19/20th-century German Emperor and King of Prussia
POPULARITY
3 episodes with wilhelm ii
4 episodes with wilhelm ii
3 episodes with wilhelm ii
3 episodes with wilhelm ii
2 episodes with wilhelm ii
3 episodes with wilhelm ii
3 episodes with wilhelm ii
3 episodes with wilhelm ii
2 episodes with wilhelm ii
An Marokko waren in den ersten Jahrzehnten des 20. Jahrhunderts gleich mehrere Kolonialmächte interessiert. Sowohl Spanien als auch Frankreich erhoben Anspruch auf Gebietsteile. Zusätzlich warf auch noch Wilhelm II. seinen Hut in den Ring, konnte sich aber nicht durchsetzen. 1912 wurde das Gebiet in die Protektorate Französisch-Marokko und Spanisch-Marokko geteilt. Die Stadt Tanger behielt als Tanger-Zone einen Internationalen Status. Immer wieder kam es aber zu Aufständen der dort lebenden Stämme, die brutal und nur unter großem Einsatz unterdrückt werden konnten. Seit dem Jahr 1921 waren es die sog. Riff-Kabylen, die in beiden Protektoraten sehr erfolgreich bewaffneten Widerstand leisteten. Frankreich und Spanien sollten erst 1927 diesen Aufstand niederschlagen. Das konnten die Harburger Anzeigen und Nachrichten vom 17. Dezember 1924 nicht ahnen, sie diagnostizierten vielmehr eine tiefe Krise für den Diktator Spaniens Primo de Rivera, da dieser bislang keine militärischen Erfolge gegen die Riff-Kabylen erzielen konnte. Rosa Leu liest.
Nach der Auflösung des Heiligen Römischen Reiches Deutscher Nation, den Befreiungskriegen und dem Sieg einer europäischen Koalition über Napoleon bleibt die Frage der Grenzen Deutschlands virulent. Der Deutsche Bund, die Dominanz Preußens und die drei Einigungskriege gegen Dänemark, Österreich und Frankreich, mit dem Ergebnis der Gründung des Deutschen Reiches 1871, führen nicht zu einer Befriedung der Situation. Als „verspätete Nation“ verlangt die von Wilhelm II. forcierte Weltmachtpolitik einen „Platz an der Sonne“ und verfolgt eine von Ungeduld und Nervosität geprägte Außenpolitik, die sich, ohne irgendwelche Grenzen zu setzen, auf alles Mögliche zugleich richtet. Diese Zieldiffusion und Grenzenlosigkeit werden am Ende in die Katastrophe des Weltkrieges führen.
The shocking childhood of Germany's last emperor, Wilhelm II. CONTENT WARNING: This episode of Single Malt History contains details of medical experiments, which some may find distressing. Listener discretion is advised.
fWotD Episode 2646: Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Welcome to Featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia’s finest articles.The featured article for Friday, 2 August 2024 is Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.Charles Edward (Leopold Charles Edward George Albert; 19 July 1884 – 6 March 1954) was at various points in his life a British prince, a German duke and a Nazi politician. He was the last ruling duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, a state of the German Empire, from 30 July 1900 to 14 November 1918. He was later given multiple positions in the Nazi regime, including leader of the German Red Cross, and acted as an unofficial diplomat for the German government.Charles Edward's parents were Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, and Princess Helen of Waldeck and Pyrmont. His paternal grandparents were Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Prince Leopold died before his son's birth. Charles Edward was born in Surrey, England, and brought up as a British prince. The boy was a sickly child who developed a close relationship with his grandmother and his only sibling, Alice. He was privately educated, including at Eton College. In 1899, the Prince was selected to succeed to the throne of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because he was deemed young enough to be re-educated as a German. He moved to Germany at the age of 15. Between 1899 and 1905, Charles Edward was put through various forms of education, guided by his cousin, German emperor Wilhelm II.The Prince ascended the ducal throne in 1900 but reigned through a regency until 1905. In 1905, he married Princess Victoria Adelaide of Schleswig-Holstein. The couple had five children, including Sibylla, the mother of King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. The Duke was a conservative ruler with an interest in art and technology. He tried to emphasise his loyalty to his adopted country through various symbolic gestures. Still, his continued close association with the United Kingdom was off-putting both to his subjects and to the German elite. He chose to support the German Empire during the First World War. The Duke had a disability and assisted the Imperial German Army without participating in combat. He was deposed during the German Revolution like the other German princes. He also lost his British titles due to his decision to side against the British Empire.During the 1920s, the former Duke became a moral and financial supporter of violent far-right paramilitary groups in Germany. By the early 1930s, he was supporting the Nazi Party and joined it in 1933. Charles Edward helped to promote eugenicist ideas which provided a basis for the murder of many disabled people. He was involved in attempting to shift opinion among the British upper class in a more pro-German direction. His attitudes became more pro-Nazi during the Second World War, though it is unclear how much of a political role he played. After the war, he was interned for a period and was given a minor conviction by a denazification court. He died of cancer in 1954.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:31 UTC on Friday, 2 August 2024.For the full current version of the article, see Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm standard Kendra.
Was ist das für eine Skibrille mit dem der da gerade in der Innenstadt rumläuft. Was vor ein paar Jahren noch Science Fiction war ist auf einmal Realität. Ole jedoch glaubt nicht daran, dass die Apple Vision Pro den Trend der Zukunft setzt, möchte jedoch nicht mit Kaiser Wilhelm II und seinem Automobilzitat in einen Topf geworfen werden. Jonas hingegen spricht vom wo möglichst größten Trend seit dem Smartphone. Von diesem Thema kommen die drei dann zum Thema ob die Erinnerungen in analoger Form mehr wert sind als digital. Diese Frage ist gar nicht mal so einfach zu beantworten wie sie merken. Zum Schluss gibt es wie jedes Jahr auf das unnötigste Entertainment Event des jeweiligen Jahres. Es geht um den Favoriten beim Vorentscheid des Eurovision Song Contestes. Ole hats sich mit höchster Akribie in dieses Thema verbissen und ledert gegen die Kandidaten ab. In diesem Sinne hoch die Brillen und Prost! Shownotes: Alltagstest in NY: https://youtu.be/UvkgmyfMPks?si=6K1icCbbI8mEA_vK Unboxing und Funktionen: https://youtu.be/1uV7Z0oKhso?si=bJiiYY44kgqnzD5u --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/your-feierabendbier/message
THIS WEEK! We take a look at Germanys last Kasier Wilhelm II. From his upbringing, and his relationship with his family to the Ottoman-German alliance and To World War 1 which would lead to his eventual abdication, and how his life would be viewed forever after. All this and more this week on "Well That Aged Well". With "Erlend Hedegart". Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/well-that-aged-well. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Wilhelm II. hätte Europa 1914 vor der Katastrophe des Ersten Weltkriegs bewahren können. Doch der Kaiser taktierte unberechenbar. Vor 165 Jahren kam er als preußischer Thronfolger in Berlin zur Welt. Kuhlmann, Michaelwww.deutschlandfunk.de, Kalenderblatt
Wilhelm II. ist politisch reaktionär und kulturell rückwärtsgewandt - er trägt Mitverantwortung für den Ersten Weltkrieg; doch moderne Technik fasziniert ihn sehr. Von Martin Herzog.
In der Podcast-Episode #101 Yachtdesign mit Lasse Johannsen wird die Kunst des Yachtdesigns in all ihren Facetten beleuchtet. Von historischen Persönlichkeiten bis hin zu modernen Entwicklungen, bietet die Diskussion um Yachtdesign einen spannenden Einblick in die Welt der klassischen Yachten und der großen Yacht-Konstrukteure, die sie entworfen und geformt haben. Unter ihnen zum Beispiel Gustav Estlander, der nicht nur ein erstklassiger Yachtdesigner war, sondern auch Europameister im Eisschnelllauf und Mitwirkender bei den Olympischen Spielen. Ein weiterer interessanter Aspekt, der diskutiert wird, ist der Einfluss der Kaiserzeit auf das Yachtdesign. Die Begeisterung für den Segelsport, vor allem unter Wilhelm II., führte zur Entwicklung des Segelsports in Deutschland und zu einer intensiven Beschäftigung mit Yachtdesign und -bau. Der rege Austausch mit Schweden und das bestehende Interesse an internationalen Regatten prägten maßgeblich die Entwicklungen in Deutschland - bis heute! Die Geschichten der Yachtdesigner sind in dem neu erschienenen Buch Yachtdesign mit einzigartigen Bildern des Fotografen Nico Krauss kombiniert.
Das Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg will Kulturschätze leichter zugänglich machen - und zwar mit einer neuen Scanner-Technologie. Besondere Unikate sollen in 3 D- erlebbar gemacht werden. Dafür wird im Hauptstaatsarchiv in Stuttgart die neue Technologie der 3D-Digitalisierung ausprobiert. Der Historiker Patrick Leiske vom Landesarchiv hat das Projekt auf den Weg gebracht. Zu den Vorteilen sagt er in SWR Aktuell: "Objekte kommen auf einem Foto natürlich nicht so gut rüber, als wenn ich sie in die Hand nehmen kann. 3D-Digilaisierung ermöglicht da einen ganz neuen Zugang." Wie wenn man beispielsweise die Goldene Bulle, ein kaiserliches Gesetzbuch von 1356, quasi anfassen kann. "Wenn man reinzoomen kann und sich dieses Siegel aus unterschiedlichen Positionen anschauen kann, dann kann man auch ganz neue Details entdecken, die auf Fotos nicht zu erkennen sind." Denn dieses "Grundgesetz des Heiligen Römischen Reiches" wurde ebenso dreidimensional digitalisiert, wie der Spazierstock des letzten Württembergischen Königs Wilhelm II. Wie aufwändig die 3D-Digitalisierung historischer Objekte und Dokumente ist, darüber hat Patrick Leiske mit SWR Aktuell-Moderatorin Ulrike Alex gesprochen.
Arthur Balfour's intention in resigning as Prime Minister but without a general election was probably to oblige Liberal leader Henry Campbell-Bannerman to form a government, which might force their divisions to the surface. That would weaken their chances in an election that was bound to be held soon. There was a curious symmetry between the divisions in the main parties. The Liberals were split three ways over the Boer War. Liberal Imperialist right wing backed Britain's military intervention, while the left, sometimes called pro-Boer, opposed it, and in the middle a group around the leader accepted the need for war but denounced its most brutal aspects (such as the concentration camps). Meanwhile, the Unionists were split three ways over tariff reform. The ‘wholehoggers' backed a full system of import tariffs to protect British trade, the free traders wanted to stick with the old doctrine of tariff-free commerce, and a group around the leader accepted the need for reform but wanted to proceed more cautiously. Unfortunately, tariff reform was topical while the war had been over for three years. The Liberals were able to unite in attacking the government, specifically over tariff reform. And they won their last landslide in the 1906 election. Despite the end of the Boer War, the new Liberal government faced a world haunted by the spectre of renewed war. There was uncertainty over who the enemy would be if a new war broke out. The traditional enemy was France, and Britain likes its traditions. But an increasing threat was now coming from across the North Sea in Germany. Politicians and even novelists (the latter best represented by Erskine Childers and his Riddle of the Sands) were beginning to warn that the German threat was the more serious. The entente cordiale with France in 1904 showed Britain beginning to move closer to France and further away from Germany. Then Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany showed up in Tangier in Morocco, making a speech designed to provoke France, and tensions quickly grew. The conference that ended the crisis failed to address Germany's issues. That made Tangier just the first of a series of crises that set two groupings of European great powers increasingly at odds with each other. Finally, this episode also talks about a small step forward in the ugliest of the European colonies in Africa, Congo. Again with a link to a novel. Illustration: A 1904 British cartoon on the Entente cordiale: John Bull (Britain) walking off arm-in-arm with Marianne (France), turning their back on Wilhelm II of Germany, whose sabre is poking out of his coat. A Punch cartoon by John Bernard Partridge. Music: Bach Partita #2c by J Bu licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License.
Episódio 1 da série sobre colonização alemã na Era Guilhermina (1884-1914). Alguns temas tratados: problemas entre Otto von Bismarck e o imperador Wilhelm II. Namíbia, ou Deutsch-Südwestafrika. Genocídio dos Herero e Nama. Apoie o conteúdo independente - http://padrim.com.br/doencastropicais BIBLIOGRAFIA "Archiv des Deutschen Kolonialrechts". herausgegeben von Dr. Norbert B. Wagner. Brühl/Wesseling, 2. berichtigte Auflage, Juni 2008. K. Schwabe. Der Krieg in Deutsch-Südwestafrika 1904-1906. Berlin: C. A. Weller, 1907. "Das Buch der deutschen Kolonien". Herausgegeben unter Mitarbeit der früheren Gouverneure von Deutsch-Ostafrika, Deutsch-Südwestafrika, Kamerun, Togo und Deutsch-Neuguinea. Leipzig: Wilhelm Goldmann Verlag, 1937. C. von François. Deutsch-Südwest-Afrika. Geschichte der Kolonisation zum Ausbruch des Krieges mit Witbooi. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1899. Hans-Ulrich Wehler. Bismarck und der Imperialismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1985. Jürgen Osterhammel. Kolonialismus. Geschichte, Formen, Folgen. München: Beck Verlag, 2002. Marie A. Muschalek. Violence as Usual. Policing and the Colonial State in German Southwest Africa. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2020. Matthias Fiedler. Zwischen Abenteuter, Wissenschaft und Kolonialismus. Der deutsche Afrikadiskurs im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Köln: Böhlau, 2005. Reinhard Wendt. "Kolonialwaren". In: Europäische Erinnerungsorte. Band 3: Europa und die Welt. München: Oldenburg, 2012, p. 207-213. MÚSICA DE DESFECHO Exuma - Mama loi, Papa loi (1970) TEXTO/PESQUISA/NARRATIVA Felipe Vale da Silva http://aetia.com.br . Apoie o conteúdo independente.
