. Once one understands the basic principles of the strategy which is that all struggles are the competition between systems on multiple levels right down to individuals in society, all interacting using strategy, and understanding where these systems fit into a bigger picture, one can start understanding the mechanisms determining conflict in the world as per conflict theory. *One can start drawing comparissons on multiple levels at different periods in time, and different places in the world by using the analogy of a Jigsaw puzzle. By constantly zooming in and zooming out one can gain a better understanding of systems pitted against other systems, and how they fit into the bigger overall geopolitical landscape.* Both in the current analyses as well as every historical context, events are often distorted by amplifying unimportant events above their real impact.

[@samcarter2371]

I stumbled into a video with the most educated comment section I've ever seen.

[@oasis6767]

It takes careful curation to keep it so, Sam. Thanks.

[@lukehauser1182]

Outstanding - thanks to Wilhelm's descendants for speaking

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Implementing a "divide and rule/conquer"-system, is really simple. *From an elevated position of power, on any tier, pick a favorite, or two, or three...* (nutshell version/multiple examples of such "favoratism" is provided in over a year of interconnected essays in the below comments section).

[@aferalkid]

this is totally not from a biased anglo perspective

[@jfjoubertquebec]

hihihi... please state your case, not your conclusions.

[@amosababio5458]

For me, the start of WW1 was like "one thing led to the other" situation. First, all the European powers at the time b4 1914 formed two rival alliances. Each country pledges support to one another. Then the spark; Archduke Franz Ferdinand is assassinated. Serbia is blamed for it. Then Serbia is under attack from Austrio- Hungarian forces. Russia moves in to support Serbia. Germany sees Russian involvement as a threat and declares war. As the days go by, France and Great Britain get involved also. Had there been a mechanism to calm tempers down WW1 would not have started

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Yes, the "domino stones theory" makes a lot of sense. The domino stones toppled because none of the world's major powers were willing to step down from a position once taken. Therefore what could have remained a limited "3rd Balkan War", spread into a "Continental European War", and from there to a "Great, or World War". WW1 came about due to the contested spheres of influence in the Balkans, between Russia, Austria Hungary, and Germany. WW2 came about because of the contested spheres of influence in Eastern Europe (the British and French Empires, Germany, and the SU). WW2 in the Asia/Pacific theatre of operations came about due to the contested spheres of influence in China (Western Powers = Chinese Nationalists = Chiang Kai Check vs. Japan vs. the SU = Communism = Mao) Today, we are witnessing a contested sphere of influence in the ME (USA, West vs. Russia and China), so let's hope our wise leaders keep a level head...

[@DANIEL666YUSUPOV_KAZANOVA]

Great documentary thanks for posting

[@mided2119]

What year was this program produced?

[@aurelian3268]

imagine Bismarck's soul talking with the kaiser in his last moments

[@unadin4583]

The only German curse word I know is Scheisse. You would need to find the German equivalent of Lenny Bruce or the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket to truly convey what Bismarck's soul would have said to Wilhelm.

[@timteichmann6830]

Nö worries they probably met each other in hell

[@dorianphilotheates3769]

When I was studying in England back in the late ‘80s there was a little old lady - Gracie was her name - who lived in one of the flats of the rooming house where I was staying. In the daytime, she was a sprightly, pleasant lady with a ready smile and a kindly word for everyone (she was particularly warm-hearted to all of us foreign students, so far away from our homes). But sometimes she would wake us all up in the wee hours of the morning, as she wandered through the hallways shouting in her wonderfully syncopated Cockney, “thay should-a ‘ung the Kaiser they should...” As we eventually learned from our landlady, her niece, the poor old thing had lost a brother and a sweetheart (and likely innumerable other young friends, relatives, and acquaintances) in the horrors of the trenches at the Western Front. Now, seventy odd years after the end of the Great War, in her grief and loneliness, she still blamed “Kaiser Bill” for the tragedies of her bygone youth...😢 God rest her soul.

[@amosababio5458]

Awwwwww I feel sorry for her. God is in control😭😭😢😢

[@sucher9043]

gott strafe england

[@mololongothesequel5991]

How old is the guy who was labeled as “Berliner”? He met the Kaiser??

[@ericastier1646]

amazing documentary editing and production, great 1990 generation. That's something the current generation with their gizmos and gazillion pixels cameras and lacking mentality could not do. Everything the music the sequences it's flawless.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Agreed. A very emotional documentary. It certainly tugs at those human instincts. And the music? Great choice. Just like in Hollywood movies, the music underscores the emotions generated by the images, and they compliment each other, and the narrative, in a very convincing manner... Excellent. It's almost as if the soothing, calming music makes everything more true. Excellent indeed.

[@ericastier1646]

@@ralphbernhard1757 Yes, except that Hollywood is not a positive reference afai am concerned. It's the brainwashing cradle operated by a minority nepotistic group imposing their dominance and propaganda over the USA. Occulting the real america and replacing it by a fake world that diverts attention away from the real problem people and their activities and forms zombies and points fingers to political opponent all to coerce masses to serve the fake elite minority. Only other countries' elite can see how brainwashed the common United-statian is. Fortunately there is a growing american population that has become aware.

[@juttamaier2111]

I actually don't know much about WW1, or royalties, but unlike many other british documentaries, this one seems to be biased and one sided, and leaves out alot about why things developped the way they were.

[@snakes3425]

The vast majority of the monarchs who fought World War I were actually related to each other through marriages or were descendants of Queen Victoria, who had the idea that she could prevent the war that was to come by populating the Royal Houses of Europe with her off spring...well as history showed Victoria's plans backfired

[@oasis6767]

It's good to see a film stirring up such interesting academic debate. Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far; and for the students who use the film in their studies, be aware of the perceptive arguments advanced below. You get lots of credit for counter-argument, remember!

