Why Did the Kaiser HAVE to Abdicate? | The 1918 German Revolution
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 มี.ค. 2023
- Why did Kaiser Wilhelm II have to abdicate?
By late 1918, the German Empire was descending into chaos. World War I was clearly lost, and the German people were tired of fighting. Starvation afflicted thousands as national resources were directed toward the failing frontline, and the Empire's leaders appeared unconcerned by the suffering of the population. At the very least they (led and represented by the last Deutscher Kaiser, Wilhelm II) were much more concerned with continuing the pointless war. Germans had had enough; the question was whether a new political class could contain their fury.
Subscribe for more history:
th-cam.com/users/LookBackHis...
Instagram (behind the scenes!):
/ james_king3125
More Videos:
How Did the German Empire Actually Work?: • How Did the German Emp...
How Did the Allies Divide Germany?: • How Was Germany Divide...
How Did Austria-Hungary Actually Work?: • How Did the Austro-Hun...
How Did Romania Unite?: • How Did Romania Unite?...
The Franco-Prussian War Explained: • What Was the Franco-Pr...
Sources Consulted:
Gerhard Rempel. “The German Revolution of 1918.” Delivered at Western New England University. web.archive.org/web/200807052...
Miller, Stuart T. Mastering Modern European History. London: Macmillan Education LTD, 1990.
“President Wilson's Message to Congress, January 8, 1918;” Records of the United States Senate; Record Group 46; Records of the United States Senate; National Archives. In “President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points (1918).”
www.archives.gov/milestone-do...
Weinhauer, Klaus, McElligott, Anthony, and Heinsohn, Kirsten, eds. Germany 1916-23 : A Revolution in Context. Bielefeld: transcript, 2015. cup.columbia.edu/book/germany-...
Wilhelm II. The Kaiser’s Memoirs. Translated by Thomas R. Ybarra. New York and London: Harper & Brothers Publishers. 1922.
archive.org/details/kaisersme...
It's worth noting that the Weimar Republic's first President, Friedrich Ebert, though a (majority) social democrat, was also a (constitutional) monarchist, and opposed the declaration of a republic (in fact, he said as such-in anger-to the guy who actually proclaimed the republic, Phillip Schiedemann). He said on the subject of the German revolution: "I hate it like I hate hell".
Which also gives the somewhat odd situation that both the Presidents of the Weimar Republic -Ebert and Hindenburg-were both in favour of a monarchy.
That's definitely an interesting quirk of history. I would say that the difference between the two is that von Hindenburg would've restored the monarchy by whatever means if he had thought it politically feasible, while Ebert wanted a democratically elected assembly to determine the structure of the new government, and so presumably would've accepted a republic if that had been its choice.
He still was being hypocritical nevertheless. If that is true, he simply stood by, and let it happen, not trying to get the Kaiser to come back, not dismissing the actions of Schiederman and standing for the Empire and rule of law, nada. He showed where his real loyalties lie.
@@Thoughtful7754 it is kind of odd; given that the Social Democratic Party wasn’t even majority republican, that people didn’t respond to Schiedeman’s declaration with a “erm…how’s about ‘no’?”. Something similar happened in Luxembourg about the same time, and the entirety of the political spectrum and the populace (apart from the far left) basically ignored it. Granted, Luxembourg wasn’t part of the Central Powers (merely occupied by Germany); but still.
If Wilhelm II had abdicated earlier, and in favour of his grandson (his son the Crown Prince being tainted by involvement with the war, as was he), he might have saved the monarchy. This did, after all, work for Ferdinand I of Bulgaria, who was able to save his throne for his son; and Bulgaria *was* on the side of the Central Powers.
But then Wilhelm II wasn’t half the crafty, wily politician as Ferdinand was.
Niemals so einen Quatsch gehört @jonathanwebster7091
@@jonathanwebster7091 If only Friedrich III had lasted longer…
A response to a question I didn't know I needed an answer. I always knew that the Kaiser abdicated after losing World War 1, but never knew the details. Thank you for this video!
You're very welcome!