Introdução à série sobre a Alemanha de Wilhelm II e sua presença na África e Oceania como potência colonizadora. Episódios previstos para a série: 1º. Deutsch-Südwestafrika. Namíbia e o primeiro genocídio do século XX. 2º. Ostafrika. Tanzânia e a lógica do Estado policial. 3º. Deutsch-Neuguinea e Deutsche Samoa-Inseln. A resistência nativa. Influência da Ethische politiek neerlandesa sobre a administração Solf da Samoa. Fracasso do projeto colonial alemão. Apoie o conteúdo independente - http://padrim.com.br/doencastropicais
Reinhardt, Anjawww.deutschlandfunk.de, Kultur heuteDirekter Link zur Audiodatei
Na het oppakken van prins Heinrich Reuss XIII, een ogenschijnlijk saaie en degelijke makelaar uit Thüringen, maar in werkelijkheid een van de belangrijkste terreurverdachten in Duitsland in jaren, is de dreiging uit de extreem-rechtse Reichsbürger-beweging niet verdwenen. Er blijkt nog een persoon die voor zichzelf een politieke machtspositie ziet weggelegd. En ondertussen hard aan de weg timmert om zijn ambities waar te maken. Diep in deelstaat Saksen en omstreken bouwt Peter Fitzek een eigen koninkrijk. De zelfbenoemde koning van Duitsland, steevast gekleed in een donker hemd met het gouden wapenschild van Königreich Deutschland op de borst, zorgt voor grote onrust in Oost-Duitsland. Daar koopt hij dankzij de inkomsten van zijn ‘onderdanen' en royale donaties van steenrijke, anonieme Duitsers, kastelen en landhuizen op. Vastgoed waarvan de waarde oploopt tot in de vele miljoenen euro's. Het doel van koning Peter: het stichten van een onafhankelijk koninkrijk, dat volledig zelfvoorzienend is en niets te maken heeft met de Duitse democratie en rechtsstaat. Het gevolg van de zelfbenoemde Reichsbürger-koning bestaat naar eigen zeggen uit meer dan vijfduizend mensen. De uitvalsbasis is een jugendstil-villa onder de rook van Dresden. Maar het zaakje stinkt aan alle kanten. De afgelopen jaren kwam Fitzek meer dan eens in aanraking met de Duitse politie en justitie. Zo zat hij twee jaar vast wegens onder meer valsheid in geschrifte. Ook mishandelde hij deze zomer een vrouw. Bewoners van dorpen waar hij vastgoed koopt zien hem als een sekteleider. Een burgemeester noemt hem een charlatan. Naast justitie houdt de Duitse veiligheidsdienst de Reichsbürger-koning goed in de gaten. Toch lijken de Reichsbürger-onderdanen koning Peter te gehoorzamen. De vorstelijke belofte is dat zij geen belasting hoeven te betalen in het fantasierijk. In de laatste aflevering van deze podcast komt deze Oost-Duitser aan het woord. Een charismatische man, die eerder een waslijst aan beroepen uitoefende — van kok tot karateleraar en medewerker van een videotheek. Ook hier rijzen talloze vragen. Hoe staat koning Peter tegenover de verijdelde staatsgreep, veroordeelt hij bijvoorbeeld het geweld? Hoe lang kan hij op het oog ongemoeid zijn gang blijven gaan? En hoe is deze Reichsbürger verbonden met de Duitse keizer Wilhelm II en prins Heinrich Reuss XIII? Over de maker Guy Hoeks is werkzaam als Duitsland-correspondent voor Nederlandstalige media, waaronder het Algemeen Dagblad, de Belgische zakenkrant De Tijd en radio en tv. Sinds de zomer van 2021 woont en werkt hij in hartje Berlijn. Daar volgt hij de laatste politieke en economische gebeurtenissen. Bovendien reist hij door het land om verslag te doen van belangrijke gebeurtenissen buiten de Duitse hoofdstad. Zo berichtte hij, naast het thema Reichsbürger, over het sluiten van de laatste Duitse kerncentrales, de moeizame wederopbouw van het overstromingsgebied in de Duitse Eifel en de massale protesten tegen de opgeleefde kolenwinning.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Na het oppakken van prins Heinrich Reuss XIII, een ogenschijnlijk saaie en degelijke makelaar uit Thüringen, maar in werkelijkheid een van de belangrijkste terreurverdachten in Duitsland in jaren, is de dreiging uit de extreem-rechtse Reichsbürger-beweging niet verdwenen. Er blijkt nog een persoon die voor zichzelf een politieke machtspositie ziet weggelegd. En ondertussen hard aan de weg timmert om zijn ambities waar te maken. Diep in deelstaat Saksen en omstreken bouwt Peter Fitzek een eigen koninkrijk. De zelfbenoemde koning van Duitsland, steevast gekleed in een donker hemd met het gouden wapenschild van Königreich Deutschland op de borst, zorgt voor grote onrust in Oost-Duitsland. Daar koopt hij dankzij de inkomsten van zijn ‘onderdanen' en royale donaties van steenrijke, anonieme Duitsers, kastelen en landhuizen op. Vastgoed waarvan de waarde oploopt tot in de vele miljoenen euro's. Het doel van koning Peter: het stichten van een onafhankelijk koninkrijk, dat volledig zelfvoorzienend is en niets te maken heeft met de Duitse democratie en rechtsstaat. Het gevolg van de zelfbenoemde Reichsbürger-koning bestaat naar eigen zeggen uit meer dan vijfduizend mensen. De uitvalsbasis is een jugendstil-villa onder de rook van Dresden. Maar het zaakje stinkt aan alle kanten. De afgelopen jaren kwam Fitzek meer dan eens in aanraking met de Duitse politie en justitie. Zo zat hij twee jaar vast wegens onder meer valsheid in geschrifte. Ook mishandelde hij deze zomer een vrouw. Bewoners van dorpen waar hij vastgoed koopt zien hem als een sekteleider. Een burgemeester noemt hem een charlatan. Naast justitie houdt de Duitse veiligheidsdienst de Reichsbürger-koning goed in de gaten. Toch lijken de Reichsbürger-onderdanen koning Peter te gehoorzamen. De vorstelijke belofte is dat zij geen belasting hoeven te betalen in het fantasierijk. In de laatste aflevering van deze podcast komt deze Oost-Duitser aan het woord. Een charismatische man, die eerder een waslijst aan beroepen uitoefende — van kok tot karateleraar en medewerker van een videotheek. Ook hier rijzen talloze vragen. Hoe staat koning Peter tegenover de verijdelde staatsgreep, veroordeelt hij bijvoorbeeld het geweld? Hoe lang kan hij op het oog ongemoeid zijn gang blijven gaan? En hoe is deze Reichsbürger verbonden met de Duitse keizer Wilhelm II en prins Heinrich Reuss XIII? Over de maker Guy Hoeks is werkzaam als Duitsland-correspondent voor Nederlandstalige media, waaronder het Algemeen Dagblad, de Belgische zakenkrant De Tijd en radio en tv. Sinds de zomer van 2021 woont en werkt hij in hartje Berlijn. Daar volgt hij de laatste politieke en economische gebeurtenissen. Bovendien reist hij door het land om verslag te doen van belangrijke gebeurtenissen buiten de Duitse hoofdstad. Zo berichtte hij, naast het thema Reichsbürger, over het sluiten van de laatste Duitse kerncentrales, de moeizame wederopbouw van het overstromingsgebied in de Duitse Eifel en de massale protesten tegen de opgeleefde kolenwinning.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Duitsland lijkt in december 2022 ternauwernood ontsnapt te zijn aan een staatsgreep. Niet de achterachterkleinzoon van de laatste Duitse keizer Wilhelm II zat achter de geplande coup. Maar een andere teleurgestelde prins – diep verbitterd en dolgedraaid in een konijnenhol waarin de wildste complottheorieën vat op hem kregen – dacht de macht te kunnen grijpen. Met een aanvalsplan, vol wapengekletter. Maar dat mislukte dus... Heinrich Reuss XIII, een 71-jarige makelaar en verre familie van Wilhelm II, droomde van een nieuw Duitsland met hemzelf aan het hoofd. Een rijk, naar voorbeeld van het oude Duitse keizerrijk, dat na 1918 abrupt ten einde kwam. In de hang naar het romantische verleden staat de prins niet alleen; meer dan 23.000 Reichsbürger dromen van een terugkeer naar het Duitse keizerrijk. Een deel is, aldus de Duitse veiligheidsdienst, zelfs bereid om de wapens op te pakken. In een van de grootste antiterreuroperaties uit de Duitse geschiedenis pakte de politie de prins in kwestie en 24 andere Reichsbürger op vanwege het beramen van een staatsgreep en het vormen van een terroristische organisatie. Onder de verdachten bevindt zich een voormalig rechter uit Berlijn en Bondsdaglid van de rechts-extreme partij Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), net als ex-commando's bij de Bundeswehr. De verdachten die een afkeer van de Duitse democratie en antisemitische denkbeelden delen, komen volgend jaar voor. Duitsland verkeerde in shock na de angstaanjagende krantenkoppen die schreven dat een stelletje Reichsbürger, desnoods met bloedvergieten, de bondsregering omver wilde werpen. Ondertussen zitten veel Duitsers nog met een hoop vragen. Wat wilde deze ‘terreurprins', zoals hij beschreven werd in Duitse media, precies bereiken? Wie waren precies zijn handlangers? En is Duitsland werkelijk ontsnapt aan een klassieke putsch, zoals je die alleen nog in de geschiedenisboeken leest? Terwijl prins Heinrich het hele jaar achter slot en grendel zit en zich beroept op stilzwijgen, loopt een andere Reichsbürger, die op de radar van de Duitse veiligheidsdienst staat, op vrije voeten. Deze markante Oost-Duitser riep zichzelf uit tot koning van Duitsland en aast op alleenheerschappij. Over de maker Guy Hoeks is werkzaam als Duitsland-correspondent voor Nederlandstalige media, waaronder het Algemeen Dagblad, de Belgische zakenkrant De Tijd en radio en tv. Sinds de zomer van 2021 woont en werkt hij in hartje Berlijn. Daar volgt hij de laatste politieke en economische gebeurtenissen. Bovendien reist hij door het land om verslag te doen van belangrijke gebeurtenissen buiten de Duitse hoofdstad. Zo berichtte hij, naast het thema Reichsbürger, over het sluiten van de laatste Duitse kerncentrales, de moeizame wederopbouw van het overstromingsgebied in de Duitse Eifel en de massale protesten tegen de opgeleefde kolenwinning.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Duitsland lijkt in december 2022 ternauwernood ontsnapt te zijn aan een staatsgreep. Niet de achterachterkleinzoon van de laatste Duitse keizer Wilhelm II zat achter de geplande coup. Maar een andere teleurgestelde prins – diep verbitterd en dolgedraaid in een konijnenhol waarin de wildste complottheorieën vat op hem kregen – dacht de macht te kunnen grijpen. Met een aanvalsplan, vol wapengekletter. Maar dat mislukte dus... Heinrich Reuss XIII, een 71-jarige makelaar en verre familie van Wilhelm II, droomde van een nieuw Duitsland met hemzelf aan het hoofd. Een rijk, naar voorbeeld van het oude Duitse keizerrijk, dat na 1918 abrupt ten einde kwam. In de hang naar het romantische verleden staat de prins niet alleen; meer dan 23.000 Reichsbürger dromen van een terugkeer naar het Duitse keizerrijk. Een deel is, aldus de Duitse veiligheidsdienst, zelfs bereid om de wapens op te pakken. In een van de grootste antiterreuroperaties uit de Duitse geschiedenis pakte de politie de prins in kwestie en 24 andere Reichsbürger op vanwege het beramen van een staatsgreep en het vormen van een terroristische organisatie. Onder de verdachten bevindt zich een voormalig rechter uit Berlijn en Bondsdaglid van de rechts-extreme partij Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), net als ex-commando's bij de Bundeswehr. De verdachten die een afkeer van de Duitse democratie en antisemitische denkbeelden delen, komen volgend jaar voor. Duitsland verkeerde in shock na de angstaanjagende krantenkoppen die schreven dat een stelletje Reichsbürger, desnoods met bloedvergieten, de bondsregering omver wilde werpen. Ondertussen zitten veel Duitsers nog met een hoop vragen. Wat wilde deze ‘terreurprins', zoals hij beschreven werd in Duitse media, precies bereiken? Wie waren precies zijn handlangers? En is Duitsland werkelijk ontsnapt aan een klassieke putsch, zoals je die alleen nog in de geschiedenisboeken leest? Terwijl prins Heinrich het hele jaar achter slot en grendel zit en zich beroept op stilzwijgen, loopt een andere Reichsbürger, die op de radar van de Duitse veiligheidsdienst staat, op vrije voeten. Deze markante Oost-Duitser riep zichzelf uit tot koning van Duitsland en aast op alleenheerschappij. Over de maker Guy Hoeks is werkzaam als Duitsland-correspondent voor Nederlandstalige media, waaronder het Algemeen Dagblad, de Belgische zakenkrant De Tijd en radio en tv. Sinds de zomer van 2021 woont en werkt hij in hartje Berlijn. Daar volgt hij de laatste politieke en economische gebeurtenissen. Bovendien reist hij door het land om verslag te doen van belangrijke gebeurtenissen buiten de Duitse hoofdstad. Zo berichtte hij, naast het thema Reichsbürger, over het sluiten van de laatste Duitse kerncentrales, de moeizame wederopbouw van het overstromingsgebied in de Duitse Eifel en de massale protesten tegen de opgeleefde kolenwinning.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Last time we spoke about the Red Bearded Honghuzi Bandits. Yes Manchuria and many parts of China proper have had a bandit problem going back to ancient times. The borderlands between the Russian Empire and Qing Dynasty proved to be the perfect grounds for bandits to evolve. The Honghuzi were getting larger, more organized and certain leaders amongst them would have long lasting impacts on the history of China. Such names that come to mind are Zhang Zuolin and the Dogmeat General Zhang Zongchang. Such forces were incorporated officially into the Qing military to thwart other bandit groups and eventually to harass the Russians or Japanese in conflict looming on the horizon. Everything seems to be hot in Manchuria, Russian has full on invaded her and is reluctant to drag her troops out. There are those unhappy with this circumstance and they will soon make themselves heard loud and clear. #73 The Yellow Peril and a War in the East Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. The Boxer Rebellion is over. The Russo-Chinese War in Manchuria is over. Order had been restored to Beijing and in Manchuria things were significantly quieted down. Now the other nations of the 8 nation alliance had their hands full dealing with the expedition against Beijing and they sort of turned a blind eye to what was a side conflict in Manchuria. But when things were settling down and 177,000 Russian forces had more or less invaded and were occupying Manchuria, well a lot of eyeballs bulged. Britain and Japan sought common cause, both had significant investments in the Asia-Pacific. For example Britain had Weihaiwei and was literally staring down at the Russians over in Port Arthur and Dalien. Japan had been slighted by the triple intervention by Russia, Germany and France, losing her acquisitions of Port Arthur and Dalien to the Russians. Manchuria was always seen as a buffer zone to the Japanese, she now hand a toehold in Korea and such large Russian activity in Manchuria was very threatening. Let us not forget the entire war between the Qing dynasty and Japan over Korea, to a lesser extent also had Russian as a 4th party. Russia did meddle in Korea and continuously antagonized Japan. Thus with common cause Japan and Britain formed an alliance on January 30th of 1902. In response Russia and France formed their own on March 16th of 1902. The alliances basically worked to thwart any other great powers from getting involved in a potential war between Japan and Russia. Now Russia also agreed to the rest of the great powers that she would gradually withdraw her forces from Manchuria. It was to be rolled out in 3 periods of 6 months. The first phase saw southwest Manchuria evacuated and returned to China, but when it came to the second phase, suddenly Russia was making demands for concessions to the Qing dynasty. Britain, Japan and the US protested the demands and this bolstered China to reject them. Now turned back the clock a bit there was another sticky situation. When chaos was erupting in Korea, King Gojong ran to the Russians for protection for over two years. This turned the nations favor towards the Russians over the Chinese and Japanese. Russia seized this opportunity to strengthen her forces in defense of her legation in Korea, and this action was met with actions taken up by Japan. Japanese and Russian officials met and this was the result verbatim: A further agreement between Russia and Japan had been signed in Tokyo on 25 April 1898. The agreement contained three understandings: The independence of Korea was assured; neither country would interfere in Korea's domestic affairs. There would be no appointment of military or civil advisers without discussion with the interested parties. Russia agreed not to hinder Japan's development of trade with Korea. Aside from this the Russians of course wanted to seize as much as they could. A Russian-Korean bank was formed in 1897, and a timber cutting contract was given to Russian industrialists in the Yalu river area. In 1901, Tsar Nicholas II told Prince Henry of Prussia, "I do not want to seize Korea but under no circumstances can I allow Japan to become firmly established there. That will be a “casus belli." The contract only came into effect when the Manchurian railway projects were kicking off and when able bodies were around, which came about during the occupation of Manchuria. In april of 1903 Russians acquired some land and established a fort at Yongampo near the mouth of the Yalu river. America and Japan received similar concessions in the region. The Japanese began receiving reports, indicating Port Arthur was being heavily stocked with supplies and a large body of Russian troops were advancing across the Liaodong Peninsula towards Korea. Thus from the Japanese point of view it looked clear Russia was not honoring her agreements. On July 28th of 1903, the Japanese ambassador at St Petersburg was instructed to make it known to the Russians, the 7 demands they made to China was not seen as a “relaxation of her hold on Manchuria but rather a consolidation” Two days later, Russian Admiral Alexeiev was appointed Viceroy of the Far East. Alexeiev would hold supreme power to exercises diplomacy between Russian East Asia and her neighbors as well as command the Russian military and naval forces in the east. From the Japanese point of view, a permanent Russian occupation of Manchuria would be prejudicial over her own security and interests. It would also threaten Korea, which was her sphere of interest, one she was not looking to share. Russia agreed to consider drawing up a new treaty. On August 12th of 1903 a draft was presented at St Petersburg, but in the meantime Russia was strengthening her position in the far east. This tense situation kept going, until January 13th of 1904 when Japan offered to recognize Manchuria as being outside her sphere of interest, if Russia would agree Korea was Japan's sphere of interest. It was to be blunt a very fair deal. Japan requested an early reply to the proposal, but by February 4th of 1904 no reply was forthcoming. Two days later the Japanese ambassador, Mr. Kurino called upon the Russian foreign minister, Count Lamsdorf to take his leave. Kurino explained to Lamsdorf that the Japanese government had decided to adopt some “independent action” deeming it necessary to defend its established rights and legitimate interests. Basically Japan's patience had come to an end. The Russian ambassador to Tokyo, Baron Rosen, had continuously sent warnings to his superiors in St Petersburg that if they continued to corner Japan, she would most certainly fight them. Such sentiment was shared by War Minister General Kuroptkin who resigned in a state of exasperation some months earlier. Tsar Nicholas II did not want a war, but he was continuously assured by his advisers, Japan was not strong enough to fight them. When Mr. Kurino took his leave, the immediate signal was made to Admiral Alexeiev, who was in Tokyo at the time. The new viceroy saw with his own eyes evidence of Japanese mobilization and he advised St Petersburg accordingly. The Japanese foreign ministry confirmed their government had run out of patience. However all of this was taken to be a bluff. It has been theorized Alexeiev was simply not averse to a war with a country he certainly deemed inferior to his own. It is also theorized Tsar Nicholas II probably believed if a war would to break out it would be a short and victorious one, and perhaps such an event could distract the tide of revolution hitting his nation, the people of Russia were not happy anymore about the Romanov rule. Funny enough, all of these talks, deceptions and plans were to take shape in China. The Chinese were literally never even thought of or spoken to, and soon a war would literally occur within their borders against their will. How did this all come about? It might sound a bit funny, but a large reason the Russo-Japanese War would occur would simply be a result of, pardon my french, shit talking by one Kaiser Wilhelm II. When Kaiser Wilhelm I died on March 9th of 1888, Germany fell to Frederick III who died of throat cancer only 99 days after taking the reins. On June 15th, a 29 year old Kaiser Wilhelm II took the throne. Now for those of you who don't know, Otto von Bismarck, the man who unified Germany was during the