The Innocence of Kaiser Wilhelm II

by Christina Croft

Almost a century after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, Kaiser Wilhelm II is still viewed as either a warmonger or a madman, as the hundred-year-old propaganda posters remain fixed in the general consciousness. Was he, though, truly responsible for the catastrophe of the First World War, or was he in fact a convenient scapegoat, blamed for a conflict which he desperately tried to avoid?

Genres: Germany, History, World War I, Biography, Education, Nonfiction, Royalty

306 pages, Kindle Edition

First published July 5, 2015

About the author

Christina Croft was born in Warwickshire, England, and grew up in Yorkshire. Educated at Notre Dame Grammar School, Leeds, she graduated in English and Divinity in Liverpool and obtained teaching and nursing qualifications. She began her writing career as a poet but moved on to biography and novels as well as giving talks about the Romanovs, Habsburgs, Queen Victoria and other late 19th and early 20th century royalties. Her other interests include general history, spirituality, herbs, nature and animals.

Reviews

[Anthony · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Human of Berlin.

Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany is a man who history has not been kind to. Head of state of a defeated nation in one of the most horrific and disastrous conflicts the world has ever know, which directly led to one of the most grotesque regimes in history. He has been blamed for the cause of the First World War and with the catastrophic demise of Germany after the Second World War, history has further pushed away from. Christina Croft has presented a great argument to counter the tired and biased narrative that the Kaiser was an insane megalomaniac. This as she points out is a convenient charge, to exalt the allies from any blame for the war or the standards of the peace. This is a great book based on facts, research, interviews, articles and letters in their context. Importantly from those who knew Wilhelm or had met with him.

As we pull away from the conflict with the direction connection lost with the death of our unfortunate loss grandparents and great grandparents, objectiveness is able to overcome bias. Many of the tired preconceptions of the First World War that have been peddled over the last century are finally being challenged. These include the ‘lions led by donkey’s’ trope’ or that Wilhelm II wanted world domination. As Croft shows, if Wilhelm truly wanted war with Russia, the opportunity was 1905 when the world shook its head at a humiliated country defeated by Japan, on the brink of revolution internally and shunned by states such as Great Britain where the Russians had mistakenly killed some of their fisherman. He did not. There are other examples provided, where again he could have taken advantage and drove for a colonial expansion. He never said he wanted to expand Germanys boarders, or fight any wars. In fact he was hailed as the ‘peace-Kaiser’, especially in the USA as late as autumn 1914, where journalists had written he had done everything he could to prevent the outbreak of the conflict during the July Crisis.

Germany did invade France through neutral Belgium in August 1914, however as Niall Ferguson has shown, Britain would have violated Belgium neutrality if Germany did not. Croft states that this was in fact no different from when the British has marched through neutral Portuguese territory to fight the Boars or Japan marching through neutral Chinese territory to seize the German colony of Kiao-Chau. Furthermore, it was okay for the British to breach the terms of The Hague Convention to blockade and starve the citizens of the Central Powers, or the Americans to actively deny Red Cross aide to injured German soldiers or innocent civilians, again against the rules of the convention, but the unrestricted submarine warfare was somehow different and ‘barbaric’. As Croft shows, with the rules at the time, Germany or the Kaiser behaved as every other state did. It is just he was on the losing side, which has caused the huge negative connotations with the Hohenzollern name.

There are two people who are key to this. Woodrow Wilson himself and Lord Northcliffe, the British press baron. Northcliffe, as Andrew Roberts has shown is still hugely influential in our view of the Kaiser and Imperial Germany in the war. His propaganda is some of the most powerful ever created. The images of the Kaiser wanting world domination or as a junker-esk mad man is what lingers today. In fact his people stood behind him and if anything criticised him for being too humane. Showing compassion and chivalry to the enemy, being against the invasion of Belgium and unrestricted submarine warfare and trying to secure an negotiated peace. It was this attitude that led to the Kaiser being sidelined by Paul von Hindenburg and Eric Ludendorff, who creates their self destructive ‘all or nothing’ military dictatorship towards the end of the war. Wilson on the other hand is a hypocrite. As A Scott Berg has shown Wilson had an idea and would not be moved from it. This was his thought, no matter how many arguments to the contrary. He believed in self determination, but only for the territories of Austria-Hungry. Majority German Alsace did not have a day of which country it should belong to in 1919, nor did Egypt when swallowed up by the British. Not to mention the ever growing ‘democratic empire’ of the USA. It only mattered if The Hague Convention was breached by the central powers, not by the allies. It didn’t matter that British sailors flew under neutral US flags and slaughtered surrendering Germans. Nor that war bonds were being sold to aid the French and British. Wilson did not understand Europe or Germany and clearly favoured Republican France long before US entry into the war. Wilson was essentially against monarchy long before the conflict and would not support Wilhelm or any of the old dynasties. He made it a condition for armistice in the end, for the abdication of Wilhelm, which did not need to happen. It is very likely the Nazis would never have gained power, if the monarchy survived and the political infrastructure was not dissolved in the aftermath of the war.

