Kaiser Wilhelm II

Kaiser Wilhelm II is rather a difficult character to get a handle on. He was arguably the most powerful man in the world for decades, until just over a hundred years ago, but, he's almost invisible in terms of contemporary society and culture. Why is this, exactly? What did he do that was so bad, that his existence has ceased to be something people generally take any interest in? Or, has it been determined that he was really, not so much bad, as simply insignificant? Germany really didn't even exist as a nation until 1871. Wilhelm's grandfather, Wilhelm I, ruled as emperor for eighteen years, and then his father Fredrick, for just a few months, before succumbing to cancer from a botched medical treatment. Many historians speculate that history might have been much different if the treatment had been more successful, and Fredrick had lived on for a couple of decades or more, which was certainly perfectly possible. Fredrick was a liberal with strong angolphilic tendencies, and his wife Victoria was Queen Victoria's daughter, and eldest child. It is almost inconceivable that Germany and Britain could have had much friction between them, with these two on the throne. On the other hand, who knows? The nature of the German system of government created by Bismarck was extremely unusual, maybe unique in world history. Basically, it was created specifically for the purpose of giving Bismarck vitually limitless power as Chancellor, behind the superficial cover of a weak and old monarch in Kaiser Wilhelm I, and a democratic German parliament with strictly circumscribed actual powers of government. This worked rather well with a political genius like Bismarck running the show, but, once Wilhelm II dismissed him, which he did rather promptly upon assuming the throne, the course of German foreign and domestic policy were certainly on a much less sure footing. Nevertheless, for a quarter of a century Wilhelm II ruled Germany quite sucessfully indeed, and his nation grew steadily greater in terms of wealth, power and influence, and his people grew steadily more prosperous. Then, of course, came WWI, and, quite naturally, the victorious allies wanted to blame the Kaiser of Germany for this international debacle. But, was it really his fault? After all, it was Russia, not Germany, that first declared war on Austria-Hungary, another great power, and Germany's closest ally. True, Austria-Hungary was attacking Russia's small ally Serbia, but, conventionally, such rivalries between great powers and smaller ones in their sphere of influence were settled internally, with perhaps some aid from outside, but no great power conflict. Arguably, Tsar Nicholas II was simply trying to distract his own people from internal problems in Russia, and hoped a patriotic war would stabilize his own tottering regime. So, was Kaiser Wilhelm II a good man, or a bad man? A good leader, or a bad leader? And, would history have been much different if his father Fredrick had remained far longer on the throne? I suspect not, actually. The conflicts between Britain and Germany were essentially geopolitical in nature. Britain controlled the seas and world commerce, and was determined to keep it that way. Germany had become the dominant industrial and military power in Europe, if not the entire world, and saw no reason to allow Britain to continue to shut her in with sea power. A clash was probably inevitable. But, Britain's network of allies was likely to be too much for Germany, as proved to be the case. None of this was really Wilhelm II's fault, exactly, but, he also was unable to do anything to avoid or overcome these difficulties. So, he remains a kind of doomed, fated leader, who was extremely successful for a very long time, but, ultimately failed miserably, and was deposed. Such stories tell us something about the nature of human limitations that we may not particularly enjoy acknowledging, and, so, Kaiser Wilhelm II has largely been consigned to the ashcan of history. #history #wwi #germany #philosophy