late 19th century one of the greatest political players in the world. Bismarck had an incredible understanding of the balance of power theory and studied all the most powerful nations national interests. He brokered international deals using his knowledge to increase Germany's standing in global politics and he also in many ways designed a system of international alliances to thwart a global war….which ironically would in many ways cause ww1. If you want to know more specifically about this by the way, check out Kings and Generals alliances that caused WW1, I wrote that script and its a fascinating story. Dan Carlin famously referred to Bismarcks work as creating a giant hand grenade, that if the pin got pulled out, only Bismarck understood how to put it back in. While Bismarck was in power things were pretty good, but he was such a colossal figure, that when the young Kaiser came into power, many of his advisers suggested he was being overshadowed by Bismarck. Kaiser Wilhelm II listening to his advisers, sought to stop Bismarck from taking the quote en quote “day to day” administration. Conflicts began to arise between the two men. Wilhelm did not understand the complexities of Bismarcks international relations and saw him as far too peaceful. Wilhelm gradually fell under the influence of his military leaders to the dismay of Bismarck who thought the Kaiser would lead them swiftly into a war with a nation like Russia. In 1890 Bismarck resigned under pressure from Wilhelm II and other German leaders, and as Dan Carlin would say, now the grenade he created was set to go off. Now when the new Kaiser venturing into international relations, he was deeply influenced by a ideological concept that he would use as a tool to coerce international players to act out. The concept is known as the “yellow peril” “le Peril Jaune” as coined by Russian sociologist Jacques Novikow in the late 19th century. In essence the yellow peril was a racist ideology that held asians to be subhuman, like apes and monkeys, but also that as a racial group should they unite, they would threaten what was thought to be the superior race of the day, whites. Basically the idea was that if all the nations of asia were to unite, they could retaliate against the White nations who were at the time colonizing or forcing unequal treaties upon them. There was also a religious element to it, that Christianity was under threat from the hoards of the east. Now back to Wilhelm II, one of his advisers was the diplomat Max von Brandt who advised him that Imperial Germany had major colonial interests in China. The Triple Intervention that Germany endorsed was justified by the Kaiser under the guise it was to thwart what he began calling “die Gelbe Gefahr / the yellow peril”. The Kaiser began a propaganda campaign using the famous allegorical lithograph “Peoples of Europe, Guard your Most Sacred Possessions” created in 1895 by Hermann Knackfuss. You can google the image. The lithograph portrays the European monarchs with Germany as the leader of Europe personified by a “prehistoric warrior-goddesses being led by the Archangel Michael against the yellow peril from the east. The east is seen as a dark cloud of smoke which rests eerily upon a calm Buddha, wreathed in flame”. The imagery is very apparent, white and christianity is under threat from asian and their eastern religions. This type of ideology goes all the way back to Ancient Greece and Persia, its the age old west vs east stuff. Today you would call this sort of talk, a race war. Now you are probably asking, ok this leader of Germany is just a racist dude, how does this cause a war between Russia and Japan? This story is rather hilarious and hard to believe, but in summary, the Kaiser used the ideology to trick his cousin into war. For those unaware, Kaiser Wilhelm II was first cousins with King Geoerge V of Britain, to Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, to Queens Marie of Romania, Maud of Norway, Victoria Eugene of Spain, and even the woman he would eventually marry, the Empress of Russia. Now the Germany presented to Wilhelm was involved in some alliances. I mentioned Britain and Japan had an alliance and France and Russian had an alliance. Wilhelm and his advisers sought to increase Germany's stature. Wilhelm believed that if Russia went to war with Japan, it would break up the Franco-Russian alliance and with no one else to turn to, Russia would seek an alliance with Germany. Wilhelms reasoning was that France was not supporting of Russians expansion into asia and such aggressive actions like going to war with Japan would be highly disapproved by France. The French Premier Maurice Rouvier publicly declared that the Franco-Russian alliance applied only in Europe and not Asia and that if Japan and Russia went to war, France would remain neutral. Such rhetoric seemed to prove Wilhelms beliefs. Germany meanwhile felt threatened by Britain and had embarked on what was known as the Tirpitz Plan in the late 1890s. The Tirpitz plan was Germany's plan to achieve world power status through naval power, but the world's greatest navy of course was Britain at the time. What essentially happened was Germany challenging Britain to an arms race in the form of naval warship building programs. Everything the Kaiser pursued during the late 19th century was what was called “Weltpolitik / world politics” which essentially was just Germany's imperialistic foreign policy to become a global power. Wilhelm and his advisers were playing world politics to weaken rivals and strengthen Germany plain and simple. So Wilhelm believes he can break the French-Russian alliance and squeeze himself in Frances place if he can get the Russians to go to war with Japan who just happened to be allied to Germany's main rival, Britain. Some real game of thrones stuff here. Wilhelm also believed if Germany could pull this off, France would be compelled to join them, forming a triple alliance against Britain and Japan so they could all pursue their expansionist policies in places like Asia. There was also the belief pulling this off would pull Russia away from the Balkans which was a huge source of tension with Germany's main ally Austro-Hungary. Thats all fine and dandy, but how does Wilhelm get his cousin Tsar Nicholas to go to war with the Japanese, here comes the yellow peril. Starting in 1895, Kaiser Wilhelm began using the Yellow Peril ideology to portray Germany as the great defender of the west against the barbarism of the east. But then all of a sudden Wilhelm began sending personal letters to his cousin Nicholas praising him as the quote “savior of the white races” and began urging him to take a more hardened approach to Asia. The letters between the two have been referred to as the “willy-nicky” letters, consisting of 75 messages sent back and forth between 1895-1914. I wont list them all of course but lets take a peak at how Wilhelm wrote to his cousin. In 1895 Wilhelm wrote this from Kaltenbronn Schwarzwald. I will paraphrase of course there's a ton of fluff. Dearest Nicky, I thank you sincerely for the excellent way in which you initiated the combined action of Europe[27] for the sake of its interests against Japan. It was high time that energetic steps were taken, and will make an excellent impression in Japan as elsewhere. It shows to evidence how necessary it is that we should hold together, and also that there is existent a base of common interests upon which all European nations may work in joint action for the welfare of all as is shown by the adherence of France to us two. May the conviction that this can be done without touching a nations honour, take root more and more firmly, then no doubt the fear of war in Europe will dissipate more and more. The kind and most valuable messages which you sent me through Osten Sacken[28] by Count Eulenburgs transmission in Vienna have given me a signal proof of your loyalty and openness towards me. I shall certainly do all in my power to keep Europe quiet and also guard the rear or Russia so that nobody shall hamper your action towards the Far East! For that is clearly the great task of the future for Russia to cultivate the Asian Continent and to defend Europe from the inroads of the Great Yellow race. In this you will always find me on your side ready to help you as best I can. You have well understood that call of Providence and have quickly grasped the moment; it is of immense political and historical value and much good will come of it. I shall with interest await the further development of our action and hope that, just as I will gladly help you to settle the question of eventual annexations[29] of portions of territory for Russia, you will kindly see that Germany may also be able to acquire a Port somewhere were it does not "gêne" you. You can see how Wilhelm is egging on his cousin about how Germany will have his back if he were to be bolder in Asia. Also the cute end bit about Germany acquiring some ports. In 1898 for a New Years letter Wilhelm sent this Dearest Niky May this New Year be a happy one for you dear Allx and the whole of your house and country. May the plans, which you mature be fullfilled for the wellfare of your people. Henry's mission^ is one of the steps I have taken for the help and countenance of your lofty Ideals—without which no sovereign can exist—in promoting civilisation I. e. Christianity in [41] the Far East! Will you kindly accept a drawing I have sketched for you, showing the Symbolising figures of Russia and Germany as sentinels at the Yellow Sea for the proclaiming of the Gospel of Truth and Light in the East. I drew the sketch in the Xmas week under the blaze of the lights of theXmas trees! Here Wilhelm is pressing upon the religious aspect and is basically flattering Nicholas. Again in 1898 Wilhelm wrote Dearest Nicky I must congratulate you most heartily at the successful issue of your action at Port Arthur ; we two will make a good pair of sentinels at the entrance of the gulf of Petchili, who will be duly respected especially by the Yellow Ones ! I think the way you managed to soothe the feelings of the "fretful Japs"by the masterly arrangement at Korea a remarkably fine piece of diplomacy and a great show of foresight; which Is apt to show what a boon it was that by your great journey,^ you were able to study the Question of the Far East locally and are now morally speaking the Master of Peking! Fretful Japs indeed In 1902 we get probably the most important letter involving the yellow peril Dear Nicky This is the more necessary as/certain symptoms in the East seems to show that Japan is becoming a rather restless customer and that the situation necessitates all coolness and decision of the Peace Powers. The news of the attachment of the Japanese General Yamai^—former leader of the Jap. troops in China—to the Legation at Peking in order to take in hand the reorganisation of the Chinese Army—i.e. for the unavowed object of driving every other foreigner out of China—is very serious. 20 to 30 Million of trained Chinese helped by half a dozen Jap. Divisions and led by fine, undaunted Christian hating Jap. Officers, is a future to be con- templated not without anxiety; and not impossible. In fact it is the coming into reality of the *'Yellow Peril" which I depicted some years ago, and for which engraving I was laughed at by the greater mass of the People for my graphic depiction of it ... Your devoted friend and cousin, Willy, Admiral of the Atlantic". And there it is, an army of millions of Chinese led by Japanese officers, the yellow peril. So for years Wilhelm egged on his cousin, making him believe he was this savior of the white race, holding the yellow hoard back from sweeping over Europe. Wilhelm also made sure to leave ambiguous ideas that Germany had Russians back, that if war came and let's say a nation like Britain jumped into the mix, Germany would jump in too. Arguable if there was any reality behind these claims. Now back to the situation in the far east, King Gojong found his nation stuck between two tigers again, this time it was Japan and Russia. He believed the key to the issue was Manchuria and sought for Korea to remain as neutral as possible so she could hope to preserve her independence, I would saw independence with finger quotes. Meanwhile the Chinese ambassador to St Petersburg, Hu Weide was receiving reports from Beijing on whether Russia or Japan were likely to win such a war and how it would favor China. It was argued it was in China's interest for Japan to win, because a Japanese victory would likely breakdown Russians stronghold on Manchuria and perhaps China could wrestle it all back in. China decided in December of 1903 to remain neutral if war came, because while she knew Japan was the only one in the far east capable of pushing Russia out, she also did not know what Japan's ambitions might be in Manchuria. In early 1904 negotiations continued between Russia and Japan, but like I mentioned earlier Japan gradually figured out Russia was not being serious. This was more than likely due to an infamous message sent by Wilhelm to Nicholas in December of 1903. Since 97—Kiaochow—we have never left Russia in any doubt that we would cover her back in Europe, in case she decided to pursue a bigger policy in the Far East that might lead to military complications (with the aim of relieving our eastern border from the fearful pressure and threat of the massive Russian army!). Whereupon, Russia took Port Arthur and trusting us, took her fleet out of the Baltic, thereby making herself vulnerable to us by sea. In Danzig 01 and Reval 02, the same assurance was given again, with result that entire Russian divisions from Poland and European Russia were and are being sent to the Far East. This would not had happened if our governments had not been in agreement! Nicholas for his part was prepared to compromise with Japan, but the incessant letters from Wilhelm egging him on as a coward for thinking about compromising gradually broke the Tsar. The Kaiser wrote this: undertaking the protection and defence of the White Race, and with it, Christian civilization, against the Yellow Race. And whatever the Japs are determined to ensure the domination of the Yellow Race in East Asia, to put themselves at its head and organise and lead it into battle against the White Race. That is the kernel of the situation, and therefore there can be very little doubt about where the sympathies of all half-way intelligent Europeans should lie. England betrayed Europe's interests to America in a cowardly and shameful way over the Panama Canal question, so as to be left in 'peace' by the Yankees. Will the 'Tsar' likewise betray the interests of the White Race to the Yellow as to be 'left in peace' and not embarrass the Hague tribunal too much?. Nicholas replied he still sought peace, and Wilhelm replied in telegram “oh you innocent angel, this is the language of an innocent angel. But not that of a White Tsar!” Regardless of the Tsar's feelings, Japan was firmly under the belief Russia was not serious about seeking a peaceful solution to their dispute over Manchuria and Korea. When Japan proposed recognizing Manchuria was Russia's sphere of influence if Russia would respect their sphere of influence over Korea, the Russia counter proposal was basically, no, Russia would retain Manchuria and Korea would be open game. Potential diplomatic resolutions between the two nations had thus failed. Historians generally argue it was the fault of Nicholas II who pushed his administration to give no ground. Why he acted this way though has two major arguments, one I have highlighted, the egging on by the Kaiser, but there was another element at play. The Russian people were frankly fed up with the royal family, the people were looking for change. To start a war and rile up patriotism could have been an attempt to quell the Russian people from revolutionary actions and in retrospect it certainly seems the case. The Tsar's advisers despite being hawkish did not seek a war with Japan, they simply wanted to bully what they thought was a weaker nation into submission. Because the reality was, Manchuria was far, the trans siberian railway was not complete, moving troops and provisions such a distance was a colossal task. Japan performed a large scale study of the Russian power in Manchuria. The Japanese had been secretly surveying and mapping as far as east of Lake Baikal. In 1904 the Japanese had 380,000 active and reserve army forces, 200,000 in the 2nd reserve, another 50,000 in conscription reserve and 220,000 trained men of the national army, thus they could in theory toss 850,000 men into a conflict and by conscripting perhaps 4,250,000 who would all have to be trained taking time and money. Japan's effective strength was 257,000 infantry, 11,000 cavalry and 894 artillery pieces. They held 12 infantry divisions each containing 11,400 infantry, 430 cavalry and 36 guns a piece. Their troops received 12 months training, once the war started this would be cut to 6 months. Their artillery battalions held 3 batteries with both field and mountain guns ranging in caliber of 2.95 inches to 4.72 inches. Their infantry were equipped with a modern 1900 .256 inch magazine rifle that could fire 2000 yards but was effective at 300. Each soldier carried a knapsack, greatcoat and shelter tent. In their sacks were two days rations and entrenching tools. For machine guns they would receive Hotchkiss guns. The logistical system for the Japanese would be much better than the Russians. They had a series of lines of support. The soldiers carried two days rations, with echelons of transports that carried provisions behind them. Each division had its own transport battalion, including an ambulance train to deal with casualties. Chinese carts, Chinese and Korean coolies would all be paid premium prices for logistical aid. The Japanese would buy local foodstuff from the Koreans and Chinese at premium prices to earn the local populaces support over the Russians. For the Russians their army stood roughly at 4.5 million, but only 6 of the 25 European army corps would play an active role in the far east. By February of 1904 the Russians had roughly 60,000 troops, 3000 cavalry and 164 guns posted at Vladivostok, Harbin and Port Arthur. By Mid february this would be increased to 95,000; with 45,000 at Vladivostok, 8000 at Harbin, 9000 in Haicheng; 11,000 near the Yalu and 22,000 around Port Arthur. The Russian had the European 1st, 4th, 8th, 10th, 16th and 17th army corps each numbering 28,000 rifles and 112 guns. Alongside these were 7 Siberian corps. While the Russians held the advantage in numbers, the trans siberian was not complete and the route going around Lake Baikal formed a massive delay. Lake Baikal is basically the size of Switzerland, around 386 miles long. Thus the forces in Manchuria would be at the mercy of local foodstuffs for provisions, which meant they were competing with the Japanese to purchase them, while the Japanese had their own nations foodstuffs coming via sea transport, from Korea and of course within China. The Russian troops were armed with a .299 caliber rifles, but their training was lackluster and required all men to fire at short range on orders from superior officers. The upcoming war would catch the Russian gunners in the midst of a re-equipment programme. A third of their guns were a new 3 inch quick firing gun with a range of 6000 yards, capable of battering the Japanese artillery. However the gunners training period was quite literally on the job. Thus many of the gunners were coming into the conflict with a new technology they had not even fired yet. Japan's population was then 46.5 million, Russia's 130 million. The Russian military opinion saw the Japanese “as little people who lived in paper houses…and wasted hours on flower arrangement and tea ceremonies”. However, Minister of War Kuropatkin visited Japan in 1903 and was impressed by their infantry and artillery, stating that they were equal to any European army, and advocated avoiding war with them. Russia's navy was much larger, but divided between the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and the Pacific, whereas Japan's was concentrated in her home waters. By 1902, Russia began strengthening her Pacific squadron and, by the end of 1903, had 7 battleships, 7 cruisers, 25 destroyers and 27 smaller ships. The IJN (the Japanese Navy) consisted of 6 battleships, 10 cruisers, 40 destroyers and 40 smaller vessels. The Russian ships were a hotchpotch of differing types, armaments and speeds, with a varied amount of armor protection. The Japanese ships were nearly all British built, uniform and faster. Alcohol excess amongst Russian crews was a serious problem. Baltic crews spent the 6 months of winter ashore because the gulf of Finland froze and because of bureaucratic demand for uniformity. So did the crews of the Black Sea fleet. Thus, Russian sailors spent less time at sea and less time training. The Japanese navy under British instruction spent more time at sea, and trained intensively. Japanese sailors were literate, while most Russian sailors were not. These variables would come out to play when dealing with steam-driven warships, the most technologically advanced weapons of the day. At the outbreak of the conflict the Russian Far East fleet would have 7 battleships, 6 cruisers and 13 destroyers at Port Arthur. At Vladivostok were 4 first class cruisers, with a number of torpedo boats. At Chemulpo in Korea were the protected cruisers Varya and gunboat Koreyetz. A crucial component of the conflict would be commanding the sea ways. Both nations recognized this fact all too well. The Russian far east fleet was constrained from year the round training by being icebound in Vladivostok for 3 months of the year. Her fleet was also a ragtag bunch with different armaments, speed, armor and flexibility. Russia was dependent on foreign built ships, though she was fully capable of building her own. Russia had ships built from Britain, Germany, France and the US. The Russian navy was based on conscription at 7 years with 3 years of reserve. The IJN combined fleet was led by Vice-Admiral Heihachiro Togo. The two divided squadrons of the Russian Pacific Fleet were commanded overall by Admiral Oskar Ludvig Stark. The Main Russian squadron was in Port Arthur and the other cruiser squadron was at Vladivostok under the command of Admiral Nikolai Skrydlov. Port Arthur offered some shore artillery battery defense, though it was underfunded due to divestments for the development of Dalny, and its dry dock capabilities were quite limited compared to that of Sasebo. The Russians were bluffing the Japanese while continuing the strengthen their position in the far east. But the Japanese would not wait for them to do so. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. Kaiser Wilhelm II had egged his cousin Tsar Nicholas II into facing against the Empire of Japan. Little did the Russian Tsar know, but he was about to send his nation to their doom, for the Japanese had done their homework and were determined to rid Manchuria of the Russian menace
