Kaiser Friedrich III, his spouse Victoria and their family, Part II

[HerrKaiser]

One must also remember that Willy wasn't a favorite in the Press in England after the Kruger telegram. When you built up a great military strength, it can also be a forestall of war. King Edward VII hoped to circle Germany by diplomatic strategic alliances and force it to think twice before using that arsenal.

The arms race was a "race" because all great powers were in the running, not just Germany. In fact, from 1905-1914 GB built 38 dreadnoughts and dreadnought cruisers to only 24 build by Germany. While Germany had a larger army in manpower, its personnel as a percent of population was about the same as GB during the same pre war period.

None of the great powers before 1914 can claim the moral high ground of not participating in the same high stakes game of growing its military strength.

[Превед]

One must also remember that Willy wasn't a favorite in the Press in England after the Kruger telegram. When you built up a great military strength, it can also be a forestall of war. King Edward VII hoped to circle Germany by diplomatic strategic alliances and force it to think twice before using that arsenal.

Pray tell, what does the contemporary (jingoist) British press's view of WII have anything to do with an interesting discussion of his biographers' views? I hope no biographers base their views of him on what the Daily Telegraph thought of him. (His own views, as expressed in that paper, is interesting, though, bust mostly because of how they embarrassed his position in Germany.) What Max Harden wrote about him in Die Zukunft and what the Social-Democratic press wrote is much more interesting.

[Eric_Lowe]

I think Willy's high handed ways in dealing with the arms race did make countries uneasy. Although it would not be only Germany who takes all the blame in this. Edward VII's strategy of "containment" does have its flaws. It was merciful that Vicky died before the day of war between her country and that of her adoption. She would have truly been broken-hearted.

[Превед]

I think Willy's high handed ways in dealing with the arms race did make countries uneasy.

Including his own.
In many ways, Eric, you seem to equate the German Empire with WII in your mind in the same way that WII equated Britain with his mother. Misleading simplifications.

[HerrKaiser]

I think Willy's high handed ways in dealing with the arms race did make countries uneasy. 

Including his own.

And, the high handed manners in which Russia to the east, France to the west, and England all over the seas dealt with the arms race made Germany uneasy.

Anyone read Niall Ferguson's "The Pity of War". A must read, in my opinion, to have a clearer, post 20th century view of WWI.

[Eric_Lowe]

I am strictly talking about WWI and not about WWII. I don't think you can equate Willy's gaffes with Hitler's intended and calculated jabs. There is no comparison here.

[Janet Ashton]

The extent to which a historian or historical biographer goes down the path of "mixed feelings" about their subject is my concern. When that path turns their dissertations into an emotional perspective, it becomes a commercial piece and of questionable verisimilitude.

While I agree with you in principle, it's very hard to measure the point at which an "emotional" perspective takes over - fundamentally, this is entirely subjective and often depends on the extent to which one agrees with the writer. One person's overly-negative biography is another one's incisive picture. One person's "objective" book is another's dull and boring ramble. Surely some characters in history deserve the anger of posterity, and it would be a poor book which said, "Well, he was a mass murderer, but he liked his dog, so let's be balanced and give him his due"! Extreme example, but you get what I mean....

For me, what makes a good biography is the inclusion of context, thoughtful analysis and sufficient evidence to make a judgement. What I can't bear are books which just rehash their subject's narrow experience of the world - Noble Frankland's book about Arthur Duke of Connaught was like for me - it seems he essentially paraphrased lots of letters to lay out a pretty uninteresting world through his subject's eyes. No analysis or insight or anything. There are other examples; lots of them royal bios.

I like Rohl because he writes with wit and verve and is accessible, yet has an encyclopedic knowledge. I don't have to agree with everything he says, and indeed the evidence he presents allow me on occasion to see problems with his own arguments. But at least the evidence is there. Another thing I hate is one-sided books - which are an extension of what I mention above about the narrowness of some "royal" bios.

[Janet Ashton]

I think Virginia Rounding's "Alix and Nicky" is a very interesting and balanced book, with some small errors of fact, but it is empathetic without being over-involved in the emotional lives of its subjects. Also covers some things which their other biographies don't - the detail of their religious preoccupations, for one thing. Yet one of my friends told me they found it far too sympathetic to the pair; while another one hates it for being harsh!

[HerrKaiser]

Thanks JA, very interesting insights/commentary. It seems history and biographical works are more of an art than a science and hence the subjectivity of the authors are, rightfully, part of the process and outcome. While I also agree that "some characters in history deserve the anger of posterity", it's interesting how even this can or does or should change over time. In the case of Nickolas and Alexandra, their memory has been skewed positively and glamorized by Hollywood and sympathetic biographies all of which has cast them in a very different light than those of 1915, for example. It's interesting to me, about them specifically, how much different their story/history would be today if they were an unattractive, unloving couple with frumpy, mean children. Theirs is a story for commercialism amongst the romantic masses, and Wilhelm certainly has not had the same advantage as history has crafted/established his persona.

[grandduchessella]

I also didn't get the impression that Rohl disliked Wilhelm. I didn't notice any of that in the books. He was pretty sympathetic towards him on issues and critical on others. I don't  care for a fawning book anymore than a negative one or a gossipy one. I think his books are the best out there on Wilhelm. They place his actions (good and bad) in political, social, familial and emotional context and backs things up with direct sourcing. I also enjoy the wider view he takes in giving insights into Vicky, Fritz, Queen Victoria and other players (major and minor) in the narrative.

[grandduchessella]

But let's now return to the topic of the thread. Any further discussion of Wilhelm solely should be on his thread.

[Kalafrana]

Could we start a discussion on biography somewhere else? There are lots of interesting points coming up which are not specific to Wilhelm.

Ann

[Eric_Lowe]

I think Rohl was very balance with Willy and his family. I love the first book played on his relationship with Fritz & Vicky.

[HerrKaiser]

One last comment before this chat closes down and/or moves to another location.

Of course, Roehl is commended on his years of effort going through all the archives and available material in order to produce his volumes of biographical insights on WII. But while his efforts earn him an A+, his analysis pales in comparison, and it's the analysis that is key. Over and over in his dialogue, he presents quotes and situations then makes deductions that, to me, could have been absolutely the opposite, all without solid reasoning why he chose the roads he went down. I think his largest works on WII clearly show that he set out to prove WII was a disruptive threat to peace from the time he was crown prince. When an author begins his work to prove a point, rather than attempting to re-look and re-evaluate the subject, it is almost impossible to be fair and balanced.

[Eric_Lowe]

To be fair. I don't see there is another point in WII as a person. While the blame on WWI can be shared, WII role in bringing it forward cannot be diluted in any way balanced or not. It is like saying Hilter is a nice person because he is good to his dog. Individual aspects did not play that much into the character of a certain person in this case WII. I would disagree and argue that John Rohl did a balance and fair portrait of WII. His instability of moods and contradicting actions left his relatives in the UK baffled, while his cruelty and unbending towards his family (especially mother & sisters) did not leave a good legacy to his character.