@@LookBackHistory From Prussia with love
Wilhelm's contemporary central powers monarch; Ferdinand of Bulgaria, himself quite a skillful politician (he was known as "Ferdy the Fox" for his adroitness) was able to preserve his dynasty, and the monarchy (which lasted until 1946) by abdicating in favour of his son.
Indeed, Bulgaria was unique amongst the main Central powers in that it was able to keep its monarchy following the war (basically for Ferdinand's sacrificing of himself and his own personal interests to save his dynasty and throne for his son).
@@LegendaryGaming1776 bro what
Based
This explanation overlooked that the allies lead by France refused to negotiate with a Germany with willhem II this position was also supported by Woodrow Wilson
Thus for an end to the miltary action by the allies had to the kisser had to GO. The German government was paralysed and it is not clear who authorised the acceptance of the armistice terms that was signed early on November 11. The point is that removal of the kaiser was not just an internal german question and the enteant powers played a significant role in the Kaiser's removal.
Why so? Why could not Allies sigh armistice with Kaiser like with Bulgarian tsar oor like with Hirohito in Ww2? I believe it was a mistake...
@@alexzero3736 the public opinion among the allies was that the war was the responsibility of Willhelm II and it was hoped by many that he would tried as a war criminal. By August 1918 Germany was military defeated and so some wanted to conquer as much Germany territory as possible. Even so the allies continued to suffer massive casualties
The French wanted complete victory and a Germany that could not threaten French territory ever again. So a negotiation with the kaiser except for capitulation was all but impossible. The German high command passed the buck to the politicians in Berlin so that they could claim they had not surrendered only a lowly officer went to hear what terms for an armistice would be offered.
By November 11th the Germany empire was no longer a functioning state. Major states had disowned it in Bavaria and Berlin was in a revolt. If the French had known this the armistice may not been signed. The kaiser found himself deserted and sort asylum in the Netherlands.Not by choice but by circumstance.
WILLLSOOON!
(Shakes fist)
@@waynecorker9098 the allies were perfectly correct in their beliefs. In fact the allies should not have negotiated an armistice at all but pushed for total unconditional surrender
Deutsche Trottel sind Wilson voll auf dem Leim gegangen.
6:48 Thank you for not using the word abdicate. It should be noted the last King of Bavaria, Ludwig III, never abdicated the throne. He did release the Anif Declaration (from Anif Palace in Austria) reliving the soldiers and civil servants under his command of their oaths of loyalty to his person, but nowhere in that statement did he abdicate or renounce the crown.
Thank you for uploading exactly what I was curious about, as always
4:20 It should also be noted the reason Prince Maximilian was pulling out all the stops is because he was trying to save his own potential throne. He was the heir presumptive of Frederick II, Grand Duke of Baden, his childless first cousin. If he failed, he was not only killing the Hohenzollern monarchy, but he was also destroying his own chance to sit on his family’s ancestral throne.
Although funny enough, if the empire had survived, Maximilian would have been Grand Duke of Baden for only a little more then a year, from August 1928 to November 1929
Interesting, thank you.
What is the special significance of the two dates - 1928 & 1929?
@@hazchemel The time between Frederick II’s death at 71 to Maximilian’s own death at 62
@@Edmonton-of2ec Right .... yes.
May I ask you: Where was the capital? And was the Grand Duke required to be a particular denomination?
@@hazchemel The capital was in Karlsruhe and as far as I’m aware no faith was specifically required of the Grand Duke, but every Grand Duke and every head of the family since the abolition of the monarchy have all been Protestant, except for possibly the current head of the family, Bernhard, and his late father. Bernhard’s mother is a Habsburg so the family may have converted to Catholicism but I can’t find anything concrete about this
@@Edmonton-of2ec Aah again, many thanks. This part of Europe seems to be one of the most contested areas, in politics and religion.
History is my favorite soap opera. Thanks for the content, Look Back! The Central Powers are always captivating to talk about.
It should be noted since not mentioned here, although inspired by the Bolshevik revolution of Russia many key members of the Spartakusbund were critical of Leninist policies like Roza Luxembourg. This is the reason that the SB was heavily disowned by Stalinists outside of East Germans.