[@enest4351]

oh my old ally. Greetings Kaiser II. Wilhelm

[@syedrafeeqahmed5592]

The historic work is great but lack credibility. Even now it can be edited to mention captions and most importantly dates. Thanks.

[@HarryGeee]

Strange to think that he died thinking Germany had won the war.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

In all ernest, so did King George V. When he died, he must've thought WW1 had secured the future of the British Empire... At least he had a battleship named after him. "Kings", "empires", and "battleships", were however antiquated concepts.

[@bolivar2153]

"which were already divided due to a variety of reasons" - Herr von Bernhard What reasons? Who was the force for unity/concord in this struggle? "Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord" - Herr von Bernhard

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@Matheus Wagner Hello Matheus In case you wish to understand why I wrote that the fate of the Middle East was "decided" at Versailles as direct effect, and was not "determined" by Sykes-Picot, please read at least two weeks back in the below comments thread. For a strategy of divide and rule/conquer, *favoratism* is more important than to be fair (or other positive human character traits). Versailles' function was a "gatekeeper", in which Sykes-Picot (a secret deal) was allowed to pass even if in a watered-down manner, while other secret deals were not allowed to pass. That makes Versailles the geopolitically intrinsic event, and Sykes-Picot the ancillary/subordinate in history, regardless of the timeline. *While reading, please bear in mind that more importantly, for a strategy of divide and rule/conquer to persist indefinitely, blame shifting is one of the chief techniques employed.* In case you are interested in further discussing the divide and rule/conquer strategy, please leave a comment anywhere you wish. rgds

[@Mayaotsu]

I don't like monarchs but I have huge respect for that guy

[@pup1008]

Our Queen (UK) awesome?

[@_dave4681]

@@pup1008 yes

[@jeanghika7653]

You forget that France started the war.

[@pup1008]

@@jeanghika7653 How?

[@detroitandclevelandfan5503]

​@@pup1008Read the innocence of Kaiser Whilhelm ii by Christina Croft. You'll know the truth then.

[@Riddarstolphe]

Wilhelm II wasn't trying to "conquer Europe" wtf. And that wasn't even him speaking at the begining- it was his son, Wilhelm THE THIRD.

[@WojciechWachniewski-st1zm]

The second Billy, or Seine Majestaet Kaiser Wilhelm II became in Sep. 1910 the most prominent guest ever in the history of my home town of Słupsk. Then the town was called Stolp in Pommern and celebrated festively its 600th 'birthday', or the 600th anniversary of its location/foundation on what is known as the 'Magdeburg urban law' on the 9th of Sep. 1310. His Majesty were as well a shiplover himself, and his younger brother Prinz Heinrich of Prussia (1862-1929) rose to the rank of 'Grossadmiral' in the Imperial German Navy.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Poland is being set up again. Can you recognize the "setup"? Your wealth is being syphoned off, under the guise of "defense", and is going to end up in the coffers of someone else. Can you recognize the current setup?

[@ralphbernhard1757]

If I were you, I would research the works of two great Polish thinkers. One, is Lobaczewski who came up with the definition of pathocracy, which is based on observation. The other is Zbigniew Brzeziński, who worked for the American Century, which is personally very profitable...

[@zbh-gl3gg]

He was not Wilhelm “of” Germany, but Wilhelm of Prussia. As German Emperor he was only the first under the German monarchs, or better to say the second after the Emperor of Austria.

[@unadin4583]

I like your comment because it illustrates the confusion of what a monarch at that time was supposed to be. Was Wilhelm the kaiser of the nation-state of Germany, or the kingdom of Prussia? Was Germany a nation-state or a Prussian empire? Was Wilhelm's duty to his family members, e.g. the king of England and czar of Russia, the people of Germany, or the Prussian military aristocracy? As an American, I have difficulty understanding how the constitutional monarchies of that time were supposed to work.

[@EAMCFC]

Despite being german leader during the first world war he was nowhere near as unruling as hitler

[@LathropLdST]

You are really naive and ignorant. The First killed more people than the Second...

[@EAMCFC]

@@LathropLdST no one can be this dumb please tell me you're joking

[@kubanskiloewe]

my grandma always told us this rhyme : " Der Kaiser ist ein lieber Mann und wohnet in Berlin. Und wär´es nicht soweit von hier so ging ich heut´noch hin." ( The Kaiser is a nice man and lives in Berlin. And if it were´nt such far away i would walk this very day )

[@unadin4583]

Was your grandma Prussian, or from a different part of Germany?

[@kubanskiloewe]

@@unadin4583 different part; the effect of 1871 united very much whole germany but most of all it was the feeling of living in a "golden era" were many cities grew as cure cities with huge public free bulidings, baths an nice parks. Even the currency they switched from silver/gold mix to a pure gold standard ! Same as in england too. Also the very good and free education system was felt as a huge step forward ....you can see that on how much german scientists get the Nobel price in these years . Still the downside was a massive workforce with little rights in upcoming industries like iron, coal,chemestry,electrification, railroads, ships, colonial territory overseas and not at least troops and weapons.

[@ottomeyer6928]

who says He was responsable for the war? nobody else than the Brits ofcourse.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Implementing a "divide and rule/conquer"-system, is really simple. *From an elevated position of power, on any tier, pick a favorite, or two, or three...* (nutshell version/multiple examples of such "favoratism" is provided in over a year of interconnected essays in the below comments section). The strategy is revealed by observation. No more "gish gallop" attempts at deflection.

[@user-xg8yy7yl1d]

It’s really interesting to hear an actual recording of the Kaiser speaking English and his English seemed really good too

[@oasis6767]

It wasn't him, it was Crown Prince Wilhelm, his son. The mistake lies with the Director of this film, I would imagine. However, Wilhelm II spoke five languages, including fluent English due to his connections to the British royal court, so he was quite capable of uttering those words.