De Nederlandse burcht Huis Doorn was in 1919 het toevluchtsoord van de beroemdste asielzoeker uit de vorige eeuw. Zijn volledige naam: Friedrich Wilhelm Albert Viktor van Pruissen, oftewel keizer Wilhelm II. Na de Eerste Wereldoorlog vluchtte Wilhelm II naar Nederland. Met zijn zelfverkozen ballingschap luidde hij het einde van het Duitse keizerrijk in. Een rijk dat bestond tussen januari 1871 en november 1918. Veel Duitse monarchisten verweten Wilhelm II de ondergang van het keizerrijk. Maar hij had weinig keus: het was vluchten of overgeleverd worden aan de grillen van de jonge Duitse democratie. In Huis Doorn, dat tegenwoordig een museum is, vertelt conservator Wendy Landewé hoe Wilhelm II de twee laatste decennia van zijn leven in Nederland sleet. Op betrekkelijk veilige afstand vernam de gevallen keizer, in zijn bibliotheek of in de vele andere prachtige vertrekken, hoe de NSDAP van nazileider Adolf Hitler in deze periode aan de macht kwam. Wilhelm II leidde een comfortabel leven. Maar toch was hij het aanzien van het Duitse volk volledig kwijt, net als het leeuwendeel van zijn privileges. In zijn val had de ex-keizer de Duitse adelstand meegesleurd. De pijn die het afschaffen van de adel in Duitsland teweegbracht, laat zich voelen bij de achterachterkleinzoon van Wilhelm II en de andere leden van de vorstelijke familie Hohenzollern. Dat kwam vooral naar voren toen de 47-jarige Georg Friedrich Prins van Pruissen enkele jaren geleden een verwoede poging ondernam om Huis Doorn in handen te krijgen. De familie Hohenzollern greep mis. Terwijl de rol van de Duitse adel tegenwoordig helemaal is uitgespeeld, lijkt een andere groepering met affiniteit voor het oude keizerrijk in opmars en binnen de Duitse samenleving aan invloed te winnen: de extreemrechtse Reichsbürger-beweging. Sinds jaar en dag flirt deze deels vuurgevaarlijke groepering openlijk met het oude Duitse keizerrijk. Dat terwijl ze lang werden weggezet als een stelletje fantasten. Eind vorig jaar schrok Duitsland: ruim drieduizend politieagenten deden in Duitsland en in buurlanden Zwitserland en Oostenrijk invallen bij tientallen Reichsbürger, die een aanval op de Duitse democratie beoogden. Door het bestormen van de Bondsdag en het gijzelen van de Duitse regering moest in Berlijn een nieuw kabinet worden geïnstalleerd. Met een tot dan toe onbekende prins uit Thüringen, als brein van de geheime operatie, aan het hoofd. Over de maker Guy Hoeks is werkzaam als Duitsland-correspondent voor Nederlandstalige media, waaronder het Algemeen Dagblad, de Belgische zakenkrant De Tijd en radio en tv. Sinds de zomer van 2021 woont en werkt hij in hartje Berlijn. Daar volgt hij de laatste politieke en economische gebeurtenissen. Bovendien reist hij door het land om verslag te doen van belangrijke gebeurtenissen buiten de Duitse hoofdstad. Zo berichtte hij, naast het thema Reichsbürger, over het sluiten van de laatste Duitse kerncentrales, de moeizame wederopbouw van het overstromingsgebied in de Duitse Eifel en de massale protesten tegen de opgeleefde kolenwinning.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
De Nederlandse burcht Huis Doorn was in 1919 het toevluchtsoord van de beroemdste asielzoeker uit de vorige eeuw. Zijn volledige naam: Friedrich Wilhelm Albert Viktor van Pruissen, oftewel keizer Wilhelm II. Na de Eerste Wereldoorlog vluchtte Wilhelm II naar Nederland. Met zijn zelfverkozen ballingschap luidde hij het einde van het Duitse keizerrijk in. Een rijk dat bestond tussen januari 1871 en november 1918. Veel Duitse monarchisten verweten Wilhelm II de ondergang van het keizerrijk. Maar hij had weinig keus: het was vluchten of overgeleverd worden aan de grillen van de jonge Duitse democratie. In Huis Doorn, dat tegenwoordig een museum is, vertelt conservator Wendy Landewé hoe Wilhelm II de twee laatste decennia van zijn leven in Nederland sleet. Op betrekkelijk veilige afstand vernam de gevallen keizer, in zijn bibliotheek of in de vele andere prachtige vertrekken, hoe de NSDAP van nazileider Adolf Hitler in deze periode aan de macht kwam. Wilhelm II leidde een comfortabel leven. Maar toch was hij het aanzien van het Duitse volk volledig kwijt, net als het leeuwendeel van zijn privileges. In zijn val had de ex-keizer de Duitse adelstand meegesleurd. De pijn die het afschaffen van de adel in Duitsland teweegbracht, laat zich voelen bij de achterachterkleinzoon van Wilhelm II en de andere leden van de vorstelijke familie Hohenzollern. Dat kwam vooral naar voren toen de 47-jarige Georg Friedrich Prins van Pruissen enkele jaren geleden een verwoede poging ondernam om Huis Doorn in handen te krijgen. De familie Hohenzollern greep mis. Terwijl de rol van de Duitse adel tegenwoordig helemaal is uitgespeeld, lijkt een andere groepering met affiniteit voor het oude keizerrijk in opmars en binnen de Duitse samenleving aan invloed te winnen: de extreemrechtse Reichsbürger-beweging. Sinds jaar en dag flirt deze deels vuurgevaarlijke groepering openlijk met het oude Duitse keizerrijk. Dat terwijl ze lang werden weggezet als een stelletje fantasten. Eind vorig jaar schrok Duitsland: ruim drieduizend politieagenten deden in Duitsland en in buurlanden Zwitserland en Oostenrijk invallen bij tientallen Reichsbürger, die een aanval op de Duitse democratie beoogden. Door het bestormen van de Bondsdag en het gijzelen van de Duitse regering moest in Berlijn een nieuw kabinet worden geïnstalleerd. Met een tot dan toe onbekende prins uit Thüringen, als brein van de geheime operatie, aan het hoofd. Over de maker Guy Hoeks is werkzaam als Duitsland-correspondent voor Nederlandstalige media, waaronder het Algemeen Dagblad, de Belgische zakenkrant De Tijd en radio en tv. Sinds de zomer van 2021 woont en werkt hij in hartje Berlijn. Daar volgt hij de laatste politieke en economische gebeurtenissen. Bovendien reist hij door het land om verslag te doen van belangrijke gebeurtenissen buiten de Duitse hoofdstad. Zo berichtte hij, naast het thema Reichsbürger, over het sluiten van de laatste Duitse kerncentrales, de moeizame wederopbouw van het overstromingsgebied in de Duitse Eifel en de massale protesten tegen de opgeleefde kolenwinning.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Poppe, Judithwww.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, ReligionenDirekter Link zur Audiodatei
Tue, 17 Oct 2023 02:00:00 +0000 https://geschichteeuropas.podigee.io/t244-244 726518ff984840276883f00a18b89da3 Y: Quellen Verknüpfte Folgen "Tempo! Tempo!" Zeit und Zeitwahrnehmung in der Geschichte, mit Dr. Andreas Braune [Weimarer Rendez-vous] (24.10.2023) Zum Podcast UNTERSTÜTZE DEN PODCAST BEI STEADY! Marlon unterstützt den Podcast seit März 2023 mit einem Betrag, der den monatlichen Hosting-Kosten entspricht. Dafür möchte ich ihm hier ganz besonders danken! Podcast-Blog mit Kommentarfunktion #historytelling - Netzwerk unabhängiger Geschichtspodcasts Schick mir Kommentare und Feedback als Email! Der Podcast bei Fyyd Folge mir bei Mastodon! Frag mich nach deiner persönlichen Einladung ins schwarze0-Discord! Die Episoden werden thematisch und nicht nach Erscheinungsdatum nummeriert. Für einen chronologischen Durchgang zur europäischen Geschichte sollten die Episoden nach Namen sortiert werden. schwarze0fm hatte als Hobbyprojekt begonnen - inzwischen habe ich aber durch Auftragsproduktionen und Crowdfunding die Möglichkeit gewonnen, mehr und bessere Folgen für Geschichte Europas zu produzieren. Das Prinzip "schwarze Null" bleibt - die Einnahmen werden verwendet, für mich Rahmenbedingungen zu schaffen, den Podcast zu betreiben und weiterzuentwickeln. In dieser Folge habe ich das ausführlich erklärt. This episode of "Geschichte Europas" by schwarze0fm (Tobias Jakobi) first published 2023-10-17. CC-BY 4.0: You are free to share and adapt this work even for commercial use as long as you attribute the original creator and indicate changes to the original. 244 trailer Y: Quellen no Deutschland,Neuere und neueste Geschichte,Zeit,Gesetz,Greenwich,Zeitzone,Quelle,19. Jahrhundert,Wilhelm II.
The Allies' continuous advances, coupled with internal unrest and food shortages, left Germany with limited options and the Supreme Army Command demanded that the government seek a ceasefire ...
Ab Januar 1891 erhalten einige Mitglieder des Hofstaats von Wilhelm II. Briefe mit schockierend expliziten Inhalten. Die meisten der Schreiben beziehen sich auf Geschehnisse bei einem winterlichen Beisammensein im Jagdschloss Grune-wald, das eine ganz besondere Wendung nahm. Am Ende kursieren mehr als 200 Briefe am Hof des Kaisers. Warum daraus ein ausgewachsener Skandal wird, der selbst Wilhelm II. in Zugzwang bringt und welche Rolle Duelle in der Sache spie-len, besprechen Nina und Katharina in dieser neusten Folge von „Früher war mehr Verbrechen“. // Quellen & Shownotes // - Hemmer, R. & Meßner, D., Kleine Geschichte der Kotze-Affäre, eines Sexskan-dals am Kaiserhof, Spektrum.de, 01.12.202, https://www.spektrum.de/kolumne/kleine-geschichte-der-kotze-affaere-ein-sexskandal-am-kaiserhof/1954927 - Mährisches Tagblatt, 16. April 1895, S.2, https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-con-tent/anno?aid=mtb&datum=18950416&seite=2&zoom=33&query=%22kotze%22&ref=anno-search - Mährisches Tagblatt, 11. April 1896, S.7, https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-con-tent/anno?aid=mtb&datum=18960411&seite=7&zoom=33&query=%22kotze%22&ref=anno-search - Neue Freie Presse, 22. Juni 1894, S.3, https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-con-tent/anno?aid=nfp&datum=18940622&seite=19&zoom=33&query=%22kotze%22&ref=anno-search - Schulz, M., Swingerclub im Grunewald, Spiegel.de, 01.09.2010, https://www.spiegel.de/geschichte/geheime-polizeiprotokolle-a-946653.html - Wiehler, S., Fraktur! Berlin-Bilder aus der Kaiserzeit: Rudelei im Grunewald, Tagesspiegel, 26.01.2015, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/rudelei-im-grunewald-5899996.html - Wiener Allgemeine Zeitung, 24. Juni 1894, S.5, https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-con-tent/anno?aid=waz&datum=18940624&seite=5&zoom=33&query=%22kotze%22&ref=anno-search - Wippermann, W., Skandal im Jagdschloss Grunewald. Männlichkeit und Ehre im deutschen Kaiserreich. Darmstadt 2010 //Tickets und weitere Infos zur Lesung am 30.09.2023 in Brühl gibt's hier// https://www.literatur-rheinland.de/veranstaltungen/2023-09-30-crimetime-frueher-war-mehr-verbrechen-exklusive-historische // Folgt uns auf Instagram // https://www.instagram.com/frueher.war.mehr.verbrechen/?hl=de // Karte mit allen „Früher war mehr Verbrechen“-Tatorten // https://bit.ly/2FFyWF6 // Mail //: https://linktr.ee/fwmv // Kaffeekasse //: https://ko-fi.com/fwmvpodcast GEMAfreie Musik von https://audiohub.de
Wir machen einen Ausflug in die Vergangenheit, als Deutschland noch eine Kaiserreich war und fragen uns unter anderem: Wer waren die drei deutschen Kaiser? Wofür standen sie politisch? Und warum sind wir heute keine Monarchie mehr?Quellen:Bundestag.de (2023). Kaiserreich (1871 - 1918), abgerufen unter: https://www.bundestag.de/parlament/geschichte/parlamentarismus/kaiserreichBundeszentrale für politische Bildung (2016). Das Deutsche Kaiserreich1871 – 1918, abgerufen unter: https://www.bpb.de/system/files/dokument_pdf/BPB_IzpB_329_Kaiserreich_barrierefrei.pdfDeutsches historisches Museum (2021). Kaiserreich und Erster Weltkrieg, abgerufen unter: https://www.dhm.de/ausstellungen/dauerausstellung/kaiserreich-und-erster-weltkrieg/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIwPu5t4qs3AIVAQAAAB0BAAAAEAAYACAAEgJVzfD_BwERBB.de (2023). Preussenchronik, abgerufen unter: https://www.preussenchronik.de/stammbaum/index_jsp.htmlWelt.de (2023). Von Heinrich I. bis zu Wilhelm II., abgerufen unter: https://www.welt.de/kultur/gallery4338056/Von-Heinrich-I-bis-zu-Wilhelm-II.htmlWelt.de (2023). Der letzte Deutsche Kaiser, abgerufen unter: https://www.welt.de/kultur/gallery2174124/Der-letzte-Deutsche-Kaiser.htmlGEMAfreie Musik von https://audiohub.deKontakt:Instagram: @powileaksEmail: info@powileaks.com
Filip Springer, reporter i fotograf, autor książek poświęconych przestrzeni i architekturze, zaprasza czytelników w kolejną literacką podróż. W „Mein Gott, jak pięknie”, na poły fabularyzowanej, na poły dokumentalnej opowieści, kreśli przed nami pejzaż wschodnich prowincji Prus, po II wojnie światowej określanych jako Ziemie Odzyskane. Autor podąża śladami ludzi, którzy – ogarnięci wizją postępu – włączyli się w rewolucję przemysłową, stopniowo przekształcając otaczający ich świat. Część tej historii rozgrywa się nad Odrą – pierwszą uregulowaną wielką rzeką w Europie; część w prakwickich lasach, w których zmagający się z własnymi demonami cesarz Wilhelm II wytępił populację jeleni. O książce i pracy nad nią, ale też o pomyśle na pisanie w ogóle, z autorem rozmawiał Waldek Mazur. Rozmowa odbyła się we wtorek 18 marca w Prozie, klubie Wrocławskiego Domu Literatury. O autorze: Filip Springer – Reporter i fotograf. Autor książek poświęconych przestrzeni i architekturze. Stypendysta Narodowego Centrum Kultury i Fundacji „Herodot” im. Ryszarda Kapuścińskiego. Nominowany do najważniejszych nagród literackich w kraju. Jego książki tłumaczone są na angielski, niemiecki, rosyjski i węgierski. Wszystkie książki Filipa Springera znajdziecie tutaj: https://www.karakter.pl/autorzy/filip-springer
Na de Koude Oorlog en daarna de unipolaire wereld zien we nu een ruwe, multipolaire wereld van grootmachten en allianties ontstaan. De geopolitiek van de negentiende eeuw is terug.Reden te meer om eens goed te kijken hoe machtspolitiek in die tijd werd toegepast door de grootmachten. Jaap Jansen en PG Kroeger kijken naar de meest succesvolle bedrijver daarvan: Otto von Bismarck, die al tijdens zijn leven een legende werd.***Op sommige podcast-apps kun je niet alles lezen. De complete tekst vind je altijd hier***Hij werd geboren in 1815, juist toen Napoleon en zijn revolutionaire keizerrijk sneefden. En hij leefde hij tot 1898, het fin de siècle. Al jong greep hij de kansen die de turbulentie van de verwarrende jaren rond 1848 hem bood. Een staatsman met waaghalzerige lef, politiek vernuft en connecties in de top van Europa en de Duitse vorstendommen daarbinnen.Een diepe politieke crisis in Pruisen greep hij aan om die staat tot de dominante macht op het Europese continent te maken. In minder dan tien jaar speelde hij met politieke, diplomatieke en militaire avonturen de andere machten tegen elkaar uit. Geen wonder dat Johan Rudolf Thorbecke hem verafschuwde en Benjamin Disraeli zijn politiek als ‘nog ontregelender' beschouwde dan de Franse Revolutie.Zo smeedde hij in 1870-1871 een nieuw Duits keizerrijk onder Pruisische leiding, “Durch Blut und Eisen”. Zelf werd hij er de rijkskanselier van en daarmee begon een tweede, verrassende fase van zijn kiene machtspolitiek. Bismarck werd ‘de eerlijke makelaar' van Europa.Of het nu tsaar Alexander II, Benjamin Disraeli of Habsburg in Wenen was, allen keken naar Bismarck om het evenwicht te bewaren en daarbinnen hun expansieplannen te realiseren. Ook bij de koloniale globalisering die deze tijd kenmerkte. Dit maakte het nieuwe keizerrijk nóg dominanter in 'het concert der Europese machten', terwijl de nieuwe Duitse eenheid met haar 'interne markt' aan economie, technologie en wetenschappen enorme impulsen gaf.Door de eigen Duitse ambities beperkt te houden, kon Bismarck stevige allianties smeden en een succesvolle evenwichtspolitiek voeren, terwijl hij binnenslands verrassend moderne politiek aandurfde, ook op sociaal vlak. Naast autoritaire repressie. Een nieuwe, jonge keizer kreeg het na 1888 direct met de knorrige oude kanselier aan de stok. Wilhelm II wilde populair zijn, stoere taal en militair machtsvertoon laten klinken. Bismarck weigerde mee te gaan in zulke onberadenheid en stapte op, dezer weken in 1890.Een serene oude dag gunde hij zichzelf en vooral ook de nieuwe keizer en diens opvolgers niet. Daarvoor zag hij te scherp dat hun onevenwichtige koers moest leiden tot een geopolitiek isolement of nog erger. Met zijn fascinerende memoires nam Bismarck postuum nog een keer extra wraak. Het derde deel daarvan werd daarom decennialang ongepubliceerd gelaten.Bismarck is voor onze tijd verrassend leerzaam en actueel. Zijn neiging tot scherp politiek en intellectueel debat is sowieso genieten. Maar ook zijn finesse bij zowel de waagstukken in zijn geopolitieke strategie als het opvallende bouwen en bewaren van evenwicht. De bloei van Duitsland als een nieuwe en leidende wereldmacht door de nadruk op technologie, innovatie en wetenschap en zijn bewust afzien van Poetinachtige militaire avonturen als nalatenschap vallen nu misschien zelfs meer op dan voorheen. Deze oerconservatieve, autoritaire vernieuwer blijkt ineens óók een man voor deze tijd.***Deze aflevering is mede mogelijk gemaakt met donaties van luisteraars die we hiervoor hartelijk danken. Word ook vriend van de show!Heeft u belangstelling om in onze podcast te adverteren of ons te sponsoren? Dat zou helemaal mooi zijn! Stuur voor informatie een mailtje naar adverteren@dagennacht.nl***Verder luisteren314 - Prins Heinrich XIII en het verlangen naar een autoritair Duisland312 - Schurend verleden - over cancelculture, politiek en geschiedenis311 - De wereld volgens Simon Sebag Montefiore303 - Bijzondere Britse premiers302 - De Frans-Duitse motor hapert. Gesprek met Bondsdaglid Otto Fricke285 - Kaliningrad, een oude stad als brandpunt van Europa274 - Thorbecke, denker en doener248 - Oekraïne en de eeuwenoude vriendschap tussen Duitsland en Rusland208 - Max Weber: wetenschap als beroep en politiek als beroep200 - De Heerser: Machiavelli's lessen zijn nog altijd actueel190 - Napoleon, 200 jaar na zijn dood: zijn betekenis voor Nederland en Europa152 - De 19e-eeuwse wortels van Forum voor Democratie135 - 30 jaar Duitse eenheid: Carlo Trojan, de Nederlander die meeonderhandelde122 - De EU in de tweede helft van 2020: Voorzitten op z'n Duits109 - Mathieu Segers: Sterke lidstaten maken Europa sterk103 - Geheim geld in de politiek71 - Caroline de Gruyter en Habsburg57 - Alexis de Tocqueville47 - Adenauer, de 1e Kanzler40- De geniale broers Von Humboldt***Tijdlijn00:00:00 – Deel 101:07:25 – Deel 201:48:00 – Einde Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Der 1851 geborene Hugo von Tschudi war ein Kunstmensch durch und durch, der gegen Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts Direktor der Berliner Nationalgalerie und damit einflussreichster Museumsmann im Deutschen Kaiserreich wurde.
