Kaiser Wilhelm II

I am from St. Louis, which has large population of German descent, even though I am not one of them.
My great aunt's father was a full blooded German, and was an ardent German supporter in WW I & WW II.
Something which he came under a great deal of criticism for.

While WW I was a difficult sell in America, eventually it came to pass that America had to enter the war, after the sinking of the Lusitania, and other events in the Atlantic, it became an inevitablity IMO.

As far as the Third Reich not being true evil, I would say that IMO is incorrect.  Ask any of those who lost their entire families in the camps.

Re-visiting history is fine.  Revisionism is another story.
Possibly what someone said in an earlier comment is seperating Wilhelm the man from the soldier, would be a way to start.   However the two images are both so intertwined it may be difficult.  


Michael

I think what is meant by "revisionism" is the attempt to actually change historical facts that are 100% true. Revisionists do this for some sort of benefit--emotional , economic, personal guilt, whatever.

I hope those who would subscribe to that tactic are few and far between. We know they're out there, but I believe their voices are diminished by the greater truth.

However, many "facts" are frequently being revised as generations come and go and decades and centuries pass. Otherwise there would be no study, no research, no need for discourse. This thread on Wilhelm is a good example of a major historical figure whose legacy was essentially set in stone nearly 100 years ago based in large part on propaganda and the spoils of war. Such a circumstance is not only interesting to revisit and revise as appears appropriate, but necessary in order to piece together a better future.

I do not think anyone is attempting to portray Wilhelm II as the blameless hero who was totally victimized for evil forces. He is, however, from closer inspection of the data, not the war-mongering, empire-building Genghis Khan that he has been labeled.

with respects,

Well said, HerrKaiser and my sentiments as well.
Cheers

...and one more point.

So-called revisionism may also occur when new facts come to the fore that were previously unreported, undocumented, or unsubstantiated. With new facts, old ones may take on a slightly different tone...'the plot thickens' scenario.

Yet  with all due respect I feel he is not blameless as he did nothing to avert war until it was too late & he had gone over the precipice.   Powerless to stop it, he may have been, but he was the head man in charge, I have always stuck to Truman's adage of " The Buck Stops Here."

You can't have that sort of a military build up as history has always shown without a plan for using it.  

Kings, Presidents, & Prime Mininsters all have made mistakes, and throughout history they are always held responsible for those actions. Again if you can seperate the man from the soldier, and show me facts I would be happy to listen.  

Yet the trend now seems to be to pass the buck rather than stop it.

[http://erhj.blogspot.com]

What is truly sad is that here you have three semi-autocratic rulers (Wilhelm II, Franz Joseph and Nicholas II) who when events came to the brink of war, could not, or chose not, to excercise their powers to avert a war.

Arturo Beéche

That is indeed, truly, sad. But, I think the key word is "semi" autocratic. I'm not sure about FJ, but William and Nickolas were both heavily intimidated and dominated by their ministers and military counsels. In spite of the appearance of control, each had major polictical issues that were nearly out of their control. Their worlds simply grew too big too fast to manage effectively by one person.

That being said, I am not sure if or how either could have actually said 'over my dead body', and in fact averted the conflagration.

And, let's not overlook the better opporunity to have averted the war via the democratic governments of England and France. In totalitarian or monarchist forms of government, the real power base is often unclear and fleeting. Whereas, in democracies, it is supposed to be more transparent and used appropriately. But, both France and England joined with the others to allow the mess to proceed.

Greed, power, global influence, and pride of the 5 major governments were the causes, not any individual. All the nations thought they had much to gain (in their eyes) but never calculated the potential losses, and they all rolled the dice. Wilhelm did however say to his ministers "Gentlemen, you will regret this."

Nationalism (similar to what HerrKaiser said about PRIDE) in both goevernment and military capabilities was in my opinion one of the chief causes of the Great War. Militarism (sp?) was another major cause, as I am sure most of us know. Willy was always quite proud and full of himself as well as being very military minded so he fell right into all these movements taking place that eventually led to the mayhem. It just so happened that he was the leader of an entire nation of people and carried them (and the rest of Europe) right along with him.

FJ's role was a lot more complicated, I think, than the others.  His rule was a complex formulae of "divide through unification" and I am not so sure it was his ideas at all. He had so many governments come & go over the years, who knows whom inherited which predecessor's agreements? It is well know there was no love lost between him, his heir and the Kaiser.  Also he abhored change and only relucyantly accepted the inevitable. His "war machine" probably started rolling without him and he just went along  "for the ride" so to speak. After all, he was a very old man with a very long reign, undoubtedly very tired and worn as well by his life experiences.  I doubt the Kaiser even gave him the coutesy of consideration and dealt with the ministers, writing a polite note to the Emperor along the way. Perhaps the Austrian military establishment, taking the Kaiser's "support/bluster" as encouragement acted more from that than their own ruler's caution ?

As I understood it (which may be wrong!) - when Austria issued the ultimatum, even the Kaiser was amazed at the severity of the demands. When the Tsar urged Serbia to accept MOST of the demands the Austrians, too, were amazed that they (the Serbs) had conceded so much. But by then the Austrian generals (one in particular whose name escapes me) had already decided they wished to crush the upstart Serbia & so insisted on them accepting the ultimatum to the letter, knowing that it was impossible for them to do so.
   :(

That's how I understood it too.

Well, the German trespass on Belgium soil was NOT an invasion of Belgium nor intended to be so nor postioned that way by Germany; simply a defensive move.

Which nevertheless doesn't excuse it. I think the Belgians, too, did see it as an invasion . . .
I do accept the delicate position Germany found itself in but you cannot trespass a neutral country and not expect to rouse protest, a hypocritical protest however, that's indisputable.

Regarding revisionism, I do not think a re-look at historical data in order to reconsider what may or may not be truth is an attempt to change truth. Few things are as utterly and completely true as some baseline historical "facts" imply. So, more research and more ideas about history is great, in my opinion, and if it shatters long held beliefs or myths, so be it.

Absolutely.

While WW I was a difficult sell in America, eventually it came to pass that America had to enter the war, after the sinking of the Lusitania, and other events in the Atlantic, it became an inevitablity IMO.

By no means, where the "Lusitania" is concerned. The ship was carrying weapons, which was a breach of international law. If the British chose to turn a passenger liner into an arms carrier in times of war, they couldn't expect the Germans to simply stand by and watch. The German embassy in the United States had warned all travellers to avoid the ship.
The sinking was a terrible act of course and the Germans came to regret it soon, but you can just as well blame the British for deliberately exposing civilians to the danger they knew was imminent. You may wonder whether there was an idea behind it . . . but perhaps that's being too cynical?

Not cynical at all Silja! I agree!  And not too different than the intrigues behind the "knowledge" of the attack on Pearl Harbor and letting it happen in order to get into war.

These are indeed why looking back at the "facts" is critical, especially when decades of history has been put forth stating that the Lusitania was attacked and sunk as a sort of terrorist action with no mention of the other issues.

By the by, I do agree that no nation really has the right to trespass and not expect a reaction. My main point is that such a result--tens of millions dead and nations destroyed--was hardly a reasonable response and outcome to the abuse of Belgian territory. Such is often the case when individuals or nations react "within their rights" but ingnite a disaster. It is usually a better choice to apply different pressures and penalties. Had England not declared war and set the dominos falling out of control....who knows?