[@northernknight7787]

Well his grandmother is Queen Victoria the former queen of the British empire. And his mother was a Brit so he spoke English and german as a child

[@davemojarra2666]

His mother was English.

[@robertmusacchio9409]

Recently discovered letters from the young Wilhelm to his Mother indicate a very strange abnormal attitude towards her. His anger towards her pro-English upbringing & her British Doctors' medical 'treatments', mentally took him down very odd paths.

[@sandrarodriguez-ie1ky]

Robert Musacchio I can’t blame him. Those treatments for that arm sound more like torture. They said they used electric shock therapy.

[@ryanwagner6715]

All mothers and their sons have odd relationships in one form or another . She didn’t exactly accept his physical disabilities which means she didn’t wholly accept him as a human being . That’s a tough one .

[@sandrarodriguez-ie1ky]

In those days, having a physical disability was an omen regardless of who you were. I also think that his mom, coming from a long lineage of monarchs & royals, saw him as what he was, the future Keiser, that was one of the princesses’ duties, was to create heirs. Also, keep in mind that being a King or Queen meant, that you were chosen by God or it was a God given right, & so how can God give them a King with a bad arm. The whole thing to us is preposterous, but for them, it was a thing of power & longevity.

[@nassimsebai3199]

@Ralph @Ralph In fact I’m a citizen of Algeria 🇩🇿, Morocco’s regional rival, and I think the territory you are referring to is Western Sahara, cause Algeria is backing and indepandist movement there called the Polisario front, right ?

[@tomace4898]

"All of you know nothing! I alone know something! I alone decide!"

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Sounds like exceptionalism. "Belief in exceptionalism can represent erroneous thought analogous to historicism in that it overemphasizes peculiarities in an analysis and ignores or downplays meaningful comparisons. A group may assert exceptionalism in order to exaggerate the appearance of difference, to invoke a wider latitude of action, and to avoid recognition of similarities that would reduce perceived justifications. This can be an example of special pleading, a form of spurious argumentation that ignores relevant bases for meaningful comparisons. Exceptionalism is often based on poor historical knowledge." (Wiki)

[@jesskaii8484]

From my understanding, wasn't he a grandchild of the late queen Victoria, dubbed grandmother of Europe?

[@baronofbahlingen9662]

Yes

[@freyamccullough8326]

The first grandchild!

[@nancyfarquharson4146]

also the product of two first cousins marrying , i believe

[@freyamccullough8326]

His grandparents, Albert and Victoria, were first cousins. His parents, Frederick and Vickey, were fifth cousins, once removed as both were descended from King George I of the UK.

[@nancyfarquharson4146]

i see , thanks

[@Jermaine842]

Perhaps if Frederick III hadn't died so soon, WWI might have been averted since he wanted Germany to follow the example of Great Britain. Here is the link to his story: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_III,_German_Emperor

[@canad3nse]

Finally this discussion ended, after 2-3 years

[@ralphbernhard1757]

I can write 3-4 essays, like the ones in the below comments section, every day for the rest of my life. Nothing "stops" because *you* want it to stop. It has only just started.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

The time is approaching. For 50 years after 1945 the citizens of the USA have lived the "good life" at the expense of the rest of the world in the immediate post-WW2 years, when the rest of the planet was so weak it could not avoid US institutions/military/NGOs from imposing themselves, and vacuuming off enormous gain... No, that ratio is down to 30% of the world's wealth. It's decreasing... *What does the USA look like today? What will it look like when this amount of wealth of the world reaches 20%, or then 10%?* When US citizens finally get closer to a "fair share" of the world's resources/wealth, and have to make do with *the same* amounts as everybody else, they will finally find out what level of psychopathy they have systemically enabled inside, operating from within their OWN country/state. _When they can no longer vacuum off the wealth of the world, in an unfair manner (50% for us, the 4% of the planet), they will start finding out what human nature is like._ When 4% of the planet, have to make do with 4-5% of the world's wealth and resources, they will become everything they have always criticized. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of] And that is what they did. America's allies and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this desirable disparity continues. Set up "patterns" of European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The "playbook" of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997).

[@bolivar2153]

A discussion is meant to be an exchange of ideas. However, Ralph is merely delivering a diatribe. He shows no willingness to accept or even consider viewpoints other than his own; he is sermonising.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Everybody has their favorite part of a movie. In the Matrix, for some it is when Neo follows the white rabbit, or takes the Red Pill, and for others some or other cool superhuman fight scene. *Do you want to know what the truly indicative part was? It was when Neo was standing in the corridor and the "images" and "stories" he saw before that disappeared from his vision, and he suddenly "saw" the entire PROGRAM of the world, but not with "eyes".* Everything before that had been merely ancillary details. Ninety-nine percent, ancillary details. THE MATRIX: GEOPOLITICAL AND GRAND STRATEGY ANALYSIS Rise up above the 2D Checkers board, and rise up over the 3D Chess players, and see the imperialist PROGRAMMING of the world. The templates to break free from the narratives and all the bs. you grew up with are in the below comments section, free of charge. *The imperialist systems of gain, and the imperialist strategies they try to implement, gathering in their hordes of the uninformed they intend to do the heavy lifting for them, while they gain in the background. NOT coincidental. Invisible to most. ALL strategies of power.* Oh, and never mind SIR Bolivar. He isn't even "playing 2D checkers," since all he can do is rattle down pre-chewed narratives, lain into his mouth. He is a just another one dimensional brain, repeating what others have written FOR him. Like a little mutt yapping at my ankles. Annoying, yet amusing at the same time ;-) Kissinger: "It is ridiculous that the civilized world is held up by 8 million savages ... Can't we overthrow one of the sheikhs just to show that we can do it?" [FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1969-1976, VOLUME XXV, ARAB-ISRAELI CRISIS AND WAR, 1973, 363. Memorandum of Conversation] The rulers/sheikhs who they favored (FAVORITISM = an imperialist divide and rule strategy for the entire Middle East), to control the "savages," ruling within the lines imperialists had previously drawn on the map FOR these "savages" (WW1 era imperialism), dared question the directives of their mastahs. All just "dogs" in "mangers," (Churchill) for imperialists in search of gain. SIR Bolivar: "...but, but, but, Willi was a wacist. He said 'yellow pewil' ... he soooo bad... boo hoo. My best fwiends never did anything wong...sniff, sniff." ------------------------------------------- The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself. This is the theory. According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules. According to the concept of "meaning of words" (aka definitions) all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, not avoided, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to *disunity* in another region of the planet (another continent). *The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.*