Croft also tackles the fall of the Kaiser, his abdication and flight and also his exile. He has often been shown to be associated with Nazism, which is still an issue that his heir Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia fights today in order to claim the right to reside in lost Hohenzollern properties (he is not asking for private ownership). As Croft rightly states, following defeat, disillusionment, Versailles and the economic crash which have the Nazis the platform they were looking for to catapult into power, most Germans, especially the traditional and conservative ones looked to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis in order restore German identity and honour. Wilhelm and many in his family and circle quickly turned away from Nazism. Wilhelm became outspoken critic of the evil regime, famously stating in 1938 in an interview that Hitler had ‘made a nation of hysterics and hermits, engulfed in a mob and led by a thousand liars and fanatics.’ The speech is really empowering, especially when he states ‘he (Hitler) could bring home victories to our people each year, without bringing them glory.’ He stated that Christal-Nacht had made him first time in his life to be ashamed to be a German. also refused any Nazi regalia or symbolism at his funeral. Hardly a Nazi.

I believe the Kaiser loved Germany and his people and tried his best to represent what the role of German Emperor and King of Prussia was suppose to be at that time. He only abdicated as he thought it would save Germany from civil war and more death. Croft here shows clearly how he advocated peace and was not the tyrant that he has been made out to be. Of course he was not without his faults, he was not perfect and is not entirely without blame. He also did make anti-Semitic remarks and some diplomatic gaffs. But the book writes that he was no more guilty than the British and French or US governments at the time. It also shows that what he did do, has been deliberately twisted or unintentionally misunderstood as no one has bothered understand him in context. A well needed re-examination.

[Chrissy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I never understood why the Germans seemed to take full blame for the outbreak of WWI. I also never really understood why the country was so severely punished when it was over. The title of this book is misleading. The author doesn't seem to really believe that the Kaiser was fully innocent. Rather, she makes a case for why he and Germany were blamed for the war, and it's a compelling argument. Just like today, the media twisted and turned events, so that the Germans were the ultimate evil. But the actual causes of WWI are very complex, and the Kaiser and Germany played a much smaller role in it than most people believe, even today. Great read for those interested in WWI history!

[Carolyn Dickerson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Different Outtake

I've read one too many books containing information Kaiser Wilhelm II and how much of an evil man he was. This book is a good book about the other side of the man who apparently is viewed to have started world war and ruined his entire country. This book has a good insight on the others things that are not often written about in other books or memoirs. This book entertained me.

[Paul Creasy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read!

Work War I looms large in history. Almost all the horrors of the last 100 years, Fascism, Communism, etc.... All were birthed from the Great War. That it was a horrific accident and, the portrayed villains of the war, the Kaiser, and the heroes, Wilson, were exactly the OPPOSITE of how they have been documented by history is amazing. So many Kudos to write in praise of this book and so many contemporary lessons to learn -- fake news, deep state, military industrial complex -- I could go on and on. Thanks to Christina Croft for writing this. Hopefully, more eyes will be opened.

[Willem Ginckels · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thank you, Christina Croft, for this long overdue rehabilitation of much slandered kaiser Wilhelm II. Of course poor Wilhelm was his own worst enemy. His pomposity and bluster did not bring him many friends. But war?! Strong argument that the man did not want war: his wish to consolidate Germany's remarkable achievements and his great concern for the welfare of the German people. Others resented Germany's success and wanted to halt it. They did.

[Hyperbolus · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fantastic rehabilitation of a slandered figure. This book was one of the most enlightening I have ever read. Kaiser Wilhelm was a kindred soul that did his damndist to avoid war and maintain peace while the English and Americans were influenced by greed and nationalism to provoke and prolong WW1 which gave birth to Nazism, communism and the declinism of England. I especially found Croft's assessment of Franz Ferdinand's assassination to be intriguing[why was there no guards there?]. While in some points there is a lack of detail and it can be a little jumpy this book is still a must read for anyone who dares to praise the crooks of Lloyd George or Wilson.

9/10

[Diana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Review to come

Read as research for a German history paper.

[Raluca · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am by default skeptic of a book that is based on a worldwide conspiracy made to destroy the image of one man, albeit an Emperor.

This book is based on the idea that Wilhelm II did not want war and that the image of him being the instigator behind the First World War is false. At every step of the way we are shown how he only meant to seek peace, while the whole world conspired to make him look like the exact opposite of what he was.

I would like to emphasize that not wanting war and not being (at least in part) responsible for it are two different things. The causes of the First World War are complex and cannot be pinned down to one man (albeit an Emperor), but that does not make the Kaiser an innocent bystander.

By the author's own admission, the Kaiser's personality clashed with the personalities of the other leaders of the time, he was prone to being impulsive and the impression he created was not great. Sure, there are aspects of his childhood that explain all that (all mentioned in the book) but there's only so much we can excuse with "poor Wilhelm, his arm was not functioning" (and everything else). Reading between the lines, even in a book that is meant to provide an apology, a different man, with more inclination towards diplomacy, may have been able to navigate the political climate better.

