Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:16 pm Post subject: people be crazy
kaiser Willhelm was pretty much insane. but i think that the Austro-Hungarian empire was also to blame, and also serbia for making stir via their assasination attpemt what a shame. yeah have your own place but assasinating a guy? not cool. i found that fact that Willhelm was so ready to fight for a country he had given his word that he'd help was very honorable, but also stupid because it caused such a backlash from all the other countries telling him not to fly off the handle. It's interesting how much every country was completely against the war except the one that started it (austro Hungaria and serbia) and yet it was germany to make the first move. but the man was definately unstable. while honorable his complete dedication to fighting for Austro Hungaria WAS insane and also thinking that everyone was out to get him by fooling him into thinking they weren't mobilizing when they were (which they were not). he can think that (it would probably cross most people's minds after all they are leaders of empires everyone wants more than eachotehr) but why did he need to make such a drastic move, and towards brittain no less. i gues he was unaware of what his actions would eventually lead to
also i am sure war would happen eventually especially because of the serbian austhung dispute, but i think if kaiser had not made his promise to austhung and swore to stand by it therefore scaring the bejeezus out of everyone the war would not have been so global, more secluded, at least at the begining. what otehr countries would do afterwards depends on how they felt they needed to act.
The Kaiser didn't act in the best interest of anybody. His indifference furthered along the mess in the first place, and while his conciliatory and friendly messages helped smooth tensions and buy some time, it wasn't a solution, or even a good stall.
As was mentioned several times throughout the text, the war wasn't really inevitable... they wanted it to happen. It was a man-made thing, they even state that sentiment in two languages on page 11, (though this pertained to Serbia-Austria conflict, it spans to the Kaiser and WWI) "The fact is, you want war and you have burned your bridges!" Anyway, in the end his (kaiser) sense of balance went completely wonkified anyway and I agree with Douglas, Kaiser was insane.. paranoid, really. His responses to huge, HUGE conflicts was to bluff and appoint blame elsewhere. Meanwhile, everything began to fall down around on him and his previous actions backfired, so he used these as incentives to start the iron dice rolling..
The fact that Kaiser was crazy is reiterated several times throughout the reading. Also that fact that he is scared easily, and I’m pretty sure it’s mentioned somewhere in there that he was moody. I think it might have been these characteristics that drove him into war, mainly the fear aspect. For instance, when he learns about the Austrians declaration of war as well as the partial Russian mobilization he freaks out due the blank check policy, and then there were the several telegrams with the Czar. The war wasn’t inevitable, and it was Kaiser who had to sanction a decision to go to war. Basically I think it’s pretty obvious that this all would have turned out completely different if it wasn’t for his insanity.
' Sooner or later war was inevitable', therefore the Kaiser acted in the best interest of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
I think that the kaiser certainly acted in the best interest of Austria-Hungary (or what at the TIME would have been thought the best interest of Austria-Hungary, obviously it didn't work out so well for them in the end). By lending the Germany's support, he gave Austria-Hungary the insurance they thought they needed to preserve their empire, its prestige, and keep Russia out of the war.
Looking back, it may actually have been in Germany's best interest to slowly work its way up the ladder as opposed to attempting to jump right to the top. It all depends on your perspective. I think a 21st century historian would look back and say no, I think a nationalistic member of the German aristocracy in 1914 would have said yes, and i think the France, Brittain, The US and Russia would have said no. Personally, considering the state the Germany and the german populace was in after the war, I would say he did not act in Germany's best interest.
I agree with Lia, at least I think that's her. The Kaiser seemed really paranoid while I was reading but another thing to consider before we write him off as a complete nut job, is that Germany was a fledgling superpower on the rise and threat to every other powerful nation in the world. Power is finite, not an infinite resource, so If Germany were to gain power, resources, money etc. it all would have had to come from somewhere, most likely France Brittan etc so it was in the countries best interest to see Germany destroyed.
It seems to me that Kaiser Wilhelm was a bit quick in his decision to go to war, and it could have been postponed for longer, if not avoided altogether, if he had not been so hasty to declare war. It seemed like he acted on impulse, rather than a plan.