Luxembourg believed freedom of the press, free general elections and freedom of assembly were core components to a generalised communist democracy as opposed to using the state as a tool of class oppression solely. She was extremely critical and anti-Bolshevik and anti-Lenin in this regard in her writings. "Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party - however numerous they may be - is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently."
True, but that doesn't take into account the lessons of history, that certain interests will always try to subvert the revolution with counter gangs supported by counterrevolutionary bourgeois party leaders who want to maintain political power. Oligarchs gonna oligarch, and the bonapartism amongst the ruling class will have some scrambling to become "leaders" of movements ultimately serving their own interests in the name of the revolution. Rosa Luxembourg was a great thinker but was blinded by idealism and ultimately became bourgeois.
@@IosuamacaMhadaidh Well she didn't ultimately become bourgeois, she became helped start a revolution and was then tortured horrifically and then executed by the Social Democrats using the Freikorps and had her corpse dumped into the canal.
I don't exactly see how she became a member of the bourgeois, she personally wrote newspapers and economic writings to disseminate her beliefs- not exactly controlling the means of production.
@@IosuamacaMhadaidh
Lmao, The Soviets became a world superpower and still suppressed dissent, laughable
Wow....
All that drama over the Kaiser and wanting an end to the monarchy etc.
And then WW2...
Yeah... the Weimar years weren't exactly a beacon of stability, but they were perhaps better than what preceded, and certainly what followed, them.
@@LookBackHistory I think it's pretty disingenous to say Imperial Germany was worse than Weimar Germany...
@@AnonYmous-gg9oq My intention was to refer to WW1, not all of Imperial Germany.
@@LookBackHistory Ahh, fair enough then!
great job at making the most intresting to watch content
Very detailed video indeed
nice video, I was actually just discussing this yesterday
Lol, fun coincidence.
I think another factor in why the system ended up breaking down was because it was set up so that only one person could actually run it, that being Otto Von Bismarck.
After he left was when it really started to come apart because he was the only one who knew how to run it,he was the only one who knew how it worked.
2:34 that photo is perfectly timed
I read the book Why nations go to war. In it it mentions that Admiral Tirpitz asked, "If we're declaring war on Russia why are we sending most of our forces into France?" He mentioned never getting a satisfactory answer.
How the war was conducted on both sides was shameful, and in the end, the Emperor abdicated in part because of the conduct.
It's interesting that the army joined the revolution. as during WWII, the British thought that bombing would end the war, but after a bombing those in Germany only stuck together. You hear many stories of the blitz, but less about in Germany. After one bombing. there were teachers who were striking, and the police showed up, but reported that it was a legal strike, and no reason to arrest anyone. After bombings, like in the UK, groups seemed to ignore the labels.
The Germans started terror bombing in ww1 and did the most terror bombing, they even made the Paris gun. "both sides" the central powers committed far more atrocities
HRH Prince Max von Baden was the last heir to the grand duchy of Baden, my home state. He was one of the more liberal aristocrats and cousin of the Kaiser. Unfortunately he wasn't able to "rescue" Germany as intended. He abdicated the Kaiser and caused the proclamation of the Republic.
Where were the monarchist this whole time? I'd expect some of them at least would try to put the Crown Prince on the throne of Germany.
Like he said, they lost all credibility and power over the people, the democrats made a plan to put the grandson of Wilhelm on the throne with von Baden as regent, but Wilhem made everyone in his family renounce there claim to the throne, because he wanted to stay on the throne at all cost, even at the cost of the monarchy itself.
Also the crown prince (Wilhelm III.) wouldn't have been put in charge because he was like his father against democracy, he would even later collaborate with the N@zis.
Sadly the German constitution prohibits any change of governmentsystem including a constitutional monarchy
Well, first off "the monarchists" didn't exist. Monarchists were a broad union between supporters of absolutist monarchy (largely among the army), constitutional monarchists (among the population and democratic politicians) and nobles (largely concerned with their own rights). Wilhelm II was both disgraced and badly informed. He was completely outmaneuvered and thus couldn't set up his son as the new figurehead for the monarchist movement. Nobody really knew who to rally behind (WIlhelm II, despite getting abdicated and detrimental to the cause? Crown Prince Wilhelm, on the danger of splitting the monarchist movement?).