[@ralphbernhard1757]

*"If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past." Baruch Spinoza* All throughout history we have been implored to study the past, and be honest about the past, lest we repeat it. And it is indeed repeated in endless cycles, because we are not honest about our past. In the timeframe relevant to this documentary, "poor little Belgium" had the function as a "barrier state" between great powers, in order to keep them apart (grand strategy). It was created under a completely different "big picture" reality of the post-Napolionic Wars, at a time weaker nations (incl. Germans in single states and kingdoms) needed protection from France. For GB/Empire it had the main intention for London to have a "reason for war", which it could present to its own isolationist inhabitants and leaders not versed in military strategy. Note, there was no defense pact of any kind between London and Brussels, and no alliance. London simply did not sign any binding (geopolitical/grand strategy) treaties with continental states, as a policy standpoint. For GB as a state, nation, and empire, there was no legal obligation to ever do anything. Only "feelings". "Poor little Belgium" had a function as a "barrier state", and Belgian leaders went along with it. For London Belgium's main raison d'etre was to have a "reason for war" which it could sell to its own people and leaders. Note again, there was no defense pact of any kind, and no mutual alliance. *Belgium of the past, set up as a "barrier state" with the good intention of avoiding dynastical wars, morphed over time as "tools" of an empire."* *In that regard, and concerning "strategy" and "feelings" and Finnland in 1939/40, and the Ukraine today.* In 1939 Stalin did not *need* an outright "win" in order to get his demands met. All he wanted, was to get his demands met. In 1939 the SU neither set out, nor strove for "total war" and "total victory". Stalin's demands were finally met in 1940, because nobody meddled too much. The "non-agression pact" (lol) with Germany created a barrier which effectively seperated Finnland from the rest of the world (apart from the tiny port of Petsamo in the Artic which was Finnish at the time). The Baltic as access to Finnland was off limits. Similarly, today and re. strategy, Putin does not *need* an outright "win" in order to get his demands met (No NATO forces in the Ukraine/acknowledgement of the Crimean and Donets "reality"). Again, 90% of the "experts" we see on TV these days, and their "expert analyses" miss the point entirely. Again, either intentionally or unintentionally (misleading audiences). *In 1939/40, what anybody in the outside world wanted for "poor little Finland" was entirely irrelevant.* *Today, what anybody in the outside world wants for "poor little Ukraine" is entirely irrelevant.* Why? In 1939 Nazi Germany acted as a "shield" isolating Finnland from the rest of the world. Today, what the USA and their "little NATO helpers" (or the UN, or anybody else) want or desire for "poor little Ukraine" is not relevant. Today the "barrier" isn't geography, but a weapon: nukes (MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction). The situation doesn't need to be 100% the same in "3d chess" world of strategists, in order for the outcome to be the same. *Outcome: No or little outside meddling.* And after the current "Ukraine War" has passed? *2022: "poor little Finnland" today, getting "set up" as sacrificial pawn by the "alphas" yet again.* And regarding "poor little Finnland" as the sacrificial pawn of the morphed "economic alpha empires" USA/EU (NATO alliance), dangling the "NATO membership prize" for Finnland, *while at the same time creating a "red cape" as the "lighting rod" for the bull (Russia).* Let's see how smart their leaders are today. *It has all happened before, and I hope "poor little" Finnish leaders know their history, and are versed in strategy.* Their *real* history, not the spun emotional versions for the fans in the relevant countries. Today, Finnland and the Ukraine are on Washington DC's "list" of states that will involuntarily do their bidding for them, same as the unfortunate Finnland (geographically and politically cut off from the rest of the world) was for the "empires" back in 1939/40, and same as "poor little Belgium" back in the leadup to 1914... In 1914, and for the British Empire, the first neighbor to invade Belgium was "the enemy". Irrelevant of who it was, Belgium's struggle would then automatically become a struggle to uphold the British Empire, and London's "right" to meddle on the continent. In London, the strategists didn't care about "Belgians" as such. They were simply a tool to ensure that in any potential future scenario, the average Brit would feel outrage. Today with the war in the Ukraine. The Ukraine's "function" is to fight Washington's rival/enemy, and weakening it, while at the same time the alpha can sit "on the fence" and watch, conserving its strength... All of this has happened before. Of course it has. Not exactly, but history rhymes. Also not as one might think. *Strategy (of a few) = pawns = tools = the emotions (of the many).* The victim in the past (WW2) was Norway, and the "schemers" were London/British Empire and their "little helper" France. They intended to drag Norway into the war, while falsely and insidiously claiming to "want to help Finland (Winter War)". *One needs to truly understand history and strategy by delving into the details, and being honest about the motivations of the own past leaders, in order to honestly understand the present.* Of course, British and French forces in any Scandinavian state (Norway or Sweden) would have acted as a "red cape" for either Berlin or Moscow. A threat to their northern flanks they could not and would not ignore. The minute Norway and Sweden opened their doors to outside forces "just wanting to help" the "poor little Finns", the war would expand north, away from the own homelands (France and GB). For Finnish leaders today it means truly understanding what happened in 1939/40 re. the Finnish Winter War, and how London/Paris intended to turn Scandinavia into a "soft underbelly" (or rather "soft overbelly") and to turn Scandinavia into a war zone so that they would suffer less casualties themselves as some other region of the world went up in flames. "Poor little Finnland" would do nicely as an excuse, thank you. All the more reason for Stalin to "settle matters quickly" in March 1940, before the summer came... *Let's see if Finnland today has learnt their lesson from the past and today (Belgium/the Ukraine/Finnland 1939).* Whether they did will be revealed to us "commoners" in due time. Soon. Their leaders will reveal if the "lessons" have been learned, if we are all suddenly "surprized" (lol) by a newspaper article proclaiming that a "fait accompli" of overnight NATO membership had been quickly signed, after a short secret negotiation (lol again). In case these negotions are taking place in the open, and drag on for months? Good luck Finnland, in case you then end up with a "little border incident" with Russia, meaning a state of duress or war. There is always the wise option of threatening a neutrality deal with Moscow of course, in case a demand to Washington DC/NATO for secret and rapid signing is "delayed". Delayed? By golly...just like the Ukraine, which had the "promise of NATO membership" (since 2007/08) and "you'll be one us...soon" (EU) dangled in front of their noses... In case of any "Crimea/Donbass"-style duress evolving in Finnland during an overly long approval process, *NATO will not sign Finnland up.* Again, see Ukraine, and the "...but, but...danger of expanded nuclear war"-shrug of the old shoulders... Re. the strategies our leaders follow. They have not changed much over time. Age-old strategies to advance own interests, which do not exclude cheating "brothers". Finnland take note. "Friendship" does not exist on the ladder to success, or to stay on top of the pyramid kicking down. A tale as old as the Bible. Essau and Jacob is of course a cautionary tale to *beware of brothers,* which has morphed over time and now means "winning means everything"... Note that in this biblical "tale" about eternal deceit and "cheating own brothers out of their inheritance", *the deceiver* is the hero of the story. Go figure. The deceiver's name and slimey ways continue. Essau the "hunter type" as a name has sorta died out... Very telling indeed. The "smoothe talking good guy" deceiving his own brother, is the "hero". *"If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past." Baruch Spinoza*