Link from the show:* On a Knife Edge: How Germany Lost the First World War* Leave a review on iTunesAbout my guest:I was always passionate about history. My elementary school teacher told my parents: "He will study history" - and she was right! I studied Modern and Medieval history, Italian and German literature at the Heinrich Heine Universität Duesseldorf and the Universita degli Studi di Napoli. I wrote my PhD thesis on the Prussian Minister of War and German Chief of Staff, General Erich v. Falkenhayn (1861-1922), one of Imperial Germany's key protagonists during the First World War. The PhD was funded by the Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation and my thesis was supervised by Wolfgang J. Mommsen. After finishing my PhD and after a year as councellor in the German parliament (Deutscher Bundestag) I got funding for a major research project on international relations before 1914. The project run in close cooperation with Wolfgang Mommsen and was granted by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation, Cologne. The outcome was a large monograph entitled "The Triple Alliance and European Great Power Politics, 1881-1915" and several articles. I finished the project as a Feodor-Lynen scholar (a two years grant by the Alexander-von-Humboldt-Foundation) in Vienna, cooperating with Prof. Helmut Rumpler. I was awarded my "Habilitation" at the Heinrich-Heine-Universität Duesseldorf in 1999 and got there in 2003 a honorary professorship.I taught from 1999 to 2002 at the University of Duesseldorf. At the same time I won another major research grant by the Fritz-Thyssen-Foundation for research on Wilhelm II as Supreme Warlord during the First World War. The result - a 1100 pages edition of new sources - was published in 2005 by the Historical Commission of the Bavarian Academy of Science. I was offered in August 2002 a DAAD Professorship of Modern German History at Emory University in Atlanta which I gladly accepted. Among other things I organised a large international conference in 2004 on the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 which was opened by President Jimmy Carter.I left Atlanta in summer 2006 after accepting my current position at the University of Leeds. I organized several conferences in Leeds and created and am responsible for our Master program in "War and Strategy" which is running since 2016. Get full access to Dispatches from the War Room at dispatchesfromthewarroom.substack.com/subscribe
The British Navy, the largest in the world, is for the first time in a century under serious threat. World War 1 is imminent. Three very different characters converge to change the course of history.The eminent female archaeologist Gertrude Bell is exploring the ancient treasures of Persia. The charismatic Englishman Jackie Fisher, Admiral of the Fleet, is battling to convince the British Navy to modernise. William D'Arcy, a determined Queensland businessman is in the process of founding the Middle East's oil industry. Together these extraordinary personalities shine a light on one of the most dramatic periods of the twentieth century. Love too, weaves a path through these important historical events: from Persia to London to Far North Queensland and Gallipoli, this fascinating story is populated by a host of famous (and infamous) characters, from Winston Churchill and T. E. Lawrence ('Lawrence of Arabia'), to the new King Edward VII and Wilhelm II, the Emperor of Germany.In this episode Gregory Dobbs chats to Paul Ashford Harris about the events that marked enormous change for the British Empire, the three great figures in the early 20th century history that each played important roles in that new century, and how different the geo-political world might have looked without them.
The British Navy, the largest in the world, is for the first time in a century under serious threat. World War 1 is imminent. Three very different characters converge to change the course of history. The eminent female archaeologist Gertrude Bell is exploring the ancient treasures of Persia. The charismatic Englishman Jackie Fisher, Admiral of the Fleet, is battling to convince the British Navy to modernise. William D'Arcy, a determined Queensland businessman is in the process of founding the Middle East's oil industry. Together these extraordinary personalities shine a light on one of the most dramatic periods of the twentieth century. Love too, weaves a path through these important historical events: from Persia to London to Far North Queensland and Gallipoli, this fascinating story is populated by a host of famous (and infamous) characters, from Winston Churchill and T. E. Lawrence ('Lawrence of Arabia'), to the new King Edward VII and Wilhelm II, the Emperor of Germany. In this episode Gregory Dobbs chats to Paul Ashford Harris about the events that marked enormous change for the British Empire, the three great figures in the early 20th century history that each played important roles in that new century, and how different the geo-political world might have looked without them.
•Satire• Der bizarre Fall des letzten deutschen Kaisers, Wilhelm II. Der Erste Weltkrieg ist aus, unter abenteuerlichen Umständen flüchtet Wilhelm ins holländische Exil, auf den Landsitz Haus Doorn. Ein Musical mit Christoph Maria Herbst als ausrangiertem Monarchen. // Von Philip Stegers / Musik: Philip Stegers und Ulrich Bassenge / Regie: Ulrich Bassenge / WDR 2023 // www.wdr.de/k/hoerspiel-newsletter Von Philip Stegers.
Hij liep met Hitler en Himmler in nazi-optochten, bezocht Mussolini en bleek een sleutelfiguur in het extreemrechtse verzet tegen de democratie. Op z'n minst ‘een collaborateur' te noemen, vindt historicus Stephan Malinowski. We hebben het over kroonprins Wilhelm van Pruisen. Over hem, zijn vader, keizer Wilhelm II, zijn familie en hun steun aan het Hitler-regime gaat het nieuwste boek van Malinowski, getiteld: De adel en de nazi's. De collaboratie van de Duitse keizerlijke familie. Duisland-kenner Hanco Jürgens komt het boek bespreken.
Schenken gehört zu Weihnachten genau wie der Weihnachtsbaum und das traditionelle Weihnachtsessen. Mehr als 250 Euro wollen die Deutschen dieses Jahr für Weihnachtsgeschenke ausgeben. Aber warum ist es so wichtig, dass wir uns gegenseitig etwas schenken? Wir machen uns in dieser Folge auf die Spurensuche zum Ursprung des Schenkens. Wir wollen herausfinden, welche gesellschaftliche und politische Bedeutung das Schenken seit der Antike hat und warum Geschenke auch für unsere sozialen Beziehungen wichtig sind. Und natürlich wollen wir die Frage klären, was ein gutes Geschenk eigentlich ausmacht. **Literatur:** - Aßmann, Elena (2019): Schenken. In: Dieter Frey, Psychologie der Rituale und Bräuche. - Degens, Philipp (2018): Geld als Gabe. Zur sozialen Bedeutung lokaler Geldformen. - Degens, Philipp und Lukas Lapschieß (2021): Zivilgesellschaftliches Wirtschaften. Ein konzeptioneller Vorschlag. - Frenkel, Miriam; Yaacov Lev (2009): Charity and Giving in Monotheistic Religions, Band N.F. 22 der Reihe Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients. - Jarchow, Margarete (1998): Hofgeschenke. Wilhelm II. zwischen Diplomatie und Dynastie 1888-1914. Hamburg. - Kammler, Henry (2009): Der Nordwestenküsten-Potlach aus wissenskultureller Perspektive, in: Paideuma 55: 2001-2019. - Mauss, Marcel (1925): Die Gabe. - Stauss, Bernd (2021): Das perfekte Geschenk. - Soch, Konstanze (2018): Eine große Freude? Der innerdeutsche Paketverkehr im Kalten Krieg (1949-1989). - Wagner-Hasel, Beate (2020): The Fabric of Gifts: Culture and Politics of Giving and Exchange in Archatic Greece. **Internetlinks:** - https://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/staatsgeschenke-umtausch-ausgeschlossen-3545798.html - https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/russland-wladimir-putin-angela-merkel-1.5599678 - https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/bundestagsabgeordnete-gastgeschenke-bundestag-1.5575602 - https://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/recherchen/informationsfreiheit/rolex-muenzen-teppiche-was-abgeordnete-geschenkt-bekommen - https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/panorama/Kuriose-Staatsgeschenke-Vom-Teppich-bis-zum-Krokodil-Was-sich-Politiker-schenken-id52227786.html - https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/alternative-gesellschaftsmodelle-philosophie-der-gabe-100.html - http://friedrichrost.de/online-texte/kah-vortrag.pdf - https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/208623/umfrage/durchschnittliche-ausgaben-fuer-weihnachtsgeschenke-in-deutschland/ - https://ambiente.messefrankfurt.com/content/dam/messefrankfurt-redaktion/ambiente/general/management-reports/2017/manrep-schenken-deutschland.pdf - https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/71364/umfrage/beliebteste-kategorien-fuer-weihnachtsgeschenke/#:~:text=Zu%20den%20beliebtesten%20Weihnachtsgeschenken%20der,Gutscheine%20oder%20Geld%20zu%20verschenken. **Youtube-Video zu Scobel als Grumpy Santa (Weihnachtsmann)** - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtY_YRCMDmY&ab_channel=Scobel **Team:** - Moderation: Mirko Drotschmann - Sprecher*innen: Dominik Freiberger, Janine Funke, Inga Haupt, Fabian Janssen, Andrea Kath, Marvin Neumann, Jan Schattka, Daniela Ssymank - Redaktion objektiv media GmbH: Janine Funke und Andrea Kath - Technik: Moritz Raestrup - Musik: Extreme Music - Fachliche Beratung: Daniela Ssymank und Luisa Zech - Produktion: objektiv media GmbH im Auftrag des ZDF - Redaktion ZDF: Katharina Kolvenbach
Die Themen der aktuellen Folge: - Marsch auf Rom - Beginn der faschistischen Regierung - Regierungswechsel im Deutschen Reich - Antisemitismus an den Universitäten - Währungsexperten konferieren in Berlin - Die Heirat von Wilhelm II. - Grab des Tutanchamun entdeckt im Tal der Könige - BBC von 6 Radiofirmen gegründet - Stuttgarts Hauptbahnhof nach 6 Jahren vollendet - Gerhart Hauptmann feiert mit Harry Graf Kessler seinen 60. Geburtstag
Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated as German Emperor and King of Prussia after the German Revolution took ...
Nach dem verlorenen 1. Weltkrieg ging Kaiser Wilhelm II ins holländische Exil, wo er 1920 im Haus Doorn in Utrecht eine standesgemäße Bleibe fand. Kurz vor ihrem Tod 1921 soll seine Frau den Wunsch nach einer raschen Wiederverheiratung des Exil-Kaisers geäußert haben.
Jyllannin taistelu oli ensimmäisen maailmansodan suurin taistelu ja yksi kaikkien aikojen suurimmista meritaisteluista. 31.Toukokuuta 1916 Saksan laivasto lyötiin Britannian kuninkaallisen laivaston toimesta. Tässä jaksossa käydään läpi tämä maailmanhistoriaa muuttava metallisten jättiläisten taisto. Linkki Hämeenlinnan keskiaikafestivaalien sivuille (nähdään lauantaina!) https://www.keskiaikafestivaali.fi/Jaksossa on virhe 10min kohdalla, Saksan keisari tuohon aikaan ei suinkaan ollut Wilhelm I, vaan Wilhelm II.
