History Hub permalink
The Three Cousins
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 30th March 2011
I was reading a book yesterday about King George V, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Czar Nicholas II. They were all cousins. It is strange that cousins should be involved on opposite sides in the first World War. Little did they realize that two of them would lose their throne within a few years.
I read that Bismarck had sent Wilhelm on a State visit to Russia, when he was only a Prince and Wilhelm really enjoyed the State visit. He thought Royalty should involve themselves in Diplomacy. He maintained a lively correspondence with the Czar.
He proposed a treaty of mutual friendship and assistance to the Czar with Austria, Germany and Russia. However, the Russian had too many issues with Austria to agree.
In the private correspondence between the Czar and the Kaiser, the Kaiser said a lot of things against his uncle Edward VII and constantly warned the Czar against him. He also encouraged the Czar to occupy Constantinople to create a conflict between the English and the Russians. However, the Czar became wary and did not bite the bullet. He said politely to the Kaiser, that if Russia wanted to occupy Constantinople, he did not need the permission of the Kaiser.
By the way, this entire correspondence between the Kaiser and the Czar was carried out in English.
As I have mentioned before, it was the British institution of Constitutional Monarchy that prevented Britain from joining such infantile shenanigans. Diplomacy should be left in the hands of the diplomats not be indulged in by amateurs of the Royal family, with their whims and personal feuds.
Does anyone know what was the relationship between the Kaiser and his other cousin King George V? And what was the relationship between King George and his cousin Czar Nicholas? Was there any private correspondence between the Kaiser and the King-Emperor, on the one hand and between the Czar and the King-Emperor?
Tas -
Message 2
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 30th March 2011
One point occurs to me, Tas. George V refused to offer asylum in the UK to Tsar Nicholas II in 1917, supposedly for fear of provoking a revolution in this country.
-
Message 3
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
George V refused to offer asylum in the UK to Tsar Nicholas II in 1917, supposedly for fear of provoking a revolution in this country.Â
I´m not sure whether this matters very much, because I´m rather sure that the Bolsheviks had killed him anyway, as they did. It´s seems rather interesting to me, that the British took part in the Russian civil war in the aftermath of the 1917 revolution, to help the white guards against the reds. This merely took place after 1918 and on a less military scale in compare to the British engangement on the Western Front 1914 - 1918. -
Message 4
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Hi Tas,
The relationship between the German Kaiser Wilhelm II and his "Relatives" in Britain was therefore difficult to him because they didn´t liked him. As far as I´ve read something about that, neither King Edward VII nor George V were fond of him. Wilhelm was too much a militarist for the taste of the English. English military traditions are different to the Prussian style. There might be some similartiy in comparing that with the Russians, so to say that in this regards, they had more in common.
One aspect is, and that seems to me important, that the House of Saxe-Coburg had a problem with their German family roots. It wasn´t a sudden decision when they changed their name into "House of Windsor" in 1914 after WWI has started. They seeked to get rid of the former name because they wanted to be more "English" and never be seen as "German" by the British public.
Another example for the affinities of the Royal Family are the affections the later King Edward VIII had towards Germany and his relatives there. This is widely described in his book "A Kings Story". He was sent to tour Germany in the early 1900s and some historians might say that it came from there, that he was so "Pro-German" through his lifetime. But I rather stop here for not distracting from the topic too far.
The fact that Wilhelm II has written his correspondence to his Cousins in English, might be regarded as a kind of recognizing the English language for international use, even when this was just used for "family affairs" in a wider sense.
I don´t know whether Wilhelm had much correspondence with Edward VII, but it is a fact that he had more with Queen Victoria.
(Wilhelm II) ... He thought Royalty should involve themselves in Diplomacy.
Diplomacy should be left in the hands of the diplomats not be indulged in by amateurs of the Royal family, with their whims and personal feuds.Â
I absolutely agree on that.
Regards,
Thomas -
Message 5
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Hi Thomas,
The little bit of reading I have done on the subject of Kaiser Wilhelm seems to suggest that it was embedded in his dislike of his English mother, the daughter of Queen Victoria, who he thought had influenced his father towards Constitutional Monarchy. He seems to have loved his Grand Mother Queen Victoria and was given a special time with her alone by the English when she was on her deathbed.
I feel German history seems to have taken a wrong turn some times, due to what can be called fluke. Kaiser Fredrich died of Cancer shortly after Wilhelm I; he wanted to steer Germany to wards Constitutional monarchy. It would have been great for Germany, if he had lived, say, ten years and established such a great country like Germany towards Constitutional monarchy. We would have been spared two World Wars and the 'little Corporal,' and Germany would have been a thriving country a lot sooner, not to speak of the severe losses of German in dead and wounded, in fact an entire German generation.
The great advantage of Constitutional Monarchy, which a lot of Monarchs do not see, is that it in fact safeguards their monarchy for their progeny and takes the responsibility of bad decision off their shoulders.
Take the case of Japan: Tojo lead Japan towards a horrible war with the USA; yet after Japan's unconditional surrender, Emperor Hirohito was still there and remained for many years.
Another major advantage of a Constitutional Monarchy (CM for short) is that it creates a superb umpire to safeguard the country against uncalled for Coups, and at the same time ensures fair elections.
If for example the Shah of Iran had opted for a gradual transition towards CM, his Pehlvi dynasty would have survived and Iran would be on the way to prosperity instead of a dead end under the Ayatollahs.
Not only the monarchy but also the public should realize the great advantages of this great institution CM, perfected by the English.
I will look into whether there was any correspondence at all between the remaining cousin, King George V and the other two cousins. I know that Kaiser Wilhelm II was prominent both at Queen Victoria's Golden jubilee and during her funeral.
Tas -
Message 6
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Hi Ur-Lugal,
The Brits are typically ver wary of offering asylum on their soil. Napoleon I was another supplicant.
As far as I can recall, they relented for Louis Phillipe, King of France and for Napoleon III.
Napoleon III spent the last few years of his life in exile in England, with Eugenie and their only son. The family lived at Camden Place Chislehurst, where he died on 9 January 1873. He was haunted to the end by bitter regrets and by painful memories of the battle at which he lost everything; Napoleon's last words, addressed to Dr. Henri Conneau standing by his deathbed, reportedly were, "Were you at Sedan?" ("Etiez-vous à Sedan?")Â
When one looks at history, one feels so sorry for things which could have been very different, if not for a specific Character defect.
Almost like Shakespearean tragedy!
