Sunday, September 27, 2009
Wilhem's Folly
After reading this week about King Wilhelm II, I have to say that I was stunned at his folly. The folly that I speak of is, of course, the removal of Otto von Bismarck as chancellor. Bismarck had always taken the cautious approach in his foreign policies. Wilhelm II, however, chose a more antagonistic approach. Both men were trying to protect Germany's "place in the sun". I had to know more about just why Wilhelm and Bismarck came to be so opposed to one another. It seems that Bismarck thought that he would be able to dominate the new king. He vehemently opposed Wilhelm's policies. In any case, Bismarck is replaced, and his carefully laid plans to protect Germany's borders peacefully failed as the result of World War 1 would painfully point out. But what really is surprising is just how prophetic Bismarck turned out to be. Bismarck said," Jena came twenty years after the death of Frederick the Great; the crash will come twenty years after my departure if things go on like this." This prophecy came about just as he said it would. He is also to have said, "One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans." His prediction was made true when Prince Ferdinand was assassinated by Gavrilo Princip of the Serbian Black Hand. Bismarck proved to be a very insightful man when it came to just what Germany could handle and what would be the best interest of Germany. My question is: What was Wilhelm thinking when he fired Bismarck? I know that he may have disapproved of Bismarck's political leanings and games, but Bismarck did nothing that put Germany in danger, as a country, while he was responsible also for the expansion of Germany's borders and the weakening of France. Wilhelm, on the other hand, expanded Germany into Africa, put his foot into European politics at the peril of war, and will put Germany into a war that it would lose. It is Wilhelm's folly that I believe will give birth to the infamous Third Reich.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The problem here is not so much Wilhem's folly as it is his arrogance and the "Monday morning quarterbacking" of history. When you really do not like someone, how likely are you to listen to their advice or hear what they have to say? Wilhem, becuase of a life filled with power and prestige (he was after all, a rich king out of touch with what was going on), lost proper geo-political perspective and let his emotions, rather than rational decision making dominate his mindset. Wilhelm's power went to his head; he thought he had all the answers. It's hard to be too tough on people who lived over a hundred years ago when today we have much more info and insight than they did at the time. How did wilhem know Germany would get into a war, much less lose it? How could he know that this elaborate system of governing could only be ran by Bismarck, and once Bismarck was ousted, no one could step up and "fill his shoes?" I think that one cannot be too hard on people using the knowledge, insight, and opinions one has today on events that happened in the past. Wilhelm was arrogant, and almost certainly dumb in firing Bismarck, but you can not blame his "folly" in not seeing future events as evidence for suggesting that he somehow caused the rise of the 3rd Reich.
ReplyDeleteWas the problem that no one could fill Bismarck's shoes or that no other Chancellor could face the Reichstag with the confidence that he had the (unwaivering) support of the Emperor? To me, the problem was the William II wanted to be king but didn't want to do the hard work of being king. He wanted to make pronouncements and decide policy but without thinking through the consequences of his actions. Germany could have survived without Bismarck but perhaps what it could not survive was William II?
ReplyDelete