[@ralphbernhard1757]

From around 10:00 minutes onwards... The so-called "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" is very famous. Also a misnomer. It was in fact a "European Naval Arms Race". As clearly defined by the British 2-Power Standard... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Defence_Act_1889 ...which doesn't mention countries. It just simply stated "build more ships that the next two countries with a margin of 10%", making it (at the time/in reality) a *European Naval Arms Race.* According to the policy, GB was also trying to outbuild Russia and France, carrying out own naval programmes. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battleships_of_France Simplifying it down to "Anglo-German" is a little bit of name branding, just so the people know who "the enemy" is...

[@ralphbernhard1757]

In contrast the post-WW1 naval arms race was not "branded" as being a *"Anglo/Japanese vs. USA Naval Arms Race"* but simply known as an arms race... [Japan and GB were still allied] Maybe London should've paid better attention to what that meant, and which implications it bore in the NWO after WW1... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Century

[@stevesloan7132]

People were looking for someone to blame for a war that killed so many millions of people, perhaps as many as fifty millions. And he did ocassionally wear a uniform with a big skull on it. Even I have seen that photo. Who better to blame? And yet he was allowed to live out his life as a private millionaire. In other words no real consequences for his actions.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Bush and Blair will live out their lives in millionaire comfort. I guess there will be no consequences for their actions. I guess they don't look at the world today, and feel in any way responsible...

[@Kaiser_Wilhelm_IV.]

This documentary has been reuploaded so astonishingly often on youtube despite the fact that already its very beginning is wrong. The man speaking in the first 20 seconds is not Kaiser Wilhelm II., it's clearly his eldest son Kronprinz Wilhelm Friedrich. Not only is it not the Kaisers voice, but you can simply find that interview with the Kronprinz here on youtube for proper evidence.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@Barrie Roberts and @Just Joe Never mind "Sir Bolivar". When we first debated about 2-3 years ago, he wouldn't even recognize the accepted theory that his "London lordships" placed *avoid the single hagemony on the continent (system of alliances)* as a main objective of their policies. In the meantime, I think he's accepted it as a reality of the times... Barrie and Joe, did you know that Sir Bolivar's "lordships" also tried to "avoid the single hegemony" (single country) from taking shape on the North American continent and that trying to steer the original 13 states into a "2-front war"-scenario as divide and rule strategy, same as they did on continental Europe? (scroll down in these comments, to the essays based on geopolitics/grand strategy concerning the US War of Independence, and the American Civil War). *Did you know that the main thing stopping those "London lordships" at the time, was more important events unfolding on the continent of Europe happening at the same time, which acted as distraction?* At the time of the US War of Independence, the "Napoleon ambitions" of France, and later during the Civil War Bismarck's ongoing unification of Germany 1864 - 1871 (plus a few minor events, all explained in more detail in those essays), and *in both cases Washington DC operating in the "shadows" of these more important events.* *Did you know that the "London lordships" did not stop the US "single hegemony" on the N. American continent unfolding, because these lordships COULD not stop it, because their focus was bound to Europe?* Did you know that "Sir Bolivar the apologist" for his London lordships, would have also cheered his lordships' divide and rule/conquer strategies along 200 years ago (N.Am), same as he cheers his lordships divide and rule/conquer strategies along 100 years ago (Europe), same as he will cheer them on today, if/when they set out to play divide and rule in Asia...again? And when they fail, he will go "I never liked them anyway" (me = rofl)

[@bolivar2153]

Don't you know your history, Ralph? Prussia also fought to prevent the single hegemony on the continent of Europe, eventually. Admittedly, they stabbed Napoleon in the back to do it, but fight to prevent it they eventually did. Ralph just likes to paint a "more favourable" picture when the hegemonic ("Napoleon") ambitions are those of Germany.