Tas -
Message 7
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Tas,
Another major advantage of a Constitutional Monarchy (CM for short) is that it creates a superb umpire to safeguard the country against uncalled for Coups, and at the same time ensures fair elections.Â
It didn't quite work that way for Italy in the 1920s.
If for example the Shah of Iran had opted for a gradual transition towards CM, his Pehlvi dynasty would have survived and Iran would be on the way to prosperity instead of a dead end under the Ayatollahs.Â
If only the sundry shiekdoms across the Gulf would take that lesson to heart.
Not only the monarchy but also the public should realize the great advantages of this great institution CM, perfected by the English.Â
You don't need a hereditary monarchy for that; a number of republics have that same constitutional dynamic with elected presidents. -
Message 8
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Hi White Camry,
It didn't quite work that way for Italy in the 1920s.Â
I think when I talk about CM, I mean having the entire thing that goes with it, all the institutions, all the rituals and in name, have everything under the Monarch. Like all ships are on Her Majesty Service (HMS). All army and all the services should be linked to the family of the Constitutional Monarch. The members of the Royal family should not just sit at home but actively be involved with doing things for the benefit of the society and its people, to create a popular monarchy. Even the 'Walk Abouts' have their importance. This is what other typical monarchs do not realize. I hope Jordan, in particular, takes some lessons in this area from Britain.
One should move gradually in that direction, but firmly with a time table. The Brits have shown the way. All they have to do is follow it as precisely as their environment will allow.
And the public should steered to maturity, enough to realize the importance of their monarchy. A President is not quite the same thing. You can kick off a president, no one will shed a tear, but you can not as easily eliminate a popular monarch.
Tas -
Message 9
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
It was Lloyd George who instructed George V to refuse Nicholas II asylum for fear of offending the Provisional Government that had succeeded him and which was still continuing the war (it was the Bolsheviks who finally accepted the humiliating Treaty of Brest-LItovsk in 1918 leading to a massive transfer of troops to the Western Front which nearly resulted in the Allies losing the war). However both came to regret their decision when they learnt of the circumstances of Nicholas' murder and that of his family.
The Allied intervention in Russia from 1919-20 was originally intended to deal with the large German forces that were still stationed there and only later switched to supporting the Whites, although more materially and with intelligence than with direct intervention. The Allies withdrew when it was clear that the Whites had no unified command structure and were incapable of defeating the more effectively organised Red forces.
It was on Queen Victoria's insistence that both Louis Phillippe and Napoleon III were granted exile here, much against the better judgment of her respective ministers who were keen not to offend the new republican governments. Both were subject to strict instructions not to become involved in political matters, however, and their relatively rapid deaths in exile must not have displeased either the British or French Governments at the time.
Victoria did have a soft spot for Kaiser Bill, as her eldest grandchild, but it was a sentiment not shared by the rest of her family who regarded him as a swaggering bully and came to loathe his frequent visits to see his grandmother. His Uncle Bertie, later Edward VII, held a particular dislike for him, which was aggravated by his strong pro-French sympathies. He thought it in particularlty bad taste when the Kaiser attended the Cowes Regatta (which he generally did) after attacking the British Government over the Boer War and by breaking protocol by leaving before the prince of Wales did, presumably on the grounds that he was a reigning monarch which Bertie wasn't (at the time) although as the Kaiser was not paying a state visit this did not apply.
This display of bad taste and bad manners was compounded when the Kaiser turned up, unannounced, in the Isle of Wight in the middle of winter, to be at his grandmother'sdeathbed vigil and helped support his grandmother alongside the future Edward VII as she lay dying. -
Message 10
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Napoleon III's heir, the Prince Imperial, was killed whilst serving with the British Army in the Zulu War of 1879, six years after his father's deatnh. Although there was a great scandal at the time and Queen Victoria was particularly outraged one cannot help but feel that the British Government were secretly relieved and thankful to the Zulus that this last impediment to a good working relationship with the new Third Republic had been removed.
-
Message 11
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Hi Tas,
You´ve raised some interesting thoughts in your post.
As a side note, I´ve recently seen a book in a local bookshop about these three cousines. The title is (if I´m right) "The Three Emperors". Is it that book you´re currently reading?
Kaiser Wilhelm seems to suggest that it was embedded in his dislike of his English mother, the daughter of Queen Victoria, who he thought had influenced his father towards Constitutional Monarchy.Â
That makes sense and leads me to the dislikement of Queen Augusta, the wife of the Prussian King Wilhelm I, later Kaiser Wilhelm I, towards Bismarck. She dested him for his effords to make Prussia strong and extend its territory and the influence he had upon King Wilhelm I. It all started shortly by the initiative of Bismarck during the 1848 revolution. So Queen Augusta was his strongest opponent to his politics and aspirations. Same situation by Wilhelm II´s mother, although she had no great deal of influence in politics at all.
A constitutional monarchy demands also democratic politicians and parties. The only real democratic party in Germany, before the foundation of the Social Democratic Party, were the Liberals in Germany. Bismarck himself was a - by himself - declared anti-democrat. When he played his part in parliaments, then this was for his attitude towards duty and serving King and Country. To deal with parliamentary legislations and compromises was rather sickening him and by all means, he always had his focus on the wealth and power of Prussia, and later the German Empire.
The German States, before the proclamation of the German Empire in 1871, were according to their regents more or less inclined towards democracy and parliamentarism. In an old tradition, opposite to the role the British Monarch had and has, the main power lasted on the regent. This was transferred to the Emperor in 1871, although that Empire was - also an old German tradition - a federal one. The Germans themselves were accustomed to that and it was also on the reason that the Social Democrats were those who wanted to change that, were prosecuted under the Socialist laws during Bismarcks Chancellorship.
To have a mighty and strong Souvereign was essential for Germans and thus it is to explaine why Hindenburg was such admired by the public in the years of the Weimar Republic, because he acted like that way and represented the old times.
Now back to Wilhelm II. Although he seeked to get rid of Bismarck when Wilhelm II ascended to the throne, he relied on the old Prussian traditions. These rested on two pillars, the Junkertum and the Military. There was no place for parliamentarism or democracy either. The established parliament of Prussia (the "Landtag") was only done to consessions towards the revolutionaries of 1848, but there was no real meaning to bring Germany on its way to a modern democracy, by the ruling aristocracy.
When you say that the British constitutional monarchy would be the perfect pattern for many countries and if they had taken up that pattern for themselves, there wouldn´t had been a WWI and WWII. Well then I think that the people in the countries you´ve referred to, weren´t ready for that at the time concerned.