Would someone else single-handedly, placed in Wilhelm's place been able to avoid the First World War? Probably not. But Wilhelm, with all his faults, opened himself up for the criticism that was eventually laid on him, and that may have influenced the harsh terms under which not just him, but also his country, were treated in the aftermath.

But he didn't mean to? I am willing to accept that Wilhelm did not truly want war, despite the fact that the only person that truly knew what he wanted was him, and we are only speculating a century after the fact. But most people driving at high speed don't want to crash their cars, and yet are responsible for the crash if it happens.

Yes, it is a simplistic view to say that Wilhelm was the root of all evil and the cause of the First World War, as he is occasionally portrayed. But it is equally simplistic to say he didn't mean to go to war and therefore he held no responsibility for it.

I can't abide by the whole "poor Wilhelm, he meant well, but the world ganged up on him" vibe that I am getting from this book.

That being said, it does us good to read different perspectives, and as I don't agree with the official view of Wilhelm either, I welcomed the refreshing opposing perspective. Maybe when the wounds of the First World War will be less fresh, we will finally get the objective vision of "he was no devil but also no angel".

[Paola Albertini · Rating 1 out of 5]

Take this book with a grain of salt (lots of). The author Christina Croft is very biased when it comes to Wilhelm II. She makes it seem as if Wilhelm was innocent and clueless about everything, and that is far from true; most historians would disagree with Mrs Christina Croft's biased views on Wilhelm. She exalts him to the sky while also demonizing King George V who was actually a figurehead with less power than Wilhelm, and a brilliant statesman for his time. Dear Christina, you dont need to bring George V down, just to exalt Wilhelm to the sky

[Kimberly Krauch · Rating 5 out of 5]

New prospective on the last Kaiser

I have always thought Kaiser Wilhelm II started the Great War, and knew it had something to do with siding with ones allies. This book gave more detail on how he truly was betrayed not only by his allies, his extended family but by his own govenment. I very much enjoyed this book and recommend to everyone who would want another look at the Kaiser not only as a king but as a person.

[Frances Keeler · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author writes from a very interesting standpoint. That being that the Kaiser was not the villain of World War I that we have been taught to think of him as. Extensive citations are provided to back up this alternative picture of the Kaiser. The book has spurred me to do some additional research.

[Mike Tobin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a really fantastic book if you really want to understand WWI, but also understand the conditions that led to WWII. Well written and factual- a must read if you really want to dig into this time in European history

[Jacqueline · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book attempts to downplay this Emperor's role during the start of WWI. The author defends his actions and makes him to be "innocent". I didn't agree with her theme but still found some historical reporting during that era to be of interest to me.

[Moritz Lehmann · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book that exposes the hypocrisy in the treatment of Kaiser Wilhelm II when compared with other leaders, while also giving insight into the surrounding / ongoing conflicts which he desperately tried to avoid.

[Kathryn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book very interesting. It was definitely a different view of Wilhelm. I want to reread some of the other biographies I have.

[Mikkel F. · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Kejser Wilhelm den Andens uskyldighed og Den Første Verdenskrig” er et ambitiøst projekt for at tackle mange af de myter om Tysklands sidste kejser, der blev Vesten til lod, grundet den grundige propaganda fra Entene-magterne mod hans person.

Værket fremviser mange af de dobbeltstandarder, som den vestlige historieskrivning i tiden efter Første Verdenskrig havde i deres portrættering af Det Tyske Kejserrige. F.eks. fremhæver forfatteren, at Storbritannien også brød neutrale nationers suverænitet (Grækenland), når de så det som militært nødvendigt, ligesom Tyskland gjorde det mod Belgien. Det fremhæves ligeså, at briterne udførte en ulovlig flådeblokade mod tyske havne, der udsultede millioner og dræbte hundredtusinder af tyskere og centraleuropæere — en vigtig detalje at have for øje, når man skal vurdere Tysklands handlinger fra 1915 og frem, som f.eks. deres totale krig med brug af ubåde.

Vigtigst af alt, viser forfatteren, at kejser Wilhelm gennem sin regeringsperiode gjorde meget for at opretholde freden i Europa og gode relationer til det britiske og russiske kongehus, og at han forgæves forsøgte at deeskalere julikrisen. Kun modvilligt og efter flere forsøg for at få russerne til at demobilisere deres hær, erklærede den tyske regering, at de anså dem selv som i krig mod det zaristiske Rusland.

Værket får fire stjerner, fordi den på trods af sin dybde, tegner Wilhelm for meget som en helgen, der næsten aldrig gjorde noget galt og englænderne som vilde barbarer — nærmest det modsatte af deres løgnagtige propaganda mod Tyskland.

[Kervin Jacque · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved this book, really helped uncover a lot of misconceptions towards Kaiser Wilhelm II