The plan of the right wing very quickly became to bide their time for some years until the Germans became fed up with the Weimar republic and its implementation of the Versailles treaty, so that they could swoop in and save Germany. It's the very reason Hitler got into the position he did. The monarchists mistakenly believed he would lay down his power to reinstate the monarchy given how he was a nationalist in addition to socialist. They were wrong. He completely side-lined them.
@@Runenschuppe
Hitler was not a socialist in any commonly agreed definition of the word
The decision to send the fleet out to fight was so stupid. The war was lost. Why send even more people to their death?
Same as Hindenburg line defense - last ditch attempt to improve war situation.
The Kriegsmarine officers knew that the British would target the German navy for dismantlement, seizing all war vessels and causing unemployment for the seamen. So if the leadership wanted to prevent the German ships from falling into British hands they would have to get rid of the ships. They could just scuttle them. But the leadership thought it more prudent to force the British to sink those German ships in a costly battle, allowing for a glorious death for its crews and captains instead of becoming unemployed. Surprisingly the seamen chose unemployment instead of death and thus the revolution.
Seriously it’s almost hilarious that Ludendorff and Hindenburg helps promote the stabbed in the back. Look at what happened next
Should be reestablished. Countries are always better as constitutional monarchies.
As An Nationalist German We have to agree these Facts
Kaiser Abdiaziz > Kaiser Wilhelm
Skibidi Germany > Holy Roman Empire > 2nd Reich
Jiggle Party > SPD
5:05
Good Video but the USPD Was far from pacifistic, remember they proclaimed a Soviet like state and fought against the German Republic in the Spartakusaufstand
It's a bit(a lot) more complicated than that
@@supereero9 Its not. Its History. I am German.
@@P4Tri0t420
The USPD and KPD organized a strike, the SPD started the violence
why did the kaiser lose support of the army ?
He actually Didn't lose Any Support of the Imperial Armies in the West
the letter "v" in nobel titles is pronounced "f". Please say: fon Hindenburg, Max fon Baden, etc.
and where in the word Reichstag do you read an "sh"? There is non. It is the Reich's Tag, the Reich's Diet (parliament).
at 2:45 you are able to say the word "Reich" correctly. Why don't you do it at other occasions as well.
5:00 why is there a nazi flag there?
The abdication of the Kaiser one of the worst things for germany
I he had still ruled it would be a lot harder for hitler to get to Power
WW1 in general was the worst thing for Germany.
@@inconceivablycanadian3559 yes
@@inconceivablycanadian3559
the war itself wasnt really that bad , it was what came after , with some rather minor changes , it could have very well be a german victory , and a german dominated century.
Russia was beaten early on , Finland had a german Prince at the thrown , Austria was still around , and the french were at their breaking point , so were the British. it was a close call.
@@thelvadam2884 3 years of war Early? LOL. People were dying from hunger in Germany in winter 1917.
@@alexzero3736 Russia lost the war, France almost lost too.
I don't feel sorry for him, he tried to fill big boot. He shouldve listen to Otto Von Bismarck
Listen to what. Tell me listen to what. Don't forget it his fault that the Reichstag fill with socialist part more than the liberal party. By standard.
His fault for creating this system.
Bismarck become slowely Alzheimer and he has a emotional rage Problem when his plans dont work und when he as older.
@@wotanvonedelsburg1610 true. But he did make Prussia into Germany
@@wotanvonedelsburg1610 u are missing the point , he meant he should have kept Bismarck's foreign policy alive , of maintaining strong alliances to UK and Russia to isolate France and ensuring Peace within Europe and to not ever be the aggressor in any coming conflict and to not go to war with others to claim land because that would mean bad blood for a long time and more war, Germany already had everything within its territory that it needed and ever could wish for , so there was no reason to go to war.
I do feel sorry for Germany - look what came next
7:55 king of Prussia? Ok, everything returns to 1865 borders.
I wonder what those two have in common. 🤔
5:15
The Stab in the back myth wasn't instigated by Wilhelm and so on.