I think that the roots of the British constitutional monarchy are going back at least to the Cromwell years, the period upon which some refere as the "Republic". It´s the sense of the English that prevailed in a long period of history back to the "Magna Carta". This is something you can´t find in another countries history. The meaning of freedom differs in some ways on the countries and its people.
If you´d suggested a German of that time to bring Germany on the terms and conditions of a constitutional monarchy, by explaining him the meaning of it, you probably had got the question what the King or Kaiser is all about then? This because that ruler had less power and all power would be on parliament.
Regards,
Thomas -
Message 12
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Constitutional monarchy was hardly an isolated phenomenon in Europe before 1914. As well as Britain, Scandinavia and the Low Countries were all constitutional monarchies as were Portugal (until it became a republic in 1910), Spain, Greece and most of the Balkan states. Italy had been unified under a constitutional monarchy by 1870. France's adoption of a parliamentary system similar to that of Britain in 1871 after many false starts led France from being a long-term enemy of Britain to its closest ally in Europe.
The call for a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary system along British lines in a unified Germany was made by the Frankfurt Parliament of 1848-9 which drew up the Paulskirche Constituion much of which was later incorporated into the Weimar Constitution of 1919 and the Basic Law of the German Federal Republic in 1949. Its failure and the resultant unification of Germany under Prussian leadership was one of the sad turning points of both German and European history as it is inconceivable that a democratic Germany with an accountable government could have involved itself in the horrors of WWI and WWII. -
Message 13
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Hi Thomas,
When I was a young boy in India, my elder brother told me that the King of England and Emperor of India, was just a signature machine. I asked him how was that possible. He was on our currency, we all stood up to attention when his picture was shown in the cinema. It took me quite a while to understand this great institution. And the more I understood it, the more I came to admire it.
Like any institution, you have to handle it well and carefully, but if you can learn to use it, then your country and your society has a long and prosperous future, without revolutionary upheavals. Just moving along at a measured pace towards progress.
I personally believe that it is counterproductive for a society to have revolutions. In this I am thinking of Albert Camus' book, 'The Rebel.' All these revolutions on going in the Middle East, I hope they are able to achieve something positive. It would have been far easier for Iraq to arrive a a better solution if the then young King Faisal had sought to institute a Constitutional Monarchy; we would have been spared the blood thirsty Saddam, and probably with better end results. And Iraq would have held together, instead of a Kurdish North, a Sunni Middle and a Shia South, always a loggerheads.
Now admittedly it depends to an extent on the conditions prevailing at the time, however, if the top man, the Monarch knows where he wants the country to go; he can gradually take it there. England gradually became a full constitutional monarchy eventually under Queen Victoria. She still had a lot of prerogatives until she got into widowhood and voluntarily relinquished all hand on government.
One step at a time: The Inevitabilty of Gradualness!
Tas -
Message 14
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Hi Allan,
I am all for the unification of Germany in 1870; it enabled Germany to become an economic and technological colossus. Where things went wrong was the fact that the Monarchy was not a Constitutional Monarchy.
If Kaiser Friedrich had lived longer, that may have been a possibility and Germany would have been a highly prosperous country without the two World Wars.
On an aside, I was reading about the times of Queen Victoria yesterday, and I learnt that cremation as opposed to Christian burial on hallowed ground came about in 1880s. That the first attempt was met by a case filed against it, but the judgment was that as long as there was no pollution it was acceptable. It amazed me that those Victorians were already thinking of pollution and keeping Britain 'Green!' Cremations went up by leaps and bounds from a few cases, to thousands in a few years.
Tas -
Message 15
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Sanitary considerations were indeed one of the reasons for the legitimisation of cremation in the early 1870s but not the only ones. Cost was a major factor, in 1843 the average cost of a funeral was £15, a significant sum and the very cheapest £5. Since people would do almost anything to avoid the shame of a pauper's funeral and would spend more than they could afford, cremation allowed a decent burial for the poorest. Another factor was the Victorian obsession with premature burial. It was around the mid 1920s that numbers began to rise markedly, partly at least because so many of the dead of WW1 had not been repatriated and this had had an impact on the perception of appropriate treatment of the dead and funerals had become much simpler and less formal along with the increasing pressure on urban land.
Sorry to sidetrack the thread but it's an interesting area. -
Message 16
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Hi Tas,
Your elder brother was right about the King then. Some weeks ago, I´ve visited the website of the British Parliament. They have lots of informations there and lots of "fact sheets". Among these informations I found something about the "Royal Assert". To me it seems to be, besides the other representative duties, the core of the Monarchs duty in parliamentary affairs. It´s the same thing like our federal president has, to sign bills and thus the bill becomes a law.
I think that many people in the UK, as I´ve noticed on other threads on Â鶹ԼÅÄ sites (like "Have your say"), are questioning the Monarchy at all. There are some people who rather wish to have the UK turned into a Republic and replace the Queen with an President. But either they don´t value the traditions that makes the British Monarchs role so special, or they argue about the costs that Monarchy causes. They aren´t considering the argument that in such a case, a presidency isn´t much cheaper than to have a King or Queen for his / her lifetime on duty.
I can´t imagine the UK being a Republic, but I can imagine the UK remaining a Monarchy and turning into a federal Kingdom, with Parliaments in England (there is none), in Wales (they just have an Assembly), Northern Ireland (same as Wales) and Scotland (which has one).
I can´t agree with you concerning your part about revolutions in your post. History has often shown that revolutions occured because the ruling class was not willing to change circumstances for the common good of the public. This has always been the main reason for revolutions and it always will be, because a government that is listening to his people and follow the demands of the people, had no reason to fear the public.
Thomas -
Message 17
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Hi Ferval,
You may sidetrack any string of mine so long as it is interesting.
You know of course the most tongue-in-the-cheek cremation of the late Victorian period. When England lost the test series to Australia in 1882, the following appeared in 'The Times':
In affectionate remembrance of English Cricket, which died at the Oval, 29th August, 1882, deeply lamented by a large circle of sorrowing friends and acquaintances. RIP.