David Goodhart is a British journalist. In 1995 he founded Prospect, the center-left political magazine, where he served as editor for 15 years, and then became the director of Demos, the cross-party think tank. His book The Road to Somewhere coined the terms “Anywheres” and “Somewheres” to help us understand populism in the contemporary West. We also discuss his latest book, Head Hand Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or click the dropdown menu to add the Dishcast to your podcast feed). For two clips of our convo — on why elites favor open borders, and why smart people are overvalued — head over to our YouTube page. Early in the episode, David discusses how his adolescent schooling in Marxism was “a bit like how people sometimes talk about the classics as a sort of intellectual gymnasium — learning how to argue.” Which brings to mind the following note from a listener:I feel compelled to tell you how much I enjoyed listening to your episode with Roosevelt Montás. I’m a retired lawyer in my 60s, and although I had a decent education growing up, my experience did not involve a full immersion in the classics. Hearing you two talk was like sitting in a dorm room in college — except the people talking are older, wiser, actually know what they were talking about. What a treat. I’m a pretty regular listener of the Dishcast, and this was the best yet in my opinion.Much of this week’s episode with David centers on how our capitalist society ascribes too much social and moral value to cognitive ability. That theme was also central to our episode last year with Charles Murray, who emphasizes in the following clip the “unearned gift” of high IQ:The following listener was a big fan of the episode (which we transcribed last week):I must tell you that your conversation with Charles Murray was the single best podcast I’ve ever heard. So deep, broad, and thought provoking. Thank you both for your willingness to explore “unacceptable” ideas so thoughtfully and carefully.I have read two of Charles’ books — Human Diversity and Facing Reality — and, among other things, I am stunned by how ordinary a person he seems to be. That sounds odd. What I mean to say is that, while few people could analyze and assemble so much data and present it so compellingly, his conclusions are what the average person “already knows.” I suspect that most people couldn’t plow through Human Diversity, but given a brief synopsis, they would say “duh.”When you mentioned your deep respect for black culture in America, you touched on something I wish had been more developed in Charles’ books: the option we have of celebrating human diversity rather than resigning ourselves to it or denying it. I would like to develop that idea a bit further:Conservation biologists understand (celebrate) the value of genetic diversity in nonhuman species, because each population potentially brings to the species genes that will allow it to flourish under some future environmental challenge, whether that be disease outbreak, climate change, competition from invasive species, etc. Humans too, as living organisms, have faced and will undoubtedly continue to face many unforeseen challenges, whether environmental, cultural, economic, etc. Hopefully, we will continue to rise to these challenges, but we have no way of knowing which genes from which populations will carry the critical traits that will allow us to do so. So, all the better that races DO differ and ARE diverse — in the aggregate, on average. Population differences are GOOD for a species because they confer resilience!Oh, and for the record, I tend to be center-left, with most of my friends leaning further to the left, so the ideas you presented are forbidden fruits. I cannot discuss them with anyone other than my husband, who can hardly bear to listen because they are so taboo in our circle.Here’s another clip with Charles, bringing Christianity into the mix:This next listener strongly dissents:Charles Murray, and you as well, seem to believe that you can magically separate out the effects of culture and poverty, and determine the effect of “race” on intelligence, which you define as IQ. The problem is, everything you’ve discussed here is nonsense.First, you assume that the term “race” describes a shorthand for people who share a common genetic background, and I suspect this is garbage. Most American Blacks have multi-ethnic backgrounds, with skin melanin being the main shared genetic feature. So, there’s little reason to believe that there’s a correlation between melanin content and other genetic features.Second, you assume that IQ describes general intelligence, that G factor Murray talks about. But intelligence is clearly multi-dimensional. My wife and youngest daughter have a facility with Scrabble, and general word enumeration games, that is way beyond me, and they’re better writers than I am. On the other hand, I have a general facility with mathematics that they can’t match (though my oldest daughter might be able to). And that’s just two dimensions; I’d bet there are many more, encompassing things like artistic talent, architectural design and talents in other arenas. You yourself are an excellent writer and interviewer, but I’ve read your writings for years, and I’d bet your understanding of statistics is elementary at best.Finally, you have no answer to the remarkable changes in IQ in Ashkenazi Jews over the past century. Supposedly IQ is supposed to represent an innate and unchangeable measurement of intelligence. And if you believe that average IQ of an ethnic group is a meaningful measurement, then you have to explain the changes in average IQ among American Jews over the past century. Goddard in the early 20th century claimed that 83% of tested Jews were feebleminded, while today, the great grandchildren of those feebleminded Jews now have IQs 1/2 to a full standard deviation above their co-nationalists. There’s an obvious answer here: IQ tests simply don’t test anything fundamental, but instead test how integrated into American culture the tested subjects were at the time.These are serious challenges to the idea that specific ethnic groups have unchangeable intellectual talents: some of your ethnic groups are non-homogeneous genetically, your definition of intelligence is simplistic, and there’s clear evidence that social integration greatly overwhelms any inter-group average differences. It is obvious that some people are more talented in one area than another, and that a significant amount of these differences are determined genetically. But when you move from the case of individuals to trying to correlate American racial groups with intelligence, I truly believe you’re just making a big mistake. Many Blacks in this country have grown up with the expectations that they simply can’t succeed on their own. I find it impossible to believe that we can filter out the effect of being raised with the expectation of failure. I work in tech, and it seems that a seriously disproportionate number of Blacks at my Gang of Five company come from the Caribbean — where, of course, Blacks are a majority and don’t face the same expectations of failure. We had a panel discussion on race and all the panelists came from the Caribbean, and all had stories of parental expectations that you’d expect from a stereotypical Asian-American family today.That said, right now, the Woke are acting more patronizing (and in my view, racist) than anything since the ‘60s. At this point, the Woke (I refuse to apply this label to the whole Left) treat Blacks as incredibly fragile beings who can’t handle any discussions of problems that aren’t laid at the feet of white people’s racism. It’s pretty disgusting.Instead of going point for point with my reader, here’s a comprehensive list of Dish coverage on the subject from the blog days. Another listener recommends a related guest for the Dishcast:After ruminating on some of your recent podcasts, I’d like to suggest a future guest: Paige Harden, author of The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality and professor of behavioral psychology at the University of Texas-Austin. I imagine you’ve read her profile in The New Yorker. Since your conversation with Briahna Joy Gray, the tension between matters of structure and personal agency have been echoing in my head.When I listen to other guests of yours, other podcast hosts, other conservatives, I see everywhere the tension between structure and personal agency. And having read Harden’s book this fall, I’ve been thinking of her work more and more as a bridge between these seemingly divergent world views. She swims in the same research waters as Charles Murray and Robert Plomin — but she (a) is explicitly clear that this research has, as of yet, no value in studying ethnic groups and (b) treats environmental factors differently than they do. On the latter, Harden makes some compelling arguments about the interplay between environment and expression of individuals’ genes (and thus abilities). It’s easy to see the corollaries in personal ability and responsibility (both with strong roots in genetics) versus the leftist tendency to dismiss people’s actions vis a vis blaming structural inequalities.Harden sometimes trades in some language verging on woke, for lack of a better term, but her more nuanced philosophical references are to John Rawls, not neo-Marxists. She’s really quite convincing. Also, I’ve always appreciated that you ask your guests to reflect on their upbringing and how they got where they are. Having read that New Yorker piece and her book, I think hers is an interesting story in and of itself.It is indeed. Harden is a great idea for a guest. I’ll confess that I felt I needed to read her book thoroughly to engage her, and didn’t have the time so put it off. Thanks for the reminder.A reader responds to a quote we posted last week praising Mike Pence for standing up to Trump after the assault on the Capitol:Pence had innumerable chances over years to expose Trump for exactly what he was. Besides one forceful speech since, there hasn’t been much else from the MAGA-excommunicated, nearly-executed veep. How about a live appearance before the Jan 6 Commission, Mr Vice President? Probably not. While I agree that Mike Pence may have saved the republic on Jan 6, he only did so with a gun to his head — with an actual gallows erected for him, while the Capitol was being stormed and people were dying. Better late than never, but he really cut it close, no?Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney are the profiles in courage here, along with all those Capitol police. Pence doesn’t deserve this lionization … at least not yet.Points taken. But to be honest, any mainstream Republican who opposed the attempted coup is a hero in my book. Another reader quotes me and dissents:The early Biden assurance that inflation was only a blip has become ridiculous, as Janet Yellen herself has conceded. No, Biden isn’t responsible for most of it. But some of it? Yep. A massive boost to demand when supply is crippled is dumb policy making. And imagine how worse it would be if Biden had gotten his entire package. Larry Summers was right — again.European countries did not have stimulus like we did, yet they are experiencing similar levels of inflation. This would indicate that inflation is a world-wide phenomenon and not tied to our particular stimulus packages. Also, Larry Summers has been pretty much wrong on everything — here’s a synopsis from 2013 (or just google “larry summers wrong on everything” and see the articles that pop up). Money quote:And Summers has made a lot of errors in the past 20 years, despite the eminence of his research. As a government official, he helped author a series of ultimately disastrous or wrongheaded policies, from his big deregulatory moves as a Clinton administration apparatchik to his too-tepid response to the Great Recession as Obama's chief economic adviser. Summers pushed a stimulus that was too meek, and, along with his chief ally, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, he helped to ensure that millions of desperate mortgage-holders would stay underwater by failing to support a "cramdown" that would have allowed federal bankruptcy judges to have banks reduce mortgage balances, cut interest rates, and lengthen the terms of loans. At the same time, he supported every bailout of financial firms. All of this has left the economy still in the doldrums, five years after Lehman Brothers' 2008 collapse, and hurt the middle class. Yet in no instance has Summers ever been known to publicly acknowledge a mistake.Sorry, but the EU provided a Covid stimulus of $2.2 trillion. And Summers was clearly right in this case, and Janet Yellen wrong. Another reader also pushes back on the passage I wrote above:I have a bone to pick with you when you discuss the Biden economic policy. Your contention is that the American Rescue Plan was “dumb policy making” because it exacerbated inflation. Fair enough — but if we are going to discuss the economy, then we need to have a full exploration of the policy choices and their implications. Yes, we have had six months of multi-decade high inflation, but we also have had about a year of near-record lows in unemployment and record-high job creation. Before you dismiss that as simply due to the reopening of the economy post-COVID, it’s worth noting that the American economic recovery has vastly outperformed all prognostications, as well as other Western economies. So in sum, the result of Biden’s policy is high inflation, high growth, high job creation, low unemployment. Let’s be clear then: when you criticize the ARP as too big and thus causing inflation, you are advocating for stable prices at the cost of a low growth, high unemployment environment. It’s a fair argument, I suppose. But after having lived through the weak economic recovery engineered by Larry Summers during the Obama administration, one that choked the early careers of many millennials, I’m not sure Biden’s choice was particularly egregious. But what we may well be about to get is stagflation — as interest rates go up even as inflation continues. It’s possible we fucked up both times: in 2009 with too little stimulus and in 2020 too much. I understand why those decisions were taken and the reasons were sane. But they were still wrong. Tim Noah has been doing great work lately on these questions of inflation and recession, including an interview with Summers. This next reader defends Biden’s record on the economy and beyond:The pragmatic counter-argument to your criticism of Biden is this: his economic program, while inflationary, produced unprecedented job growth after a recession, reductions by 50% in child poverty, more than five new business startups, and increases in business investment and personal bank balances of more than 20%. It’s among the reasons the American economy is outperforming China’s for the first time in two generations.Biden’s signature foreign policy achievements in Central Europe have led to the enlargement of NATO and awakened Europe to its responsibilities to its own security, all of which will contain Russia over the long term. This precedent, coupled with the Aussie-Brit nuclear deal, opens real possibilities for containing China’s potential regional expansion in Asia. At home, Biden’s Justice Department, like Gerald Ford’s, is fumigating the fetid stench of politics it inherited. The Biden White House has re-opened the doors to governors and mayors who need help from Washington in a disaster, regardless of partisan affiliation or views of Dear Leader; and it is laying the groundwork for a much-needed affordable-housing boom in our cities. Your hopes for a politics of dynamic centrism, which I share, does not take into account that as many as 10 million of our fellow citizens are prone to political violence due to the real-world influence of Great Replacement Theory, according to Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago. There is no comparable threat from the illiberalism on the left — which is a problem, nonetheless. In the wake of Trump’s loss in 2020, leading Republicans, including the governors of Florida and Texas, are competing for those constituents. That’s a movement my fellow classical liberals and I — stretching from the center-left to the center-right — can and should live without. Bill Buckley wouldn’t have sucked up to them. In the real world, the GOP wooing of the violent right poses an existential threat to our quality of life. It’s why I am voting straight Democratic in 2022. And it is why I would gladly vote for Biden, again in 2024, if he sought re-election.Happy to air your perspective. This next reader is bracing himself for Trump 2024:I know it gives you a warm feeling all over to write a column about the revolt against the woke, but it won’t be wokism that propels Republicans into office in 2022 and returns Trump to power in 2024 — something I agree will be a disaster for the republic. Trump’s return to power feels inevitable to me today. The January 6th hearings will make no difference to Trump supporters.Don’t get me wrong; I think wokism is annoying and stupid, but it is not the threat to the nation that you believe it is, and it never was. Wokism has destroyed the left and that is the real tragedy. Instead of a populist left railing against the rich, we have a bourgeois left railing against heterosexual white men, leaving the working class in the thrall of an American Orban. The working class now feels that the left and Democrats have failed them; and they are right, they have.Americans will vote for Republican for one reason: inflation. It should be no surprise that inflation is out of control, but both Biden and Trump spent billions helping people who were unable to work during Covid (the right policy) without raising taxes (the wrong policy). Now, to fight inflation we need to raise taxes and that is impossible; there aren’t the votes in the Senate. American tax policy is insane. You can have low taxes, or you can solve social problems like helping people who can’t work because of a pandemic, an inadequate public health system still unprepared for the next pandemic, homelessness and addiction, and crime. But you can’t have both. It really isn’t that complicated.Grateful as always for the counterpoints, and you can always send your own to dish@andrewsullivan.com. Another dissenter gets historical:I agree wholeheartedly with your clarion condemnation of the odious Trump. But you are wide of the historical mark when you state that Trump is “the first real tyrannical spirit to inhabit the office since Andrew Jackson.” Jackson was authoritarian in character. He was a product of the trauma of the Revolution and he brought his military identity to the White House. But he was not a tyrant or dictator. (There is more historical evidence for Lincoln as dictatorial than Jackson.) More appropriate — if non-American — comparisons for Trump would be Henry VIII, Wilhelm II, Mussolini and Nixon.Mind you, an interesting Dishcast guest would be Jon Meacham to discuss US presidents with authoritarian tendencies: Adams Sr., Polk, Andrew Johnson, Teddy R and Wilson. All expressed some form of authoritarianism, but sometimes the presidency and the nation derived benefitAnother digs deeper into the Jackson comparison:I suggest you interview W.H. Brands, who wrote a biography of Andrew Jackson. There are many ways to judge a history book, but to me an important criterion is, did I learn anything I did not already know? Reading this book I did.I am only going to mention one of a good number events in Jackson’s life that Brands brings to the forefront. After the Battle of New Orleans, Gen. Jackson had ordered that a curfew remain in effect and that the city was to remain under martial law. For good reason: while the British offensive on one flank was a disaster, they had relative success on the other flank, and their remaining commander could have ended the truce and ordered another attack. But the British never did a follow-up attack. One New Orleans business man then took Andrew Jackson to court, claiming he endured an unnecessary economic loss on account of the military curfew. The court ruled in the businessman’s favor. AND, incredibly, Andrew Jackson paid the fine! Now stop and think, what must have been on Old Hickory’s mind. Here he risks life and limb to save the city from British domination, and he’s fined. Andrew could think, why should I pay? I’ve got the Army in my control, I’m not just a commander whom soldiers fear, but also one that has the adulation and respect of my soldiers and the populace at large. To me, that episode reveals that Jackson was hardly the tyrant he is portrayed to be by most modernists steeped in presentism. He should never be placed in the same sentence as Trump unless the word “contrast” or “opposite” is used. Let's keep Old Hickory away from any such comparisons and let his image remain on that $20 bill!Well I learned something from that email — so many thanks. Meacham is a good idea too. Get full access to The Weekly Dish at andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe
Historian Professor Matt Fitzpatrick, Professor in the College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences at Flinders University in Australia, talks about his research into the role of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany during the Great War. Wilhelm II was c controversial figure and Matt discusses his life, his political and military role during the Great war […]
Photo: Advertisement for dogs showing „Tyras“, a dog given by Wilhelm II. to Bismarck as a birthday present in 1889 2/4 A Dog's World: Imagining the Lives of Dogs in a World without Humans, by Jessica Pierce and Marc Bekoff Hardcover – October 26, 2021 https://www.amazon.com/Dogs-World-Imagining-without-Humans/dp/0691196184 What would happen to dogs if humans simply disappeared? Would dogs be able to survive on their own without us? A Dog's World imagines a posthuman future for dogs, revealing how dogs would survive―and possibly even thrive―and explaining how this new and revolutionary perspective can guide how we interact with dogs now. Drawing on biology, ecology, and the latest findings on the lives and behavior of dogs and their wild relatives, Jessica Pierce and Marc Bekoff―two of today's most innovative thinkers about dogs―explore who dogs might become without direct human intervention into breeding, arranged playdates at the dog park, regular feedings, and veterinary care. Pierce and Bekoff show how dogs are quick learners who are highly adaptable and opportunistic, and they offer compelling evidence that dogs already do survive on their own―and could do so in a world without us. Challenging the notion that dogs would be helpless without their human counterparts, A Dog's World enables us to understand these independent and remarkably intelligent animals on their own terms.
Zwei Tage zuvor hatte Kaiser Wilhelm seinen Rückzug erklärt. Mit dem Württemberger Wilhelm war die deutsche Monarchie endgültig am Ende.