It was by other right wings, because the SPD would stop the funding for the army and broke the "Burgfriede" and because red sailors and workers rose up against the empire.
Eh...
If I were you I'd check out Wilhelm's memoir (published in 1922) which is linked in the description. Page 272 is where he starts talking about the abdication, the strength of the army, and the weakness of the civilian government.
Additionally, the SPD worked with the army to counter the far-left, and frankly very few people were actually rising up "against the empire"; the primary target of most Germans was the war.
I now want to see Germany restore its Monarchy, so that we can see Kaiser Wilhelm II’s body exhumed and reburied in Berlin, in a service that any Kaiser deserves. A bit like King Richard III of England.
Why waste tax payers money on that? You clearly aren’t German.
Keeping the Kaiser might have prevented Hitler! Big mistake
Not likely
Had Wilhelm II been a progressive liberal like his parents, he could have kept his crown.
bro are we really going to discuss this
ma man lost a whole damn great war and you just want him to stay like nothing happened 💀💀
Kaiser started a war but the German people were perverted to begin with. What came was the Nazi Party once the shit Social Democrats ousted legitimate right to rule.
Countries have lost wars all of the time throughout history. Most of the time, their monarch stays on the throne after the war.
@@alisagman362 yes but this wasnt a war
it was the great WAR
@@alisagman362 Well the difference is that the monarch in this case was a genocidal idiot and a warmonger who led Germany into diplomatic isolation which forced them to fight on a two front war and realized all of Bismarck’s greatest fears, so…
Fr the militaristic junker ruling class and their moronic despot leader were blamed for the Great War for a very good reason
@@thestrangecaseofharryhinde9473 Ok, it sounds like u just personally dont like Wilhelm. So those are not very good points
I dislike the German major political parties to this day
Sozialdemocrats... SPD love the treath
Amazing you discredit yourself in the first 3 seconds
Wait wait wait - what Germany wanted Russia got😂😂
Kinda of.
What some Germans (the Spartacists) wanted Germany to be, Russia had began the process of becoming the year earlier. Though in 1918, they were still very much in the midst of a civil war, with the "Whites" (a broad coalition of tsarists, liberals, democrats, and anti-Communists generally) fighting against the "Reds" (Lenin's Bolsheviks).
Most Germans were not Spartacists, and indeed most Russians weren't Bolsheviks. In fact their key support base (industrial workers) made up only a tiny percentage of the Russian population in 1917, with most Russians being peasants. Germany was much, much more industrialised, and in theory much more vulnerable to Communist revolution; hence why Ebert took such caution in opposing the old regime, and why the Social Democrats and the military/aristocracy/freikorps were willing to work together despite being traditional opponents.
The fact that the Bolsheviks won in Russia speaks more to the strategic brilliance of Lenin, rather than mass support among Russians, which he definitely did not have.
yes and see the results...communism everywhere
@@LookBackHistory
Ebert was more interested in preserving his own power than helping the German worker
Spartacists were not bolsheviks.
Just Jewish communists lol
Forcing the Kaiser to abdicated was A mistake. I'm A monarchist by the way.
dam monarchists still exist in the age of information
thats crazy stupid
I'm a monarchist -🤓
Sad how people call monarchists stupid. Really it shows the ignorance and foolhardiness behind the actions of the one saying it. They truly know nothing about monarchies, let alone republics or "democracies".
It just goes to show how effective propaganda has become. Using monarchies as a scapegoat and glazing over all the evil and problematic things done under the guise of "democracy" and "republicanism".
@LegendaryGaming1776true, it would’ve meant less western imperialism and likely no communism…
@@magnus19g8xc9How would it have meant less western Imperialism?
1st Comment Oh yeah!
Because they were stabbed in the back
November criminals!
(As a preliminary note, its rather sad that the channel head, insinuating a desire for the proper retelling of history, will censor any conflicting narritives he decides is contrary to whatever he decides to be incorrect information, rather than letting the people read, debate, and decide for themselves.)