NB the body will be cremated and the Ashes taken to Australia.Â
Tas -
Message 18
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Hi Thomas,
I think that many people in the UK, as I´ve noticed on other threads on Â鶹ԼÅÄ sites (like "Have your say"), are questioning the Monarchy at all. There are some people who rather wish to have the UK turned into a Republic and replace the Queen with an President. But either they don´t value the traditions that makes the British Monarchs role so special, or they argue about the costs that Monarchy causesÂ
Those people, in my view have not thought things out. Pierre Elliot Trudeau was a very thoughtful prime Minister of Canada. He was Prime Minister twice for a very long period and he decided to repatriate the Canadian constitution from Britain to Canada. He had been a brilliant Constitutional lawyer before becoming PM. Guess what he did not touch in creating a Canadian Constitution: The Monarchy. The Queen is still the Constitutional Monarch of Canada and her picture is still on every Canadian dollar bill.
It seems Trudeau realized the advantages that a CM brings to Canada and he did not want to give them up just for some Nationalistic bragging rights.
In Australia, they are also some groups clamoring for an Australian President. i would advise them to cease and desist lest they create unwanted problems in their body politic.
To appease your Nationalists, do what Canada has done; change the National Anthem and the Canadian Flag, but leave the Queen alone. That is the best way in my opinion.
Tas -
Message 19
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Another case of a CM having a decisive influence was in Spain when Juan Carlos called for the army to put down the 23-F coup.
I'm not particularly a monarchist, but I don't think the republicans have made a case which is sufficiently strong to justify abolition. There are two groups, one wanting an executive president on the US model - no thanks - and one wanting a figurehead president. Can't see any advantage, and I bet it would wind up costing more than the present system. -
Message 20
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Hi Thomas,
I did not answer your more important question:
I can´t agree with you concerning your part about revolutions in your post. History has often shown that revolutions occured because the ruling class was not willing to change circumstances for the common good of the public. This has always been the main reason for revolutions and it always will be, because a government that is listening to his people and follow the demands of the people, had no reason to fear the public.Â
Definitely if the ruling classes are obdurate about change, then the only thing available is revolution. Unfortunately , I also agree with Camus that whereas it is noble to rebel, revolution often goes astray. For example in 1789 the French had their first revolution; that lead to the reign of terror, a bumbling government that allowed Bonaparte to stage his Coup of 18th Brumaire. Similarly, the February Revolution in Russia lead to the advent of the Bolsheviks. Hitler also was able to become Fuhrer, because of the unsettled environment in his time. If there was a CM in Germany at the time, he would not be able to do that.
The reason why I am so strongly for CM is because it never allows circumstances to get that far. There is always a safety valve. England and Britain were able to avoid the Black Shirt followers of Nazism and the Communist followers of Stalin by their CM. Whenever changes were needed they came about in an orderly manner.
I think there was a period, probably in 1914, when the PM was the Liberal Asquith and he had brought a budget that was going to be tough on the landed aristocracy. The Aristocracy were entrenched in the House of Lords and refused to pass the budget.
Asquith asked King George to create a lot of new Liberal Peers to ensure the budget is passed and he eventually took the power of the Lords to block any legislation involving money.
That is how things eventually happen in a CM. In any circumstance, a person like Hitler would be never bale to get to first base (using an American metaphor) let alone as the sole Leader (Fuhrer).
Tas -
Message 21
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Hi Ur-lugal,
I don't think the republicans have made a case which is sufficiently strong to justify abolition. There are two groups, one wanting an executive president on the US model - no thanks - and one wanting a figurehead president. Can't see any advantage, and I bet it would wind up costing more than the present system.Â
Moreover, the Royals are brought up to behave as Heads of State. there is never any embarrassment to you or Canada or Australia or New Zealand from their behavior. I remember once sitting in on the conversation of two German diplomats, talking about their past president Heinrick Lubke, and they were mocking his behavior on State visits.
Having lived for a long time in the US, I would never advise you to adopt the US system and our 'written' Constitution, written in 1787. "We the People...." sounds wonderful, but any reasonable thing you want to do, like put limits on Campaign finance or limit the right of lunatics to lethal weapons and you will run foul of our Constitution. Better keep it unwritten and at the prerogative of Her Majesty.
Tas -
Message 22
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Tas,
A President is not quite the same thing. You can kick off a president, no one will shed a tear, but you can not as easily eliminate a popular monarch.Â
One can remove a president without removing the presidency; in the present day removing a monarch - constitutional, absolute or anywhere in between - implies removing the monarchy with him. -
Message 23
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Ur-Lugal,
I'm not particularly a monarchist, but I don't think the republicans have made a case which is sufficiently strong to justify abolition.Â
Which constitutional monarchs and monarchists understand perfectly: no offense, ergo no cause for change. That's why the House of Windsor endures in its white dominions to this day. -
Message 24
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Tas,
That is how things eventually happen in a CM. In any circumstance, a person like Hitler would be never bale to get to first base (using an American metaphor) let alone as the sole Leader (Fuhrer).Â
And yet a CM in Italy didn't prevent Mussolini from becoming Il Duce. -
Message 25
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
White Camry,
If the Constitutional Monarch has been playing the game correctly he and his family should embody that particular country and everything in it. He should foremost of all be a great symbol of national unity.
A few years ago I saw a film called "7 Days in May". It showed Burt Lancaster as a very popular US General (like Mac Arthur) planning a coup d'etat against a President in some political trouble. Such a plot is just credible here in the US, but would be laughed off in Britain.
That is because your Monarchy has learnt, from years of practice, to play the game right. In WW2 the present QE2 acted as a lorry driver and was completely qualified for that role; Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot in the Falklands War and Prince Harry spent some time in Afghanistan.
The Queen and her family carry out a lot of tasks like visiting hospitals, charities and so on and so forth and they chat with the public. They have these extravagant weddings in which the whole World is interested. That is playing the game of monarchy at its best. They are patrons of hundreds of Institutions and Colonels of many important regiments. The late Queen Mother, who was the Chancellor of my university in London. She was asked to move with her family to Canada for her safety during WW2. She said, I will never be able to face Londoners again and insisted on staying in Buckingham Palace, although it had been bombed.
That is the way to behave for Royals in any Royal family for the Royal family to survive and remain popular. I hope the King Abdullah of Jordan is taking notes.
Tas -
Message 26
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Britain has removed Richard II, Henry VI, Edward IV, Henry VI again, Edward V, Richard III (and his dynasty), Charles I, James II (and his dynasty) and Edward VIII yet the monarchy survives despite, or maybe because of, these removals.
-
Message 27
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Hi White Camry,
The Queen and her family carry out a lot of tasks like visiting hospitals, charities and so on and so forth and they chat with the public. They have these extravagant weddings in which the whole World is interested.Â
And they let the whole world into the weddings as some kind of participants.
What 'Republican' would dare replace such a "Fairy Tale" family with an absurdly silly man like "El Duce" or "der Führer' or even a General MacArthur or a Montgomery?"