11 listopada to dzień, w którym przypada rocznica odzyskania niepodległości przez Polskę. Ludzie mówią wtedy głównie o marszałku Piłsudskim. Ale czy wiecie, że był w tamtych czasach inny marszałek i też miał udział w odzyskaniu przez Polskę niepodległości? Jak on się nazywał?Marszałek Edward Śmigły-Rydz był jednym z najważniejszych pomocników Piłsudskiego. Został też jego następcą, ale na początku miał inne zainteresowania.Zacznijmy jednak od początku. Edward Rydz urodził się w 1886 roku w Galicji czyli w zaborze austryjackim. Jego tata zmarł gdy Edward miał 2 lata, a mama gdy miał 10 lat. Potem zaopiekował się nim dziadek. Była to biedna rodzina, ale dzięki pomocy pewnej rodziny Edward mógł się uczyć. Poszedł na studia na malarstwo. Uczył się w Akademii Sztuk Pięknych im. Jana Matejki w Krakowie. Później jednak postanowił przerwać naukę malarstwa i poświęcić się walce o niepodległość. Czemu jednak wstąpił do austriackiego wojska?Edward Rydz chciał nauczyć się dowodzenia, aby to później wykorzystać do wyzwolenia Polski. Przy armii austryjackiej powstały też później Legiony Polskie. Edward Rydz został powołany do armii austryjackiej, ale Piłsudski załatwił mu przeniesienie do Legionów Polskich. Rydz-Śmigły okazał się on bardzo dobrym dowódcą i wciąż go awansowano. Założył też polski wywiad, a w wolnych chwilach grał z żołnierzami w piłkę nożną.W 1914 roku wybuchła I wojna światowa. Niemcy i Austro-Węgry walczyły przeciwko Rosji. Polacy mieszkali wtedy zarówno w Niemczech jak i w Austrii, ale także w Rosji. Wszystkie te kraje obiecywały Polakom własne państwo jak im pomogą na tej wojnie. Legiony Polskie były polskimi oddziałami przy armii austryjackiej. Austriacy i Niemcy byli w sojuszu przeciwko Rosji. Polacy walczyli razem z armią austriacką przez 3 lata, od 1914 do 1917. Wtedy doszło do kryzysu przysięgowego.W tamtych czasach nie było Polski, była podzielona między Rosję, Austrię oraz Niemcy. W Rosji rządził car Mikołaj II, w Austro-Węgrach rządził cesarz Franciszek Józef, a w Niemczech rządził cesarz Wilhelm II. Car i cesarz to w zasadzie to samo, tak więc Polakami rządziło wtedy trzech cesarzy. Pokłócili się jednak i rosyjski car Mikołaj II walczył z austriackim cesarzem Franciszkiem Józefem oraz niemieckim cesarzem Wilhelmem II. Polacy przysięgli walczyć razem z Austrią, ale w 1917 roku Austria przekazała Polaków swojemu sojusznikowi Niemcom. Polacy obiecali walczyć z armią austriackiego cesarza Franciszka Józefa. Teraz jednak mieli przyrzec wierność niemieckiemu cesarzowi Wilhelmowi II. Tego właśnie nie chciał zrobić Piłsudski oraz wielu innych żołnierzy jak np. Śmigły-Rydz.Ale dlaczego Piłsudski chciał walczyć dla jednego z zaborców czyli dla Austrii, a nie chciał walczyć dla innego zaborcy czyli Niemiec? Z tych trzech zaborców Polakom najlepiej się działo w Austrii. W Rosji próbowano zrusyfikować Polaków, a w Niemczech próbowano ich zgermanizować. Tylko w Austrii Polacy mogli dalej być Polakami. Edward Rydz początkowo uczył się malować w Akademii Sztuk Pięknych w Krakowie. Jej pierwszym dyrektorem był Jan Matejko, który namalował wiele obrazów o historii Polski. Na pewno widzieliście portrety królów Polskich, albo obraz Bitwa pod Grunwaldem. Matejko mimo, że mieszkał w Galicji, czyli tej części Polski, która należała do Austrii to mógł malować takie obrazy. Gdyby mieszkał w Rosji albo Niemczech prawdopodobnie dostałby się za to do więzienia. Tak więc z trzech zaborców Austria była tym najlepszym i Polacy mieli tam sporo wolności choć nie mieli niepodległości.Tak więc Piłsudski i Śmigły-Rydz chcieli walczyć u boku Austrii, ale nie chcieli walczyć u boku Niemiec. Gdy więc w 1917 roku Legiony miały przysiąc wierność niemieckiemu cesarzowi Wilhelmowi II doszło do kryzysu przysięgowego i legioniści rzucili broń. Niemcy kazali za to zamknąć Piłsudskiego, a co robił wtedy Śmigły-Rydz?Józef Piłsudski siedział w więzieniu od lipca 1917 roku do listopada 1918 czyli prawie rok i cztery miesiące. W tym czasie Edward Śmigły-Rydz objął dowództwo nad POW czyli Polską Organizacją Wojskową. Można powiedzieć, że Edward Śmigły-Rydz zastępował wtedy Piłsudskiego, który siedział w Magdeburgu. Gdy Polska się zjednoczyła trzeba też było zjednoczyć wszystkie organizacje wojskowe. Śmigły-Rydz pojechał więc do Kijowa, aby włączyć tamtejszą POW do wojska Polskiego. Poznał tam wtedy swoją przyszłą żonę Martę..Piłsudski wyznaczył Śmigłego-Rydza do wielu zadań. Jednym z nich było dawanie odznaczeń wojskowych. W 1920 roku odznaczył on swoją przyszłą żonę Martę i dał jej Krzyż Walecznych “za zasługi dla ojczyzny”. Złośliwi ludzie twierdzili, że dał jej ten medal aby została jego żoną.Gdy powstała Polska w listopadzie 1918 roku od razu wybuchła wojna polsko-ukraińska. Później zaczęła się wojna polsko-sowiecka. Śmigły-Rydz dostawał wiele rozkazów od Piłsudskiego. Wszystkie swoje bitwy wygrywał. Dostał za to wiele odznaczeń, nie tylko polskich. Na początku roku 1920 Śmigły-Rydz pomógł wyzwolić Łotwę. Dostał wtedy polski order Virtuti Militari oraz łotewski Order Pogromcy Niedźwiedzia. Polski order Virtuti Militari to krzyż, w środku którego znajduje się biały orzeł, a na krzyżu jest napis “Virtuti Militari” co znaczy “męstwu wojskowemu”. Łotewski order Pogromcy Niedźwiedzia to także krzyż w środku którego znajduje się człowiek walczący z niedźwiedziem. Oczywiście Edward Śmigły-Rydz dostał wiele innych odznaczeń.Dostawał na wojnie wiele rozkazów od Piłsudskiego i nie przegrał żadnej bitwy, ale jaki jest najtrudniejszy rozkaz dla dowódcy? Jaki najtrudniejszy rozkaz dostał “Śmigły” podczas wojny polsko-bolszewickiej?Wycofanie się to jest jedna z najtrudniejszych operacji do wykonania. Chodzi o wycofanie się z bronią w ręku, a nie ucieczkę z pola bitwy. Śmigły-Rydz zdobył Kijów, jednak później przyszło wielu Rosjan i zaczęli okrążać to miasto. Śmigły dostał rozkaz wycofania się. Zrobił to nie tracąc broni i jego armia była gotowa walczyć później w bitwie warszawskiej.Edward Śmigły-Rydz należał do obozu piłsudczyków, czyli popierał rządy Józefa Piłsudskiego. Niestety ten zmarł 12 maja 1935 roku. Dzień przed śmiercią Piłsudski wezwał do siebie Śmigłego. Nie wiadomo o czym rozmawiali, ale przypuszcza się, że Piłsudski przekazał Śmigłemu-Rydzowi swoją ostatnią wolę co do organizacji wojska. Spotkali się 11 maja, dzień później 12 maja 1935 roku zmarł marszałek Józef Piłsudski. Zaraz w tą noc spotkał się rząd i następnego dnia 13 maja Edward Śmigły-Rydz został Generalnym Inspektorem Sił Zbrojnych. Jest to dość długa nazwa, ale oznacza, że Śmigły-Rydz został naczelnym wodzem wojska polskiego. A kiedy został marszałkiem?Rok po śmierci Piłsudskiego, w 1936 roku prezydent mianował Śmigłego-Rydza marszałkiem polski. Tak więc gdy wybuchła II wojna światowa i gdy we wrześniu 1939 roku na Polskę napadli Niemcy to naczelnym wodzem był właśnie marszałek Edward Śmigły-Rydz. Do tego momentu nie przegrał on żadnej bitwy. Przegrał jednak we wrześniu 1939 roku. Z tego powodu wielu uważa, że to jego wina. O tym dlaczego Polska wtedy przegrała mówiliśmy w poprzednim, w 106 odcinku, który był poświęcony początkowi II wojny światowej.1 września 1939 roku Polskę zaatakowali Niemcy. 7 września już podchodzili pod Warszawę. Marszałek Śmigły-Rydz zadecydował wtedy o przeniesieniu sztabu czyli dowództwa do Brześcia. Niestety nie działała tam łączność. Polska czekała wtedy na pomoc Francji i Anglii. Sojusznikiem Polski była też Rumunia. Tamtędy miała przyjść pomoc od Francji. Niestety 17 września Polskę zaatakowała też Rosja Sowiecka. Zadecydowano wtedy o opuszczeniu granic Polski.Wojsko Polskie weszło do Rumunii, która była sojusznikiem Polski. Ponieważ jednak na Polskę napadli Niemcy i Rosjanie, a Francja i Anglia nie pomagały to Rumuni się wystraszyli i internowali wszystkich Polaków, w tym także marszałka Edwarda Śmigłego-Rydza. Będąc w niewoli w Rumunii Śmigły-Rydz przekazał dowodzenie generałowi Sikorskiemu, który był na zachodzie. 7 listopada 1939 roku Generalnym Inspektorem Sił Zbrojnych został generał Władysław Sikorski. Czy to znaczy, że Śmigły-Rydz już nie chciał walczyć?Edward Śmigły-Rydz został internowany w Rumunii we wrześniu 1939 roku. Rok później udało mu się jednak zorganizować ucieczkę. Uciekł na Węgry i stamtąd w październiku 1941 roku przedostał się do okupowanej Polski. Niestety zachorował i zmarł w grudniu 1941 roku. Został pochowany na Powązkach pod nazwiskiem Adam Zawisza. Trwała wojna i dopiero po wojnie na grobie pojawiło się jego prawdziwe nazwisko - Edward Śmigły-Rydz.Edward Rydz-Śmigły był prawą ręką Piłsudskiego. Nie przegrał żadnej bitwy. Jego pierwszą i jedyną przegraną była wojna obronna we wrześniu 1939 roku, ale tej wojny nie dało się wygrać. Polska została zaatakowana ze wszystkich stron, a sojusznicy zawiedli. Trudno więc winić marszałka Śmigłego-Rydza za tą klęskę. Jak wielu żołnierzy przeszedł on granicę do Rumunii aby dalej walczyć. Niestety, gdy wrócił do Polski w 1941 roku zachorował i zmarł.
Hvem var keiser Wilhelm II av Tyskland og hvorfor kom han så ofte til Norge? Hva gjorde han her og hvilken betydning fikk keiserens reiser for tysk turisme til Norge?
Ein Denkmal sorgt für Streit: es zeigt Wilhelm II., den letzten württembergischen König, als freundlichen Herrn im Anzug, begleitet von seinen beiden Hunden. Aber in Stuttgart wird nicht nur über einen neuen Standort debattiert. Es geht um grundsätzliche Fragen der Monarchie: Taugt ausgerechnet ein König als Erinnerungsfigur für die liberale Tradition Württembergs? Wie demokratisch kann ein Obrigkeitsstaat überhaupt sein? Und welchen Einfluss hatte der „Bürgerkönig“ auf die politische Kultur im Kaiserreich? Silke Arning diskutiert mit Dr. Torben Giese - Direktor StadtPalais – Museum für Stuttgart, Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lappenküper - Otto-von-Bismarck-Stiftung, Friedrichsruh, Prof. Dr. Wolfram Pyta, -Historiker, Universität Stuttgart
Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert von Preußen. De laatste Duitse Keizer die in een tijdje in Nederland heeft moeten wonen.
Dimitri wants to hear an anecdote, and Linh tries her best to tell it… slowly… Check out Linh's app, Not Phở, a cook that introduces the user to Vietnamese cuisine, especially dishes other than Phở. It runs on iPhone, iPad, and Mac. It also have an iMessage sticker pack so that you can share with all your friends and family. App Store: https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1525104124?pt=14724&ct=Podcast&mt=8 Reference: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1fgvLSZv7M - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtqbXDgyFF0 Errata: - This entire episode is an anecdote that I learned from one source. - We are calling this an anecdote because I don't know how truthful the source was and I didn't do any search.
On this episode of All Gas No Brakes, we end our 2-part journey exploring the origin story of living with physical disability. We touch on the lives of 3 individuals who made their mark on history while living a life with physical disability; Alfred the Great of Wessex, Petrus Gonsalvus and Wilhelm II. How did their lives shape history? How did their disability play a part in that endeavor? We conclude this episode with a brief look into the eugenics movement.Got feedback? Connect with AGNB via email or all social media channels.Email: agnb.pod@gmail.comTwitter: @AGNB_PodFacebook: @allgasnobrakespodcastInstagram: @AGNB_PodWebsite: allgasnobrakespodcast.buzzsprout.com/Alfred the Greathttps://culturalheritagethroughimage.omeka.net/items/show/118Petrus Gonsalvushttps://allthatsinteresting.com/petrus-gonsalvus-real-beauty-and-the-beasthttps://historycollection.com/the-real-beauty-and-the-beast-didnt-live-happily-ever-after/Wilhelm II of Germanyhttps://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/crips-column/2009/01/germany-wilhelm-war-austriahttps://historyofyesterday.com/the-eccentric-german-emperor-5966cbeac676
Xin chào các bạn, mời các bạn theo dõi những sự kiện đã diễn ra trong ngày 20 tháng 6 nhé: SỰ KIỆN 1894 – Tại Hồng Kông, Alexandre Yersin công bố phát hiện vi khuẩn gây bệnh dịch hạch. 1895 – Hoàng đế Đức Wilhelm II khánh thành kênh đào Kiel băng qua bán đảo Jylland, hiện là thủy đạo nhân tạo bận rộn nhất trên thế giới. 1877 - Alexander Graham Bell lắp đặt dịch vụ điện thoại thương mại đầu tiên trên thế giới tại Hamilton, Ontario , Canada. 1895 - Kênh đào Kiel , băng qua bán đảo Jutland và là tuyến đường thủy nhân tạo nhộn nhịp nhất thế giới, chính thức được khai trương. 1975 - Bộ phim Jaws được phát hành tại Hoa Kỳ, trở thành bộ phim có doanh thu cao nhất thời bấy giờ và mở đầu cho trào lưu phim được mệnh danh là " bom tấn mùa hè ". Ngày lễ và kỷ niệm Ngày Tị nạn Thế giới Sinh 1949 – Lionel Richie, là một nam ca sĩ, nhạc sĩ nhà sản xuất đĩa hát người Mỹ. Ca khúc bất hủ của ông là bài Hello. 1967 – Nicole Kidman, diễn viên Mỹ. Cô đã nhận một Giải Oscar, hai Giải Primetime Emmy và năm Giải Quả cầu Vàng. Tạp chí Time bình chọn cô là một trong 100 người ảnh hưởng nhất thế giới vào các năm 2004 và 2018. Năm 2020, The New York Times xếp cô thứ năm trong danh sách những diễn viên xuất sắc nhất thế kỷ 21 đến thời điểm đó của tờ báo này. 1970 – Lý Gia Hân, nữ diễn viên, mang hai dòng máu Bồ Đào Nha và Trung Quốc, là nữ diễn viên, người mẫu, Hoa hậu Hồng Kông và Hoa hậu Quốc tế Trung Quốc năm 1988. Sau đó Lý Gia Hân được hãng TVB mời đóng phim truyền hình, nổi tiếng với vai nữ chính trong phim Đọa lạc thiên sứ. 1978 - Frank Lampard, cầu thủ bóng đá Anh. Lampard đã ghi 29 bàn thắng cho đội tuyển Anh và được bầu là Cầu thủ Anh xuất sắc nhất năm 2004 và 2005. Ông được xem là một trong những cầu thủ xuất sắc nhất lịch sử của Chelsea và là một trong những tiền vệ xuất sắc nhất trong thế hệ của mình. #aweektv #20thang6 #FrankLampard #AlexandreYersin #LionelRichie --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/aweek-tv/message
En av toppturene jeg gikk da vi besøkte Lofoten i midten av mai, var til Keiservarden, oppkalt etter den tyske keiseren og kongen av Preussen, Wilhelm II. Ikke bare startet han Lofot-turismen, men han får også æren for å ha startet det norske telekom-eventyret.Se episoden på YouTube: https://youtu.be/5MQmNhy1srIAbonner på YouTube-kanalen min her: https://YouTube.com/hpnhansenBli Bidragsnyter du også - Støtt innholdsproduksjonen til Hans-Petter med 15 kroner i måneden her: https://hanspetter.info/bidragsnyter/ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Das Thema heute: Bismarck oder Wilhelm II. – Wer hat Schuld am Niedergang Deutschlands? Jeder sieht vor seinem geistigen Auge jene Karikatur aus der englischen Zeitschrift Punch: Bismarck steigt die Gangway von einem großen Dampfer herunter, um auf ein kleines Lotsenschiff umzusteigen. Oben steht der jugendliche Kaiser Wilhelm und schaut ihm versonnen nach. Deutsche Titelübersetzung „Der Lotse geht von Bord“. Englischer Originaltitel: „Dropping the Pilot“. Also etwa: „Man entledigt sich des Steuermanns“. Tatsächlich nahmen dem jungen Kaiser einflussreiche Kreise in England, Frankreich oder den USA jene Entlassung des „Eisernen Kanzlers“ sehr übel. Was immer Wilhelm II. tat: er hatte in jenen Ländern nach diesem Vorfall fast immer eine außerordentlich schlechte Presse. Und die Bewunderung und Liebe für den Kanzler aus Blut und Eisen ist in den anglo-amerikanischen Eliten bis heute lebendig. Als zum Beispiel Maggie Thatcher mit brutalen Mitteln die mageren Eckpfeiler der englischen Sozialpartnerschaft einriss, nannte die britische Presse die rüde Kämpferin in treffender Anspielung auf den eisernen Kanzler Bismarck the iron lady – die Eiserne Dame. Otto von Bismarck hatte seine Karriere und sein Reich vornehmlich durch kriegerische Gewalt zusammengeschustert; durch „Blut und Eisen“, wie er selbst bereits bei seinem Regierungsantritt 1862 knorzig angedroht hatte. 1864 hatte Bismarck zunächst die Dänen mit Hilfe der Österreicher aus Schleswig-Holstein verjagt. Um als nächstes im Jahre 1866 die Österreicher aus dem gemeinsamen deutschen Staatenbund zu verjagen. Um die süddeutschen Staaten den Österreichern auszuspannen und sie sodann der eigenen protestantisch-norddeutschen Allianz zu unterwerfen, lockte er die Fürsten nicht nur mit genau jenen Geldschätzen, die er den unterworfenen Welfen in Hannover sowie der freien Reichsstadt Frankfurt in mittelalterlicher Raubrittermanier gestohlen hatte. Sondern Bismarck ließ sie auch teilhaben an dem Beutegut aus dem Krieg gegen Frankreich. So und nicht anders vollzog sich die vielgepriesene Deutsche Einigung. Der Anlass zum deutsch-französischen Krieg war absolut unbedeutend. Spanien suchte einen neuen König, und erkor zu diesem Zweck einen Spross der Hohenzollern-Dynastie, der allerdings nur entfernt mit Wilhelm I. verwandt war. Frankreich fühlte sich durch Hohenzollern in Spanien und in Preußen in die Zange genommen und protestierte auf diplomatischem Wege. Eine solche Irritation hätte sich wahrscheinlich durch Gespräche auf Diplomatenebene bereinigen lassen. Wenn nicht tatsächlich beide Seiten auf diesen Krieg hingearbeitet hätten. Eine misslungene Kontaktanbahnung zwischen einem französischen Diplomaten und König Wilhelm I. im Kurort Bad Ems wurde Bismarck per Telegramm berichtet. Rein zufällig saß Bismarck gerade mit seinen beiden Mitstreitern, nämlich Kriegsminister Roon sowie Generalstabschef von Moltke beim Essen. Bismarck frisierte das Telegramm des Ministerialbeamten zu einem pressetauglichen Text, so dass es jetzt wirkte– so Bismarck in seinen Erinnerungen – wie ein „rotes Tuch“ auf den „gallischen Stier“. Und Bismarck enthüllt in seinen „Gedanken und Erinnerungen“ genau jenes Muster, nach dem alle modernen Angriffskriege den Menschen draußen im Lande verkauft werden: „ es ist wichtig, dass wir die Angegriffenen seien, und die gallische Überhebung und Reizbarkeit wird uns dazu machen, wenn wir mit europäischer Öffentlichkeit, soweit es uns ohne das Sprachrohr des Reichstags möglich ist, verkünden, dass wir den öffentlichen Drohungen furchtlos entgegentreten.“. Das „furchtlose Entgegentreten“ kostet sage und schreibe 183.652 Kombattanten beider Seiten das Leben. Und für immerhin 232.732 verwundete und verstümmelte junge Männer auf beiden Seiten war das Leben nach diesem Trauma nicht mehr das gleiche wie zuvor. Die französische Regierung wiederum ist sich auch nach der demütigenden Niederlage gegen Deutschland keineswegs zu schade, mit deutscher Munition die Pariser Kommune zu exekutieren und dabei eine stattliche Strecke von weiteren 30.000 Toten zu verursachen. Der Deutsch-Französische Krieg von 1871 war ein bestialisches Gemetzel. Bismarcks Reichsgründung stand auf immensen Leichenbergen. Diese Geschichte ist für uns von Belang, weil in den nachfolgenden harten Forderungen des Siegers Preußen gegen den Verlierer Frankreich der Grundstein gelegt ist für die noch viel härteren Bedingungen des Vertrages von Versailles im Jahre 1920. Frankreich musste nämlich 1871 tatsächlich fünf Milliarden Silbermark Reparation zahlen. Frankreich musste sich zudem von Elsass-Lothringen trennen. Die deutschen Geschichtsbücher lehren indes heute wieder, dass die Franzosen die Reparationen bereits nach drei Jahren zurückgezahlt und sich schnell erholt hätten. Frankreich war allerdings wichtiger wirtschaftlicher Potenzen beraubt. Die Erzvorkommen in Elsass-Lothringen standen mit einem Schlag nicht mehr zur Verfügung. Der Ökonom John Maynard Keynes stellte fest, dass Frankreich in der Bevölkerungsentwicklung und in der Wirtschaftskraft seitdem immer weiter hinter Deutschland zurückgefallen sei, was den unstillbaren Rachedurst vergreister französischer Generäle in Versailles erregt habe. Bismarck ist nach dieser Eisen und Blut-Kur für annähernd zwanzig Jahre der unumstrittene Herr der deutschen Politik, und Kaiser Wilhelm I. sein ergebenes Sprachrohr. Als Kaiser Wilhelm I. 1888 im Alter von 91 Jahren stirbt, folgt ihm für 99 Tage sein Sohn Kaiser Friedrich III., der jedoch an einem Krebsleiden verstirbt. So ist der mittlerweile dreiundsiebzigjährige Bismarck einem dramatischen Generationenwechsel ausgesetzt. Denn sein neuer Vorgesetzter Kaiser Wilhelm II. ist gerade mal 26 Jahre alt. Zunächst glaubt Bismarck, er könne mit dem Neuling auf der politischen Bühne gerade so umspringen wie mit dessen Großvater. Doch der junge Kaiser hat seine ganz eigenen politischen und sozialen Pläne für die Zukunft. Die lassen sich nicht so schnell aus der Welt schaffen, wie Bismarck mit Schaudern feststellt. So bringt das Jahr 1889 eine Welle von Arbeitskämpfen von bislang ungekannter Intensität. Betroffen ist besonders der Bergbau im Ruhrgebiet, im Saarland und in Oberschlesien. Wilhelm II., der ab 1877 an der Universität Bonn Rechts- und Staatswissenschaften studiert hatte, erkennt, dass die Bedeutung der Arbeiterschaft unweigerlich immer weiter anwachsen wird. Der Kaiser eilt am 12. Mai unangemeldet in den Ministerrat. Also in die Regierung des Reichs. Was Wilhelm dem Kabinett zu sagen hat, fasst Bismarck in seinem Buch „Gedanken und Erinnerungen“ wie folgt zusammen: „Die Unternehmer und Aktionäre müßten nachgeben, die Arbeiter seien seine Untertanen, für die er zu sorgen habe; wollten die industriellen Millionäre ihm nicht zu willen sein, so würde er seine Truppen zurückziehen; wenn dann die Villen der reichsten Besitzer und Direktoren in Brand gesteckt, ihre Gärten zertreten würden, so würden sie schon klein werden.