I think I (mostly) disagree with the statement that war was inevitable. Kaiser’s decisions seemed to be based much more on pride than on tangible threats to his country. Kaiser feared the Serbian minorities in his country, and had “fury and indignation toward the Serbians” (p.3). In my opinion it was mostly fear that drove his decisions. Like the author states, the leaders were “frightened and entrapped by self delusion…Misperception, rather than conscious evil design, seems to have been the leading villain in the drama” (p.2). The root of most of the causes of the war was alliances and bluffs.
However, I do agree with what Keaton was saying. Looking at this from a 21st century perspective, the decisions seem obvious, but back then Germany was a threatening country. And also this is only one account of what happened, so although this paints Kaiser as a total nut job, another historian might see it very differently.
*disclaimer: my packet was missing pages 4 and 5, which I believe was mostly about Kaiser, so if I seem to be missing info that’s why.
I definitely do not think that Germany acted in the best way or on the behalf of the Austria-Hungary empire. Stoessinger backs this up by pointing out the Kaiser’s attitude when he received the telegram about Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum. He didn’t even demand to see the exact text, but just blindly supported whatever the Empire chose to do. The fact that Germany essentially wrote a blank check of insurance to Austria-Hungary obviously helped out Austria-Hungary but was a mistake for Germany. It caused the young Germany to enter a war in which they were unprepared to fight. I think that if Germany had adopted a different attitude than inevitability, history might have a different story.
That being said, as Stoessinger points out, “Germany attempted to restrain her ally” once Germany had realized their mistake. “But had the German Kaiser succeeded in restraining the Austrian, historians would have had to credit the alliance system with the prevention of a war. As everyone on the forum has already pointed out, the Kaiser acted brashly or “characteristic impetuosity…to punish Serbia as quickly as possible”. Stoessinger’s approach to taking into account the personalities and psychological reasoning being many of the players in pre-WWI Europe is interesting and certainly puts a different spin on looking at history. However, I’d be wary to jump to conclusions about the actions of WWI simply because some people thought the Kaiser was crazy (or any other personality trait of the other main players in the war). I think there’s a medium between just cold reasoning and looking at it with only an emotional/personality based lens.
I agree with the author of the article that the war could have been prevented. The author states that the thesis of the article is that "mortals made these decisions. They made them in fear and in trembling, but they made them nonetheless."(pg 2) If Austria-Hungary had not made such harsh demands in the July Ultimatum they would have most likely not gone to war.
I also agree with Keaton that we should not just blame all of the Kaiser's decisions on him being crazy. Like he said, before the war Germany was becoming a powerful nation and a threat to the other superpowers. To get this far the Kaiser must have done something right. In terms of the war though, it seems he acted solely for himself. He did not use any reasoning in making his decisions and just sort of blatantly ignored the situation until it majorly effected him.
Last edited by mreilly on Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
To sort of build off of the mention of power by Keaton, I feel as though the Kaiser's declaration of war was far from Germany's best interests. Given the country's youth and quick growth, the last thing Germany needed was a war to destroy its industry and kill its manpower. If the Kaiser had truly sought to place himself as an equal among the great monarchs of western and eastern Europe, then the best interest of Germany would have been peace. Germany, however, did act in the best interest of AH, for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand did leave an empty seat in the government of a dying government riddled with ethnic, religious and nationalist tension. As stated on page 6, the disintegration of AH was made inevitable by internal turmoil, Panslavism was a thorn in AH's side and Serbia posed a serious threat to the empires Unity. So Serbia's destruction made sense to AH, but it did not make sense to Germany, for the new nations desire to act on another country's behalf ultimately doomed its growth in complete disregard for the intricate web of alliances across europe.
Germany as a new nation seemed eager to prove its power and influence in Europe, and too early at that, an underscore to the inevitability of conflict. Industrialized Europe, as well, seemed eager to prove its power and see the fruition of its advances.
I disagree with this statement. I think that the Kaiser acted rashly and personally. The Kaiser whole heartedly supported Austria’s decision to punish Serbia which I think was very extreme. The Kaiser did not monitor Austria’s interaction with Serbia, he blindly supported all of their decisions. I do not think the Kaiser was acting in the best interest of Austria-Hungary and definitely not Germany. He did not consider the repercussions of Austria-Hungary's actions and sought out personal revenge. The Kaiser’s impulsive and unconcerned actions lead to Germany and Russia’s unnecessary involvement in a war that could have remained between Austria-Hungry and Serbia. In my opinion, the Kaiser’s actions are what caused this war to escalate.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