[@bolivar2153]

You are the Imperialist, Ralph, not me. I have not made any secret of my distaste for the European Colonial Empires, of any nation, Britain and Germany included. You, on the other hand, are fond of preaching the gospel of "wiping nations off the map" to suit your hegemonic dreams.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Awww....look. The same argument the "empire apologist" is going to make today as "loooook Chy-nah wants to wule the world" (empire) with some or other variation of the "pointed finger".... Meanwhile, the reality of the times (post-1815/Concert of Europe), the main objecive of ALL capital cities (incl. some, not ALL London lords***), not only Berlin at the time, was to "Balance the European powers" as a principle. Also explained, in great detail, in several essays in this very comments section... ***some, not ALL London lords = divide and rule starts at home, and is "played" everywhere (incl. the continent of Europe, sometime after 1878), also explained in great detail in the comments thread, to those with a good memory...

[@bolivar2153]

@@ralphbernhard1757 " the main objecive of ALL capital cities (incl. some, not ALL London lords***), not only Berlin at the time, was to "Balance the European powers" as a principle" Correct, and Europe fought two more devastating wars following those of the Napoleonic age, to ensure that no one else seized that hegemony (and by 1916/17, even the Austrian's feared that a German victory would, probably quite rightly, see them relegated to the position of a mere vassal of Germany, which was not viewed as an attractive proposition, even by Germany's "favourites"). Preventing that hegemony was in the interest of EVERY European nation, Ralph. It's not a dirty phrase to be spat out along with your vitriol at the British and the Anglosphere in general.

[@bolivar2153]

@@ralphbernhard1757 As for divide and rule, Bismarck wanted to keep the Balkans states small and manageable, and therefore not a rival or threat. Keep them divided. The exact same strategy they had employed on Poland. That was why Russia's large Bulgaria didn't curry favour with him. It was also why Austria-Hungary was backing Britain in opposing the move by Russia. Britain doesn't want Russia to extend it's influence over the Balkans (and towards Constantinople and the Med), and neither does Austria-Hungary (which also had a pathological fear of the rise of any independent nationalism within that region that would/could be seen as a threat to the internal stability of it's own multi-ethnic/cultural Empire).

[@leone.6190]

First sentence allready overloaded with anti-german Propaganda...

[@leone.6190]

@Steve Bivens I'm german. Both Brothers of my great grandfather Lost their Lives fighting for the fatherland. The "documentary" is not at all neutral, but very disrespectfull, so...

[@brownman304]

@Steve Bivens historians are lying that’s “So”

[@pneron2032]

@@leone.6190 Your evil country has torn Europe apart twice, and now your Fourth Reich EU is trying again.

[@user-xg8yy7yl1d]

Wearing a Prussian helmet to visit the German leader. Sounds like something Trudeau would do

[@detectivefowler4135]

WOOOO TRUDEAU!!!! 😊😁😂

[@user-xg8yy7yl1d]

@@detectivefowler4135 I was referring to how he likes to wear "costumes" to visit foreign countries sometimes like his india visit Now that I mention it he'd probably have a fake mustache too that looks like the kaisers

[@gismofly2847]

LOL. Ouch!

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@michaelwarenycia7588 You stated: "Interesting analysis. I can't fault your logic". Firstly, thank you for your positive feedback. In case you see the message directing you here (most "notifications are off as default), then please read down as far as you please. The reason I've posted most essays here, is because of how many other channels on YT "autoblock" essays, meaning that I sorta gravitated here without any particular other reason. The essays have little to do with the subject of the video, apart form the "watershed" of history : around 1900, which is also a defining point for European history. The topic of all the interlinked essays which deal with a multitude of eras, tiers of power, personalities, etc. is the POWER of the "divide and rule"-strategy, and how easy it is to hide it, using other words and theories as a smokescreen. This happens (mostly) while those creating the "smokescreens" are totally unaware of what they are doing. *Personally, I've progressed from "Studying history", to "How people study history", which to the perceptive mind are two different things.* When studying the principles of POWER, most people quickly bump up against the effect of one of these strategies power players use: the "divide and rule"-systems we all live in. A theory which makes perfect sense, then suddenly becomes "icky" the more one discovers its reach/impact onto the human mind: the reader averts himself from the theory, and "joins teams"... The essay you responded to is merely a part of a much bigger picture. That of the "divide and rule"-world we live in, and the POWER this strategy gives a few select human beings in positions of such POWER. Divide people, and then set them up against each other, or... *Create or advocate for "teams" of banner-waving slogan-chanting fans...* From a position of power, one can create such "teams" easy peasy, for example, by simply uttering a few words: *Team You're on the Right Side of History* Give them "banners", to create a cult-like following. Then, from a position of POWER, fund, then sit back and enjoy the show as the advocates and "teams" engage in dissent. Dissention is of course a technique within the DaR system, because while the masses are divided, fighting, pointing fingers, and generally tearing each other apart, or most good people simply losing faith and turning inwards and becoming disinterested, the dividers walk off with the profits in the background, granted to these few in the giant "vacuum cleaners" they've created, funneling POWER and wealth, in one direction: up up up up ...