Tas -
Message 28
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Re: Message 11.
Thomas,
there seem to be two books with nearly similar titles. I found out when commenting in a thread I started here about the in my eyes not too historical strong Â鶹ԼÅÄ series if I remember well: The King, the Kaiser and the Csar. If I recall it well the scenario was based on one of the books. The new search function, as it only apply to the last months is rather useless now until it covers all the messageboards years. The only way to find my thread back is looking at all my messages by clicking on my name. And as I had no time for computer the two last days and still owe an aswer to Nordmann in another thread and to others in other threads, I have no time for the moment to do the exercise.
BTW I thank you very much for this interesting message and others in this thread, as I thank the other contributors for their high level discussions. One is only two days away from the messageboards and already that many interesting messages, interesting for me at least and perhaps because it covers my field, where I did already a lot of research for in the last nine years on these Â鶹ԼÅÄ messageboards.
Kind regards and with esteem for you and the other contributors of this messageboard,
Paul. -
Message 29
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
Tas,
That is how things eventually happen in a CM. In any circumstance, a person like Hitler would be never bale to get to first base (using an American metaphor) let alone as the sole Leader (Fuhrer).Â
And yet a CM in Italy didn't prevent Mussolini from becoming Il Duce. Absolutely right, nor did a figurehead monarchy prevent the development of a fascistic, militarist society in Japan - in fact the cult of "emperor worship" facilitated it although the much-maligned MacArthur realised that the transition of the monarchy into a constitutional one rather than its outright abolition would aid the transition of Japan into a democratic society and so far he has been proved correct. -
Message 30
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Hi Thomas,
As a side note, I´ve recently seen a book in a local bookshop about these three cousines. The title is (if I´m right) "The Three Emperors". Is it that book you´re currently reading?Â
No Thomas. The book I am reading is named "George, Nicholas and Wilhelm". It is written by Miranda Carter and is published by Vintage Books, a Division of Random House. It was the most interesting historical book I could find in Walden Books. The rest of the history shelf was filled with books on our cIvil War, WW2, Vietnam, etc.
I asked them why they did not have more books on European history. The sales person told me they can't sell them. This is why we Americans are so ill -informed about other nations and World History. On the other hand you folks seem to know all about our history and the events here.
Tas -
Message 31
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Hi Tas,
Thanks for both of your replies. I´ve read them all but I prefer to respond to your last post to me, for there are more aspects to comment.
Hitler also was able to become Fuhrer, because of the unsettled environment in his time. If there was a CM in Germany at the time, he would not be able to do that.Â
I think that the environment was settled, by the Versailles Treaty but not accepted by the German people. The Weimar Republic was an rather interim period from the downfall of the Empire to the raise of the Third Reich, but the main problem there was, that this first democratic Republic wasn´t carried by the majority of the people. They had no sense for democracy so they had no sense for a CM either, which implicates a state founded on democratic basics.
It is therefore arguable to me whether a CM had prevented Hitler from power at all. Although many Germans saw in Hindenburg when he was Reichspräsident some substitute of the former Kaiser and rather wished to had a Monarchy re-installed, there was no way for doing so. The difference between the circumstances in the UK and in Germany at the same time was, that CM in the UK was established and serving for centuries, wheras in Germany the struggle between far-left and far-right political movements (including the former Army and later "Reichswehr") has started with the Novemberrevolution in 1918 already. The democratic powers were squeezed inbetween these tow factions who brought them down in 1933 with the Nazis prevailing in the end.
I can agree with what you´ve said about Wilhelm II´s father and his mother. They might both had the good idea, but as they were seeking to introduce a system on an English pattern, it wasn´t suitable to the German society, not to speak about the Prussian Aristocracy. Britain, or better to say "England" which by many Germans at that time and still today means one and the same, was rather seen as an rival, not as a friend to follow. In that case, I think that Germany under the reign of Wilhelm II had - aside from Austria-Hungary - less if not to say no friends in Europe.
Bismarck was no democract at all, but he was a good Chancellor and also a good "Foreign Minister" in one figure, for he managed to bring the new founded German Empire on preaceful grounds and they lasted for some decades until Wilhelm II came to the throne. I´ve often said that he was - imo - the worst Monarch this country ever had and I personally blame himself - among some other officials in the Foreign Bureau - for the outbrake of WWI. He himself neither had thought about a CM nor had he ever agreed to establish it in Germany. He was too obsessed to have power and he mocked the German Parliament as being a "Quasselbude" (some gossip chamber).
In his looking back upon this predecessors and ancestors, who fought glorious battles and made Prussia to the leading power among the German states, he was rather inclined to do some great things like them instead to reform or even modernize the political body of the German Empire. On the other hand the politicians (with some exceptions from the Social Democratic Party) as the majority of the German society were obedient towards the ruling class and on top of it, the Kaiser. They were content with having him as the man with the key power in the Realm. A constitutional monarchy demands people who are more inclined to have their say and to restrict the power of the monarch to extent it towards Parliament as the representative and legislative chamber of their own.
I think that the later King Edward VIII, who had some political ideas to reform the political system in the UK, envied that to the former German Empire. Although he hasn´t written much about these ideas in his own book (written by a unnamed ghostwriter on his behalf), he clearly complained there that he had "no say" at all on political matters. He wasn´t that keen on the CM in the UK and rather to have himself granted more power and it is dubious what he had done if he had been a King without a CM.
The fact that neither the British Fascists nor the Communists failed in the UK is in my opinion more to do with the British public. They either didn´t take it serious and ridiculed them or they lost their interest. As you said:
England and Britain were able to avoid the Black Shirt followers of Nazism and the Communist followers of Stalin by their CM. Whenever changes were needed they came about in an orderly manner. Â
----------------------
Asquith asked King George to create a lot of new Liberal Peers to ensure the budget is passed and he eventually took the power of the Lords to block any legislation involving money.Â
He was able to do so because the UK has, as a second chamber, the House of Lords and not a chamber which has representatives from federal countries as for example in Germany. The members of that chamber were neither appointed by the Kaiser nor by the later "Reichspräsident", they were elected members of the parliaments of each federal country in Germany. This makes it impossible to act like in the UK, because the result of the elections in each country is displayed in the members of these parliaments, sent to that chamber (we call it "Bundesrat" in the German Empire and Weimar Republic it was the "Reichsrat"). They take part in legislative processes and can influence the bills in progress of the government.