Its a sad reality that, even till this day, the germans still to a large part vote for the same political party(s) who warmed them up to and planted the seeds for the more radical ideologies that were to be presented to the German people later down the line. German Militarism was eventually merged with the ideologies of NS, and pitched to the people as an idea of restoring the old glory of Germany, and gaining vengence for past humilitations. Its a sad thing. As even now if one tries to show any sparks of German nationalism, that is, being proud of Germany and her old history, one is then accused of being a NZI, due to the ignorance of many.
After the tuen of the century, the seeds would slowly be sown and works be done towards the destruction, pillage, and tearing down of a united Germany. Many Germans still remaining under a boot of judgement and condemnation till this day.
I believe it was a mistake by the Allies, monarchy should be saved even with abdication of Wilhelm 2. Same with Karl and Austria- Hungary. Imagine! No Hitler, No Horthy...
Nah
@Snyder The Star Wars Fan no one should.
@@alexzero3736 Italy kept it's monarchy and still went fascist
@@williamthebonquerer9181
True, but it was nowhere near as bad as Germany.
Fascism in Italy and Spain were "just" dictatorship, not superstitious genocidal maniac totalitarian like our moustache friend.
The mistake was to not sue peace or at least a cease fire after the human tragedy and deadlock 1914 was.
Nobody wanted this war, from the poor soldiers to the Presidents or Monarchs, everybody expected a quick one and then a return in the negotiation table.
But laziness and honor stopped the leaders of those countries to make just and pragmatic decision.
Now Europe still suffer from their foolishness.
As a Brit I think constitutional monarchies are a lot more stable than Republics. The UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Spain are all constitutional monarchies today and most are a lot more stable than America's "democracy"
Their not more stable, their instability is just less shown to the world because their all minor powers besides UK who is a secondary power.(just referring to one’s on your list here)
It also helps that their size is pathetically small so it’s far easier to manage.
Most of them are only about as big as one to 3 usa states depending on which state you pick.
Also population, Norway for example is 66 times less people of course it’s going to be more stable than usa, and most of norways population is in the south isn’t it? Their far more likely to have things in common with their fellow Norwegians due to close proximity.
You want to say their so stable? Combine all of Scandinavia together and see how stable they stay, it be roughly equivalent enough in terms of culture for them to compare to the usa, which is in reality just a bunch of similar nations combined into one country.
Also I’m not claiming usa is stable, it’s not, the usa is just not unstable because of its type of government, it’s unstable because federal government keeps overreaching and fucking with people who don’t want the federal government lording over them. Whether they be Californians, Yankees, southerners, or other the vast majority would prefer each state deciding their own stuff with the federal government only assisting rather than dictating.
This video is extremely biased and misinformed against the Kaiser. Also Germany did not lose the war because of the military but because of home unrest. This is common knowledge for anyone who has read anything on WW1
No Germany was being pushed back, the Entente even made it to the Rhine, the front was on the verge of collapse and the high command saw it, it was only a matter of time until they were on German land, I mean Germany spent the last 4 years fighting France and Britain and has suffered huge losses and exausted its forces through brutal offenses and now fresh American tropes were arriving, Germany had no chance.
Also everything he said about the Kaiser was true, he was incompetend and very weak compared to his generals, I mean he brought Germany into this war because he blindly gave Austria-Hungary a blank check to attack Serbia that was protected by Russia. He is the reason why the monarchy was destroyed, if his father or grandfather were in charge at the time all of this wouldn't have happened.
But if you disagree please tell me which point specifically was wrong according to you.
@@bastian182 the entente never expelled Germany from France. They were being pushed back but holding firm. The Brits and the anti monarchists just played dirty
@@luisfilipe2023 They were not holding firm they were on there backfoot and no chance of holding france any further. And with they played dirty do you mean just fought how any nation with naval surpremacy would have fought, Germany did the same thing to Russia. Also you can't blame the people for being against the monarchy after there monarch put them through hell.
No, both Ludendorff and Hindenburg saw the writing on the wall when the Kaiserschlact petered out and the Battle of Amiens was lost. Ludendorff wouldn't act so recklessly and irrationally later on if he believes he actually won. No, he knew he lost and knew he will be blamed for it hence his increasingly insane tirades...
@@luisfilipe2023 Also British anti-monarchists playing dirty? The German Government sending Lenin back to Russia isn't being dirty?