Interesting thread. A main aspect of so-called conventional wisdom over the past 100+ years in Anglo-American history and propaganda is that Kaiser Wilhelm II was a war monger and saber rattler. Yet from 1871 when the German Empire was formed, Germany was involved in only three wars up to 1914 while Great Britain was involved in 21 and France 14.
Wilhelm and Germany were edging toward world leadership on many levels. At the turn of the 20th Century, the most important medical, chemistry, and physics studies and papers were published in German first. The growth during the Wilhelmine era was phenomenal and GB and France were particularly fearful and jealous of that growth and domination in fields of science, education, architecture, and more.
The German involvement in colonization was very late and very small compared to the other European powers. This cannot be used as a factor in Germany's aggressiveness, but for sure Great Britain and France reeked havoc in Africa, Asia, and the middle east all of which generated ill feelings that helped fuel global anxiety and balance of power politics.
So it's a myth that Wilhelm and Germany were aggressively stirring up trouble. The war mongering falls squarely on Great Britain and France.
Good points, HerrKaiser.
But a question or two for you...Since Britain and France had so many more colonies than Germany, doesn't this also mean that engaging in more conflicts is an inevitable by-product? Of course you can certainly criticize them for creating this situation in the first place with their imperialist ambitions, but having far more territory naturally means a lot more territory to defend, and more enemies to protect against. Britain took up the role of world police just as the US has since the end of WW2. Many will argue that it's not our right or their right to do so, and certainly a fair amount of self-interest is involved. But who else is going to "clean up the neighborhood" so to speak? China? India? The UN?!
I think in these instances one could argue that it was less a case of British or French "war-mongering" and more the result of their jingoism and the naive assumption that the people from other lands they conquered would simply welcome their rule (Ancient Rome faced similar problems)
All that said I do agree the Kaiser tends to get a bad rap in this particular area. He seemed reluctant to expand the German empire the way other European powers had. His opinions likely influenced by Bismarck and Caprivi who minimal imperialist ambitions and found colonization burdensome. It's a shame that Germany's leader a generation later (Hitler) schooled himself in the Carl Peters philosophy of empire building and domination by the master race, rather then the sensible (and far more peaceful) approach of Bismarck-Caprivi-Wilhelm.
Of course Great Britain usually excused their actions the same way the U.S. excused its actions in Viet Nam. However, they were aggressive actions taken against other nations; and in the cases of colonies, it's hard to argue any difference. While these military actions were taking place, Germany was not doing so yet was positioned in propaganda as the warring nation. There is a conflict with reality, largely due to the very tight influence the British had on global media.
GB felt it had the right to dominate the seas and control it's empire with force. GB achieved the goal of "world domination"; and let's not forget the long held belief that such a goal is considered insane, provocative, and Hitlerian. That GB was able to gain their power base by force of military action that largely went unchallenged is, I feel, a key reason why GB took a very, very negative view of new nations emerging as competition during and after the industrial revolution.
Show Posts