That is how things eventually happen in a CM. In any circumstance, a person like Hitler would be never bale to get to first base (using an American metaphor) let alone as the sole Leader (Fuhrer).Â
In the UK, surely he never had got the chance, but as I´ve said above, in Germany it was quite different.
Thomas -
Message 32
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Hi Folks,
We have been discussing the correspondence between the three Emperors. I thought it might be interesting for you to know about the personal correspondence of a fourth Emperor; the last Mughal Emperor of India. This was Bahadur Shah, Zafar, a poet and called by the English historian, Percival Spears, as potentially one of the best candidates to be a top class Constitutional Monarch. I will call him 'BSZ' for short. The letter that I am mentioning is to one of his wives, Akleel Mahal, not his favorite wife but one of his favorites.
The salutation is half a page long. I will try to give a flavor of it:
......Light of my eyes, rest of my heart, soothing balm for my soul, someone who makes the day bright..... and so on and so forth for half a page.
The way those Mughals wrote would melt any soul, and this was written to wife Number Three. What would it be to wife Number One, Zeenat Mahal? Even in the titles of the ladies there is a flourish, like the lady for whom Shah Jehan built the Taj Mahal, Mumtaz Mahal, in this case Aklil Mahal, and Zeenat Mahal.
I do no know sufficient Persian to translate these titles, suffice to say some thing like 'Beauty of the Palace.'
BSZ's poetry is beautiful and very poignant in Urdu. One line is very sad, in view of the fact that he was exiled by the Brits to Burma for his part in the mutiny of 1857:
"How unlucky is Zafar, that he could not find a place for his grave by the side of his beloved"
However, that is another story. We may come back to that later.
Tas -
Message 33
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the message and I see you´re - as usual - dealing with various threads and put in much efford to it. This besides your engagement on the French history mbs.
Your contributions to this thread would be very welcome, for you´re living in a country that has (if I´m right) a constitutional monarchy, at least the Belgian Kingdom has its federal basics. If you don´t mind, please post your thoughts and it won´t be necessary to bother you tracing back your account of threads.
It is here, as it has been very often the case, that some aspect in a thread leads the debate to further examinations and discussions, even when it goes apart from the OP.
As you know me, I´ve no problem with that at all.
Kind Regards,
Thomas -
Message 34
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Hi Tas,
Thanks for the book title which seems to be quite another one as that I´ve seen in that local bookshop. But to assure myself, I shall go there again and have look on it.
I asked them why they did not have more books on European history. The sales person told me they can't sell them. This is why we Americans are so ill -informed about other nations and World History. On the other hand you folks seem to know all about our history and the events here.Â
To say so in general, this might be the case, but in particular, the best biography about Hitler was written by an American Historian. It is even better than that of Joachim C. Fest (a German Historian). Paul Ryckier know him as well, but we´ve had a short conversation about Mr Fest, and Paul hasn´t high regards upon his works.
As for being informed about the history of the USA, well I grew up with all the Western Films and I was always fond of the "7th Cavallery" which went to rescue in the critical stage. But it´s no surpirse thinking about the influence the Americans had and have since the end of WWII. Last year I bought a DVD about Truman, a "movie" made upon his biography and it was quite interesting. What I miss is some similar about FDR.
As for Western I like to add that I most preferred these films with the U.S. Army. Cowboys were rather boring to me and I never quite understood the reason for so many films. Most the same thing, "bullets, beans in frying pan, cows and a big deal of whisky in a saloon, sometimes with a pretty lady on the lap ...".
That local bookshop in my town provides a various number of litearture sections. Among them are also historical books in English language from British or American publishers. We two bookshops of different company here with a good number of English books. Just one of them has an extra shelf about "History and Politics".
The most books about WWII and the Thrid Reich are to find in the UK. I´ve never seen such enormous numbers of different books dealing with that topic then there.
As I´ve read recently in Andrew Marr´s book "The making of modern Britain", I might understand the reasons for now, for he says there, that this period has "changed" the UK more than everything else in the last century. This in the light as it wasn´t expected. Whereas in Germany when you like to buy books about British history, you find just a few and for more, even in English, you´ve to order them either via the bookshop or by yourself via the internet. Same thing about the USA.
Thomas -
Message 35
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Hi Thomas,
You obviously know a lot more about German history than I. However, I do think that the period between Wilhelm I and Wilhelm II was crucial. If Kaiser Friedrich had lived a reasonable period, he may have steered the German system to wards a CM. Not exactly there but moving towards it.
Typically monarchs are not that bright. You can see it from reading the book "A King's Story," and looking at the infantile behavior of Wilhelm II. What CM does is it insures the monarchy to an extent, from frivolous monarchs so that people revere the monarchy while at the same time not having them actively involved in day-to-day government. They are confined to the role of the 'Great Symbol' of the nation.
If at the same time the monarch is doing their job of creating some kind of rapport with the public, it creates a bond between the people and the monarch that no mere dictator can fracture.
You probably see these great Royal weddings. There is a lot of money spent and we are all in suspense as to who is going to be the dress designer of the Princess, who is going to make the wedding cake, etc. This is all a part of the elaborate game of Constitutional Monarchy. Her Majesty is inviting primarily her subjects and then the entire world to participate to some extent in the wedding ceremonies. This way we get close to the Royal Family.
If you pay attention, you will notice that everything that is done by the Royals is a well thought out ritual. It has been practiced for so long that now it is like second nature to them. Their example is there for all the remaining monarchies to follow, but most are lax and do not realize its importance in preserving their House. For the past Iranian Royal family, the Iraqi Royal family the Libyan Royal family, the Greek Royal family, the Italian Royal family, they all missed the game; they did not understand its importance in creating the bond. That is why they lost and were followed by Dictators.
It is a step-by-step process and needs a lot of creativity and flare; not very easy to pursue, especially if you do not have such a tradition. But traditions can be created. What you need is panache and joy that can be observed by the public. The public can very quickly see through a 'phony'; You must believe in what you are doing. Consider it your job, as other jobs, to make people happy and involved with their monarchy.
Tas -
Message 36
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st April 2011
The book by Miranda Carter, which I ordered through a well-known website last year but hadn't got round to reading until this thread prompted me to do so is indeed called "The Three Emperors" in the UK, subtitled "Three Cousins, Three Empires and the Road to World War One", and is published by Penguin - the title was obviously changed by the US publisher. However the book covers a far longer period than simply the run-up to the conflagration of 1914 - in her introduction Ms Carter considered calling it "Four Emperors and an Empress" as Queen Victoria and Edward VII (who were respectively Empress and Emperor of India) play equally significant roles in the account.