[@ralphbernhard1757]

When comparing big picture/macro-level events today and 125 years ago, the fact that today's stability is safeguarded by treaties, is clear to most people. *Unity can only be achieved through treaties, which benefit all equally, and which consider the security issues of all equally.* With a negotiated and signed treaty, both parties (bilateral) or all partners (multilateral) know were they are standing, and there are binding conditions which can be refered to, resulting in mutually beneficial rewards for all. *The foundations of security granted by the EU and NATO (amongst others) are all in the form of treaties.* Such treaties have given Europe its second period of extended relative peace after WW2 (the first was generally considered to be 1815 to 1914). These two periods had only few and limited wars in Europe. The first lasted almost a hundred years. As for the second extended period of peace, we shall see... Bismarck acknowledged the value of binding treaties with mutually agreed upon clauses, as a major contributing factor towards safety and stability. The bigger the scope of such all inclusive treaties, the bigger the benefit for all of those citizens/inhabitants so included. Bismarck intended to enhance the scope of "little treaties" with a local impact, into bigger and more comprehensive treaties with an ever widening impact on those included in these treaties (Dual Alliance, turned into the Triple Alliance). A step by step approach. If not this year, then the next... The Triple Alliance was open to all, but unfortunately one can only lead a horse to the water, but can't make it drink. Once there is security via treaties for all, all can grow. Nothing avoid the Triple Alliance, from being turned into a Quadrilateral security dialogue, followed by a treaty. True today. True, 100 or 150 years ago Furthermore, most people see treaties as only to "address a specific outside danger", which is only half the story. The other half being that it also contributes to the internal unity of the masses so combined "per signature" of leaders, and should such a big picture treaty/agreement be missing, there is the danger that outside forces will open Pandora's Box ("divide and rule", by preying on the emotions of weaker minds in every society...greed, hate, fear, envy, anger, etc.). *It does not matter how "evil" anybody terms treaties like the EU/NATO to be: Only a fool would wish to return to the world as it was 100 years ago with no such comprehensive mutually beneficial binding treaties (EU = mainly economic in nature/NATO = security).* If anybody thinks that the value of such treaties are only determined or "weighed" by the threats posed by outside forces, think again. You don't believe that Europeans can ever become enemies again, and such treaties are meaningless because "people today are different/better"? Look around the blogs and comments sections of the internet. It does not matter how good majorities are. All it needs is a few misguided fools, to get any ball rolling. Once the ball rolls, it quickly snowballs as every Tom Dick and Harry jumps on the bandwagon with the own agenda... If you believe that good people will create a better world, without binding and mutually beneficial agreements, you are already living in a fool's paradise. It's like signing away laws/regulations/neighborhood cops on the micro level of society, thinking that the "decency of the many" will then unite and rule...lol, no. Peace during those times (leadup to WW1) was widely accepted to be considered "honor" for the leaders, and achieved by "balanced powers", not treaties as such. Treaties at the time were broad in scope at the very top (Concert of Europe), and almost all treaties dealt only with specific issues. There was no treaty even remotely similar to what the EU or NATO is today. Logic of "balance": as long as all powers were similar in capability, then any war would end in a draw or at best a Pyrrhic victory even for the "winners", thereby removing the incentives to use war as an extention of politics or gain. Logic of "honor": As long as everybody remained "decent" and "honorable", there would be no need for treaties. *A fool's paradise.* Because "decency/honor" is not a defined term, and also not a self-evident truth, and it depends very much on intepretation. It is subjective as a personal standpoint, and subservient to other factors to those who seek ever more power, wealth, and gain. As soon as one implements conditions depending on emotions and "gut feelings" rather than signed agreements, one sets the stage for disaster. And rising imperialism soon set that "stage" for Europe, as easily recognized by the USA, which stayed out or took over a largely ancillary function in "European imperialism" (from an elevated geographical advantage). *The British Empire, at the height of its power at the turn of the previous century (1900) was the key to "balanced European powers" according to the logic of those times.* Historians who refer to the European balance of power, usually forget one major point: the historical "European balance of power" as valid for the entire globe (because here was where "power" was centered), was being replaced by a new "global balance of power" which included the USA. A change taking place at the time ("around 1900") which London would have needed to address. Note London, not anybody else. London was the self-proclaimed "balancer of powers". The need to end its own isolation was recognised. The "spirit" was willing, but the "mind" was weak though. *Upon closer investigation, London never really ended its own "Splendid Isolation", despite claims to the contrary.* It never signed comprehensive, binding treaties with other major powers, let alone try to thread a comprehensive European security agreement. It never seriously considered establishing a more united Europe, to "balance out" the rise of the USA. End of Part 1 (This essay is not a singularity, but fits in with other comments made over the course of the past few years under this video, and must be read as a continuous thought with re. to the strategies states/empires employed, and still employ today)

[@zzebowa]

It was an English doctor who delivered Willhelm according to my understanding, and that is why he resented them.

[@ZK_1234_]

That wasn't me that was Austria :

[@kylebrannan7988]

Mein Kaiser von Vaterland, talk some sense into these British propaganda spreaders

[@francislarvey7942]

Interesting and informative. But why OS the lady presenter whispering ?