One factual error in one of my earlier posts that I should correct - the Provisional Government that came to power in Russia after the February Revolution in 1917 when Nicholas was forced to abdicate were keen that Britain should offer the deposed Royal Family political exile, mainly due to the fact that whilst they remained in Russia they would become a focal point for monarchist sympathisers on the right whilst their personal safety would constantly be in jeopardy from forces on the left (which, saly, turned out to be the case). However the British Ambassador in St Petersburg, presumably on instructions from Whitehall, repeatedly refused requests to grant the Romanovs exile.
This may have been due to the fact that there was a considerable anti-war movement, particularly on the left (which had included the founder of the Labour Party, Keir Hardie, until his death in 1915), which objected to Britain's alliance with Czarist Russia which was considered as bad, if not worse, an autocracy than Imperial Germany, Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire. The removal of the Czar and his replacement by an apparently more liberal, democratic regime defused this objection. The Government might have thought that the presence of the Romanovs in Britain might have further fuelled the anti-war movement. -
Message 37
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Hi Tas,
As for the Royal Family, I just can say that I do like the present HM Queen Elizabeth II, but I don´t care much about the others. If the upcoming royal wedding will be broadcasted in Germany, I depends on the opportunity I might get to watch it, just for the reason of "pomp and circumstances". I hope that CNN will broadcast that too, so I can avoid the German commentator (a boffin on the UK Royals which I can´t bear). HRH Prinz Philipp, the Duke of Edinburgh has rather my respect, although or maybe even for he seems to me a bit funny and sometimes odd by his jokes which not everybody understands (some "special humour" of him).
Prinz William might be a good King, once if his father would agree to skip the line (but I doubt he will).
The traditions of the British Royals are in some ways unique, whereas the similar by the Royals in the Netherlands or Sweden aren´t that attractive to me.
What CM does is it insures the monarchy to an extent, from frivolous monarchs so that people revere the monarchy while at the same time not having them actively involved in day-to-day government. They are confined to the role of the 'Great Symbol' of the nation.Â
That´s the point with Edward VIII wasn´t content. That´s just one thing, the other and more important is that he was more with his thoughts and deed dealing to solve the problem of his plan to marry Mrs Wallis Simpson. Maybe, but just maybe he also had his good intentions to bring his country forward when he was the hire and later the King.
Thomas -
Message 38
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Allan D,
Britain has removed Richard II, Henry VI, Edward IV, Henry VI again, Edward V, Richard III (and his dynasty), Charles I, James II (and his dynasty) and Edward VIII yet the monarchy survives despite, or maybe because of, these removals.Â
KE8 was replaced in the normal succession. KC1 was replaced by England's version of Francisco Franco ; the others were replaced by rival claimants. In short, there was no impulse or ideology to replace the monarchy with a republic (no, not even by Cromwell.) -
Message 39
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Hi Thomas,
Look at it this way: Gamal Nasser was a Colonel in the Egyptian Army. he was easily able to remove Egyptian King Farouk. Muammar Gaddafi was a Captain in the Libyan army ( he made himself Colonel later)and was able to remove King Idris. Similarly mobs in Iraq were able to remove the teen-age King Faisal and Mussolini was able to remove the Italian monarchy and the Greek Dictators, theirs. Why was this possible; because these monarchies never created that bond with the people as had been created by their great ancestor Haroon al Rashid in 10th century Baghdad.
Why does the British monarchy spend so much time and effort in going to the provinces, visiting old peoples' homes, hospitals etc.? To reinforce that bond. When they come on a State visit to Canada or Australia, they take up that process again.
That bond is very necessary for the survival of the monarchy. If a 'Captain' like Gaddafi comes to people in Britain and says, "let us have a little Coup and install me in power and I will do many things for you." The people of Britain will say to the guy. "You are an out right idiot. We have just the right 'palace' for you; the London Lunatic Asylum." Yet this little Captain was able to remove King Idris.
After the death of Hindenburg, this "little Corporal" went to the German people, organised a few spectacular rallies, gave some fiery speeches and convinced a great nation to accept him as 'the Fuhrer.' In normal circumstances, like at present he would be farmed off to a robust German asylum.
Tas -
Message 40
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Thomas II,
Here's a review of a new biography of Bismarck:
-
Message 41
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st April 2011
But the removals were very important in the development of a constitutional monarchy. In 1399 Henry Bolingbroke asked Parliament to pass an Act declaring that Richard II had vacated the throne and legitimating his (Bolingbroke's) right of succession. This was the first time in the history of Parliament (which was barely over a century old) that it had been asked to give its assent to a change of monarch.
In 1483 Richard, Duke of Gloucester, also asked Parliament to declare Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York, as illegitimate based on the supposedly unlawful marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville and to declare him (Gloucester) as the rightful successor. In 1689 Parliament declared that James II had abdicated and waived the usual rules of succession passing over James' son in favour of his eldest daughter and her husband, James' nephew, making them joint monarchs.
In 1701 Parliament waived the rules of succession even further by placing a religious test (i.e. excluding Catholics) and leaping over about 150 better placed claimants in favour of Sophia, Electress of Hanover. Edward VIII's abdication was only given validity by the passage of an Act of Parliament, to which affixing his Royal Assent was Edward's last duty as King.
It was this increasing power to justify and legitimise a change in the monarchy, often post-facto, as in 1399, 1483 and 1689, and then vary the rules of succession, as in 1483, 1689 and 1701 that turned the monarchty from simply ruling with the consent of Parliament but reigning because of it. In other words Parliament has complete freedom to choose who the monarch isand who their successor will be. -
Message 42
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Hi Allan,
Just on a point of interest, suppose there is a legitimate heir apparent, can the Parliament change that person from succeeding to some one else if the public prefers the other?
Tas -
Message 43
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Friday, 1st April 2011
In reply to WhiteCamry:
Thanks for the link to that interesting article. The last paragraph on page 2 says it all in a short conclusion. Very good analysis by the author, but it is matter of fact whether to recognize the service Bismarck did in the "Pommersche Landjägerregiment" as being a military service or, as the author of the book claims wasn´t. To me, Bismarck served in the Prussian Army and he also took part probably in the three wars mentioned in that book, personally, at least in the German-French war 1870/1871. The latter is proved.