[@unadin4583]

Agreed. Her voice is pretty annoying. She sounds like some English nanny reading a bed time story to a toddler.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@Invisibleman One of the most persistent arguments against Wilhelm II was that he was erratic, or even a psychopath, and didn't have clear goals and aims. The argument usually goes something like this. "Wilhelm wasn't exactly consistent in his policies, and was so unpredictable that he constantly exasperated his own ministers and his generals, who said he 'couldn't lead three soldiers over a gutter'. Wilhelm thought that he was a good diplomat when actually he was a terrible one, and he seemed to have the habit of saying the worst possible things to alienate almost everybody else in Europe." (copied form a YT comment by Invisibleman) "Wilhelm wasn't exactly consistent in his policies..." Actually, he was. *The end goal was unity in Europe, to balance out the rise of the USA, either by alliance with the continental powers, or by alliance with GB, which (could/might) then draw the others in.* "...and was so unpredictable that he constantly exasperated his own ministers and his generals, who said he 'couldn't lead three soldiers over a gutter'...." That is an actual means in a "divide and rule"-strategy, since most of these German leaders were extremely conservative in their views, and as expalined in some of the below essays, in order to achieve a higher aim (European unity, by peacefull means), one FIRST has to the destroy the existing structures in the OWN political system, which was conservative, meant a wish to stick to the status quo... "Wilhelm thought that he was a good diplomat when actually he was a terrible one, and he seemed to have the habit of saying the worst possible things to alienate almost everybody else in Europe." Same "divide and rule"-strategy for other European powers. These utterings can be easily explained, when looking at whom was being "woed" in order to create a rapprochement, or an alliance/treaty/agreement of sorts, and who had to be kept out until such unity was achieved. Here it is very important, NOT to scramble the timeline of events, by simply rattling down such utterings without looking at the complete picture, but to analyse these "utterings" within the context at one particular timepoint on the timeline. *First in line for such "unity", was Great Britain (early-1890s), whilst trying to build up better relations to France in slow steps, or "enable a rapprochement" with France.* In order to understand this, one must evaluate the strategies of "game theory" and the process of slow incremental steps towards an (lol) "endsieg", and why I stated waaaaaay down in this thread that after Bismarck was "fired", that Berlin "leaned west" (gravitating/geopolitics). *Tit-for-tat, is not only a "kids game".* It is in fact one of the key means in diplomacy. One makes a small step, and then checks what effect this has, or how another side responds to this "small step". The wishful effect desired, would be that the other "side" mirrors the attempt with an equally small positive step. Then, to take in from there in small steps... (Search for Game Theory/Strategy/Tit-for-Tat) The exact scientific analysis of the strategy is elabored under the essay about EU High Council Rep. Joseph Borrel, about 6 months ago (ALL essays are interlinked, and solely based on the analysis of "systems" and "strategies" which are timeless, so that the "logic" of criticizing any "hopping around on the timeline" does not exist. Also I use this means, because I do not personally follow any ideology). The strategy can be applied for good intentions, or bad intentions, and assuming bad intentions as a default would be admitting to own biases... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_attribution_bias Especially in an environment of extreme mistrust and typical deceptive politics, this is a way to discover the intentions of an opposing side, without "leaning out of the window" too far, or "letting the cat out of the bag" too early, meaning that opposition to new alignments BOTH in the own empire, as well as in other empires can create an opposing conservative strategy to any observed "more unity in Europe". *Evidence for the above statement that Wilhelm II/some elements in Berlin actually did want to "balance out the rise of the USA", is provided in the below comments section, which actually provides an essay for each and every "begged question" which might or might not arise from any other essay.* After a looooooong 5 years or so, by 1896, after both Great Britain and France had declined this "gradual process" of tit-for-tat, Berlin "leaned east" again, hoping for a "protype EU" of sorts using an axis Berlin-St. Petersburg as basis. The memorandum was titled something like "on the need to create a politico/economic union against the USA" (paraphrasing, but the exact wording and title is under the essay starting with "Why Wilhelm had to go in 1918...") Why London refused such cooperation, regardless of the "narratives" hobby historians grew up with. *London did not want to,* because London thought (strategy/own historical POV) that they could master each and every European crisis and war, and gain from these, without a binding treaty with any power. Evidence for this, if one doesn't want to read any of the below, is actually in simply studying what London did NOT do in the leadup to WW1, and beyond until after WW2, when they themselves became weak and a "US poodle" (Peter Hitches). This is not only true for GB today, but also for each and every European country, who despite all declarations and words, are not a unity, but easily bullied US "poodles".

[@bostonblackie9503]

Queen Victoria's favourite grandchild, however the rest of the family mocked him for the clicking of the heels and his pompous behaviour. He loved it when his uncle and aunt, Prince and Princess of Wales, had to bow and curtsey to him. He became Kaiser before his uncle became King. Queen Victoria died in the Kaisers arms. He managed all by himself to put an end to the German Monarchy!

[@dylanthepickle6428]

The Kaiser was NOT responsible for WWI and he did not start it. Of course he played a significant part but we’ve been made to believe the responsibility was all his.

[@bleenblock8525]

Britain was responsible for WWI. They didn´t like the rise of Germany and german colonies.

[@unadin4583]

@@bleenblock8525 That's a rather speculative claim. Rival powers had been fighting over eastern Europe for centuries. Is it really surprising that the major powers of the region at that time (i.e. Russia, Germany, and AH), might do the same? Germany did not have much in the way of a colonial empire. Bismarck could have claimed more land for Germany in Africa but decided not to.

[@ralphbernhard1757]

@kathybikadi9854 Political "force" or power (clout) can be applied in "light" and "dark" ways. Light ways include ways to achieve unity, even between politically divided systems, as best possible. "Dark" ways include playing games with human beings, and this includes the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy or technique, which is a signature move of imperialistically minded individuals (incl. so called "supporters of freedom and democracy"). The essays which might interest you, explaining this in great detail, are about 5-10 comments down in this thread, if you choose the setting "latest comments" first. rgds

[@bolivar2153]

"[...] in my opinion, [we have] have reached the point where no one trusts either him [Wilhelm II] or our policy; nor is anyone afraid of us any more." Alfred Ludwig Heinrich Karl Graf von Waldersee, 16 February 1903

[@StevenTorrey]

Really appreciate the archival video footage...

[@gauisblach7757]

Some interesting facts presented but very blatant bias in commentary.