In general I rather like to say that there are many books written about Bismarck. Those written in the early 20th Century are more full of praise on him, those written in the 1930s are not to recommend, because in them someone may find easily the straight line from him to Hitler, because it was one of the Nazis propaganda concept to draw the line from Hitler backwards to Bismarck and even to Frederick the Great. There was a drawing published at that time displaying these three different persons in one ("historical") line. Probably the author of the book (Steinberg) took these kind of books in his research for his own book, given that he understands German.
I agree mostly with the author of the book review, he has a clue on the subject. Very good indeed, as I like to add it had been better if he had written that book than Steinberg. -
Message 44
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Yes, on the basis of past precedent, especially those of 1689 and 1701, Parliament can alter the rules of succession at will. However it is unlikely that mere popular preference would be sufficient cause to act. As with the argument surrounding the recent attempt to abolish male primogeniture the other countries which share the British monarchy as Head of State would have to be consulted and each pass similar legislation.
The only instance in which I could envisage such legislation being contemplated would be in the case of the infirmity or disability of the heir apparent. The precedent for this would be the Regency Act of 1811 in which George III remained King but his powers and functions were transferred to his eldest son. -
Message 45
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 1st April 2011
There is an interesting photograph in my book of the Kaiser on a visit to Britain, sitting in the same carriage with King Edward VII. The uncle and nephew are not making any eye contact.
Wilhelm always enjoyed his trips to England and to Cowes. He loved the yacht races and he enjoyed the British upper classes, whereas the German upper classes were understandably quite obsequious to him.
He was actually quite an Anglophile and loved his Grandma (Victoria) a lot. He said to her he was partly English.
Tas -
Message 46
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Hi Tas,
After the death of Hindenburg, this "little Corporal" went to the German people, organised a few spectacular rallies, gave some fiery speeches and convinced a great nation to accept him as 'the Fuhrer.' In normal circumstances, like at present he would be farmed off to a robust German asylum.Â
Unfortunately, it wasn´t that simple as you see it. The people in German at the time were not so simple to manipulate as it seems. They had no prospect and were "robbed" of their "national pride", but above all, they were unemployed and after the dole was expired, they were left on starving. They followed those who beyond pretending, were giving them some work and food. This sounds simple as well, but besides the spectacular rallies (most of them occured after he became Chancellor when it wasn´t for election campaignes) to feed oneself and his family, was more essential.
Some say that a whole population has been brain-washed. In some ways this might has been the case, but national feelings were much stronger - also in the time prior the Third Reich - as some would like to admit. A basic on which Hitler was to count and rely on. Otherwise, his propaganda wouldn´t had been that successful as it was, for these people had as alternative to follow Thälmann and his KPD, but he was conducted by Stalin in the background. The Communists had never gained the support of the German Industrialists, but Hitler did because the told them that the part of "Socialism" in his programm was quite different in its meaning to that of the KPD, and it was indeed.
If you go to take the present conditions as normal circumstances for the Weimar Republic, then you´re taking the wrong track, because they weren´t the same and neither similar for the time of the former Weimar Republic, not to speak of the first two years of Hitlers reign. It all started before 1934 but that year marks the point from when he had the absolute power.
Thomas -
Message 47
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Interesting sentence Tas:
He was actually quite an Anglophile and loved his Grandma (Victoria) a lot. He said to her he was partly English.Â
That was the tragedy, because from that point of view, I wonder why he didn´t understood the English at all and acted like a fool. I think this was more wishful thinking, by his love to his Grandmother, but not based on realizing essential terms of the English in their "way of life".
Similar with Hitler, a great admirer of the English, but in compare to Wilhelm II, he doesn´t understood any word in English and relied just on his knowledge about them what he has read in books.
They were both more German-centred as that his had given them the way for an unblinkered view upon the English and to take advice to "not provoke them". A merely one-sided-love, because the English didn´t care much about the Germans, as long as they weren´t a threat to the Empire. But that´s the whole point, both were seen by the English "as a threat" to their Empire.
If it is one thing I´ve learned from my visits to England than it is this: "don´t provoke them and don´t threaten them" because you might regret it. But stand your ground when they threaten you.
I might see myself as well as an "Anglophile", but I consider myself of being not that blinkered, more prosaic.
Thomas -
Message 48
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Thomas II:
I agree mostly with the author of the book review, he has a clue on the subject. Very good indeed, as I like to add it had been better if he had written that book than Steinberg.Â
Then you may want to read his "A World Restored" a history of the post-Napoleonic peace, with an emphasis on Metternich's career. A fascinating read.
Don't let the prices fool you; I included those links for the reviews. Here's a link to get a used copy:
-
Message 49
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Thomas II:
They were both more German-centred as that his had given them the way for an unblinkered view upon the English and to take advice to "not provoke them". A merely one-sided-love, because the English didn´t care much about the Germans, as long as they weren´t a threat to the Empire. But that´s the whole point, both were seen by the English "as a threat" to their Empire.Â
They weren't the first. Many a continental statesman (or statesman-wannabe) couldn't understand that Britain - and the US, for that matter - can never afford to see Europe united against her. Philip II of Spain, Louis XIV, Bonaparte, even Charles De Gaulle when he blocked the UK out of the Common Market, as the EU was then called. -
Message 50
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Re: message 36 and 28.
Allan,
thank you very much for referring to Miranda Carter. So I found back, by reiterating via Google, what I said to Thomas in message 28 about the nearly similar two books and the Â鶹ԼÅÄ one episode series: The King, the Kaiser and the Tsar. I saw it originally on the Â鶹ԼÅÄ and commented it here in a thread.
In the time I was a bit critical to the Â鶹ԼÅÄ episode, while in my opinion it was too sensation seeking and not historical enough. I found then that Catherine Clay wasn't a real historian and hadn't certainly not the depth of an Hans (JHJ)Andriessen, a Dutch amateur-historian, who wrote among others "De andere waarheid" (the other truth. Another vision on the origins of WWI) and "Keizer Wilhelm II" (Kaiser William II) I read the second book already and I am heading if I once have time for the first. He seems to be a bit biased to the figure of William II. I promised to my Dutch friend here on the boards Poldertijger, to challenge him once (when I am retired once and in my seventies, eighties
) as for the historicity of his "statements", but it will be more difficult than with Catherine Clay, as he seems from his books more an in depth expert about WWI.
In the same thread I discovered the book from Miranda Carter (written three years later than the Clay book).
In the time I had, due to comments on the internet, a better impression of the Miranda book.
I see now on wikipedia that she was at least "educated at the St. Paul's Girls School and the Exeter College Oxford.
Kind regards and with esteem to both,
Paul.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.