“ Tatsache ist, dass Wilhelm II. am 14. Mai eine Delegation der streikenden Kumpels in seinem Palais empfängt. Hierbei polemisiert Wilhelm gegen die Sozialdemokratie: „für mich ist jeder Sozialdemokrat gleichbedeutend mit einem Reichs- und Vaterlandsfeind.“ Am nächsten Tag empfängt er eine Abordnung der Grubenherren. Wilhelm moderiert Verhandlungen zwischen Arbeitern und Unternehmern, aus denen am gleichen Tage das Berliner Protokoll, eine Kompromissvereinbarung, hervorgeht. Und wie geht's weiter? Kaum sind die Grubenherren wieder zuhause, die Arbeit ist wieder aufgenommen, da widerrufen sie auch schon die Abmachungen. Doch die Politiker sind auf Seiten der Arbeiter, wie Friedrich Engels berichtet. Der Militärgouverneur des Bezirks, Emil von Albedyll macht den Grubenherren klar, dass das nun gar nicht geht. Der Düsseldorfer Regierungspräsident Hans Hermann von Berlepsch redet den Unternehmern ins Gewissen. Innenminister Ernst Ludwig Herrfurth reist extra aus Berlin an und versucht die Grubenbarone zur Vernunft zu bringen. Bismarck dazu: „und alles wurde versucht, um die Zechenbesitzer zu bewegen, Konzessionen zu machen. Der Kaiser selbst riet ihnen, ihre Taschen zu öffnen.“ Bismarck will nicht begreifen, dass er isoliert ist. Eine völlig neue, ungewohnte Erfahrung. Er wähnt sich von Intriganten und Verschwörern umzingelt. Bismarck will Wilhelm in den Schwitzkasten nehmen, indem er ihn zu überreden versucht, die 1890 auslaufenden Sozialistengesetze in radikal verschärfter Form neu aufzulegen. Eine bislang ungekannte Aufrüstung soll zudem die nationale Anspannung verschärfen. Wenn Wilhelm da mitzieht, ist er von seinen Leuten isoliert und vollständig Bismarck ausgeliefert. Doch der Machtpolitiker im fortgeschrittenen Rentenalter hat sich verrechnet. Wilhelm durchschaut, dass der alte Intrigant nichts mehr in der Hand hat.(...) Weiterlesen und alle Quellen: KenFM jetzt auch als kostenlose App für Android- und iOS-Geräte verfügbar! Über unsere Homepage kommt Ihr zu den Stores von Apple und Google. Hier der Link: https://kenfm.de/kenfm-app/ Abonniere jetzt den KenFM-Newsletter: https://kenfm.de/newsletter/ Jetzt kannst Du uns auch mit Bitcoins unterstützen. Bitcoin-Account: https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/1edba334-ba63-4a88-bfc3-d6a3071efcc8 Dir gefällt unser Programm? Informationen zu weiteren Unterstützungsmöglichkeiten findest Du hier: https://kenfm.de/support/kenfm-unterstuetzen/ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Katja Hojer joins us to talk all about the lead up to unification and the contents of her spectacular new book. With a diversion on Wilhelm II!
If anything, my life view of things is that of a pragmatist. Many, many years ago I read about Otto von Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor of the newly formed Empire of Germany. He was dedicated to the idea of the “realpolitik,” that is to say that his politics were based not on moral or ideological considerations, but rather on the practical realities of 19th Century Europe. That is not definitely not to say that he was a man without principles or ideology, but he also understood the concept that some things are beyond the ability to accomplish given the realities of human and national interactions. For all of that, he ALWAYS placed Imperial Germany’s interests above his own. In many cases, that brought him into direct conflict with the new Kaiser, Wilhelm II, who had no such understanding of careful realpolitik. In many ways, the world struggles today are a result of Kaiser Wilhelm’s impudence. History teaches us many, many things. Despite that, what it has so often failed to do is to change the outlook of people who believe that they have been wronged. Regardless of the validity of their complaints, there is a special ability of humans to grasp and hold on to the desire for revenge. People will go to incredible lengths to justify that desire. But in the end, how often does it actually succeed, outside of Hollywood? What it does far more often, and with much more lasting and tragic results, is to destroy ones own home.
Wir sprechen über die Legenden- und Mythenbildung rund um den letzten deutschen Kaiser und wagen eine unorthodoxe Interpretation der verschiedenen Etappen seiner Regentschaft. Zudem gehen wir auf die metapolitische Relevanz der Figur Wilhem II. und den fortwährenden Machtverlust der preußischen Protestanten mit dem Ende des Kaiserreichs ein. Internetressourcen https://www.wilhelm-der-zweite.de/ https://www.anbruch-magazin.de/koenigstod-1918-und-das-ende-der-monarchie-in-deutschland/ https://counter-currents.com/2020/07/everyone-hates-woodrow-wilson/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDAO0Dds9JQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX9A8t2jQEg http://hohenzollern.lol/ Literatur Wilhelm II.: Die Herrschaft des letzten deutschen Kaisers -Christopher Clark Königstod. 1918 und das Ende der Monarchie in Deutschland -Benjamin Hasselhorn Wilhelm II.-Sündenbock und Herr der Mitte -Nicolaus SombartDer falsche Krieg -Niall Ferguson Preußen ohne Legende-Sebastian Haffner Preußen. Aufstieg und Niedergang. 1600 – 1947 -Christopher Clarke
The group explores the later half of Otto von Bismarck's life and how he could've solved all of the world's problems if Wilhelm II would have let him. Contact: HistoricHole@gmail.com On Instagram & Twitter @HistoricHole Disclaimer: History is not safe for work and neither is Historic Hole. This podcast is uncensored and contains explicit language.
Vi avslutar vårt dubbelavsnitt om Tyska Sydvästafrika. I detta avsnitt ska den tyska armén under Lothar von Trotha sopa ut skärvorna efter slaget vid Waterberg. Följderna blir katastrofala. Dessutom börjar politiker på hemmafronten ifrågasätta kriget. Det hela kommer slutligen landa vid kejsar Wilhelm II:s bord... följderna blir katastrofala.Slutligen diskuterar vi hur händelserna retroaktivt passar in i folkmordskonventionen. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Nationalism displaces patriotism's love for rights and reason, repudiating the victory of civic virtue over the base instincts of tribe and faction.Welcome to the third episode of the Self-Evident, a podcast about first principles, hosted on Substack along with the Self-Evident Newsletter.Self-Evident is currently available on Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify.You can also subscribe and get future episodes as well as the newsletter in your inbox:Episode TranscriptHello folks, welcome to the third episode of the Self-Evident podcast. There's been quite a break since my last episode...I've had a lot going on in my life. I left my job as a Deputy Sheriff during the summer and began my studies at Utah Valley University and I've had a lot on my plate. For those who don't know, I've put my website, The Liberty Hawk, on hiatus as I focus my efforts on my studies. You'll still be able to find my writing in my weekly newsletter, now renamed the Self-Evident newsletter, and I'll also have articles from time to time on NOQ Report, Medium, and at the Federalist Coalition. With more free time, I hope to start having a new podcast episode out every other week. We'll see how it goes. Today, I'm going to talk about nationalism. This is something that has a lot to do with our current political moment, both here in America and broadly in the world. Among conservative scholars and intellectuals, there's been a lot of discussion about whether nationalism is a good thing or a bad thing and whether patriotism is or isn't a form of nationalism, or, as some claim, if nationalism is patriotism. What is Nationalism? The subject of nationalism is quite complicated and it touches on philosophy, sociology, culture, and political ideology. It can be described generally as a process, a movement, and even as related to a subconscious human tendency. But I think the term's been made to carry too much weight. It's in desperate need of trimming so that the useful parts can find their place fitfully under the umbrella of other more suiting terms, and the damaging portions can be properly disposed of. Merriam-Webster's simple definition of nationalism is “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” It's more detailed definition explains it as “a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interest as opposed to those of other nations.” The online Encyclopedia Britannica adds that nationalism has a “premise that the individual's loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.” The Wikipedia entry for nationalism adds a few more positive aspects by pointing out that nationalism has the “aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance)” and it “holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for polity, and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).” From these general definitions, we have the chief elements that make up the current use of the term nationalism. These can include nationism, tribalism, and patriotism. My argument is that the rise of nations, or nationism, and a national sense of civic virtue, patriotism, should be considered distinctly from the tribalistic tendencies of aggressive nationalism. The Rise of Nations The modern idea of a nation is unique because it denotes a far more contiguous connection between government, culture, language, and religion than the traditional notion of the state. Pre-modern ideas of the state were defined by ideas of realms and fealty to a sovereign authority. For most of human history, political boundaries chiefly followed geographical features, natural lines of defense, or simply the reach of a sovereign entity's authority. It wasn't until the enlightenment and the subsequent revolutionary periods in the 18th and 19th centuries that true nations began to form with borders that marked cultural and ethnically homogeneous regions. The rise of nations, long considered the process of nationalism, is better termed nationism because it was simply something that occurred as a natural response to events. There are no set ideological features linked to the rise of nations and the form of government adopted by these nations was dependent on many other and separate factors. Using the term nationalism for this process when nationalism is also used to denote distinct political movements and ideas creates a false notion that there is a natural flow from the inevitable rise of nation-states to the notions of political and ideological nationalism. As we can see in the distinct histories of modern nations, there is no such connection. Nationism involves the idea of sovereign peoples, self-determination by those sovereign peoples, and the nation-state as the legitimate source of political power. We can, and should, regard this as wholly separate from the other traditional aspects of nationalism and we should treat it as a distinct idea. Nationalism's Step Backward While nations were a new turn of events in the 18th Century, the process that led to their creation was basic to the human condition. The primary result of the enlightenment era and the American and French revolutions was a shocking and sudden tearing down of the institutions of monarchy and the idea of the divine right of kings. While the salutary neglect of the British Crown had conditioned Americans for self-governance, the people of Europe at that time had little to no enduring tradition of governing authority beyond the crown. As wars and revolutions tore down kingships and empires over the next two centuries, nations rose from their ashes, not necessarily in a grand step forward in human progress, but as a regressive move reflecting the primal urges of tribalism. In other words, the early thrust of nationalism in Europe had nothing to do with the liberalizing ideas of self-governance, self-determination, or popular sovereignty. Instead, it was a reactionary effort to place the old mantle of absolute power and the divine right of kings upon the geopolitical realities that had endured beyond the monarchs: language, culture, and religion. France rose up against the Ancien Régime, but neither Robespierre's Reign of Terror nor Napoleon's French Empire looks like liberal governance. The German nationalism that arose with the abdication of Wilhelm II not only toppled the Weimar Republic but culminated in the conquests and crimes of Nazism. Russian nationalism appropriated Marxism as a vessel for internal purges, regional hegemony, and ideological imperialism. If nationism is the process that led to the rise of nations, then it is abundantly clear that the process leads to highly varied ends based upon geopolitical realities. The rise and subsequent history of the American nation bears little to no likeness with early European nations. Nations in Europe took steps backward as they indulged in ancient notions of tribalism to justify a renewal of autocratic rule and central authority. The American Republic tempered and offset the negative tendencies of human nature by championing universal ideals. This is what makes America distinct. An Exceptional NationIn America, there was no real sense of an American identity among the colonists until the shots rang out at Lexington and Concorde. Even with war at their doorstep, the 2nd Continental Congress had no initial desire to break away from Great Britain. Much of the colonial rhetoric leading up to the American Revolution was predicated upon their perceived rights as Englishmen. Any identity that existed beyond that lay in the markedly distinct cultures, prominent religions, and ethnic backgrounds of each colony. Even in declaring their independence, the document penned by Thomas Jefferson spoke in a manner unique for the creation of a new nation. He wrote of respecting the opinions of mankind. He asserted a self-evident truth that all men have unalienable rights. He said governments are instituted based on principles. He spoke of the colonist's identity as a free people. He even mentioned the failure of the common kindred between the American Colonies and their British brethren to overcome their difference in principles. The United States waged war against the British more as an alliance of sovereign states than as a unified nation. George Washington and his Continental Army were the only true unifying institution during the war. The Continental Congress was infamous for its ineptness. The delegates relied largely on their state governments for support and guidance. State militias often only mustered when British forces entered their own states and remained mostly free from Washington's direct control. Even after victory against the British, the unifying ordeal failed to excite centralizing passions. The Articles of Confederation basically maintained the alliance of sovereign states. With no enemy to force mutual efforts, the young nation frankly operated as thirteen independent nations. Only when faced with the gross failure to govern did the states agree to convene delegates and reform the Articles of Confederation. Only in closed debate did the delegates dare to proceed beyond their mandate and craft a document that would create an entirely new form of government. And ratification of the Constitution was no easy thing. A vigorous debate ensued. For a time, ratification was far from a sure thing. Only by nature of arguments upon principles, republican ideals, and civic virtue were the states convinced to surrender their autonomy and unite under the US Constitution. Clearly, there is something unique, distinct, and exceptional about the founding of the American nation. Its history stands apart from the creation of other early-modern nations. So distinct and so exceptional that we need not muddy the idea of American Patriotism by connecting it with European Nationalism. Patriotism, Nationalism's AntithesisSo what is American Patriotism? Many scholars consider it to be the American form of civic nationalism. These scholars define civic nationalism as a specific type of nationalism that involves both a national identity as well as certain ideals and values which transcend and inform that identity. A typical slicing of nationalism calls civic nationalism or patriotism “good nationalism” while calling ethnic nationalism “bad nationalism.” Others posit that patriotism is, in fact, distinct from nationalism but suggest a small, healthy dose of nationalism informs it. My stance is that patriotism, and especially American Patriotism, is a wholly separate idea from nationalism. I am not alone in this notion. George Orwell said: “By ‘patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force upon other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation…in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.” William Buckley said: “I'm as patriotic as anyone from sea to shining sea, but there's not a molecule of nationalism in me.” Charles de Gaulle said: “Patriotism is when love for your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” And Sydney J. Harris said: “The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance.” Now, obviously, I'll have to unpack this idea that patriotism is entirely different from nationalism. As I mentioned earlier, nationalism has been used as far too broad of a descriptive term. This has led to the envelopment of wholly disconnected ideas under a single word. Earlier, I laid out the various well-known definitions for nationalism and we broke down its chief elements. But my claim is that there is a clear line of demarcation between nationalism and patriotism. We can place all the positive aspects of “good nationalism” under the umbrella of patriotism's definition. We do not need to allow patriotism to share ideological space with the negative aspects of “bad nationalism.” If we can define nationalism as a modern expression of tribalism, if we can regard nationism as a process often followed by nationalism but not inevitably leading to it, and if we can see patriotism as pure civic virtue, then it becomes easy to deduce where the break between nationalism and patriotism is. Civic virtue holds principles and ideals as the highest interest. A healthy sense of civic virtue includes ideas such as the sovereignty of the mind, individual liberty and autonomy, human rights, civil decency, self-governance, self-determination, and popular sovereignty. A patriot readily stands against his own nation if it becomes hostile towards these things. Nationalism reduces principles and ideals to cursory concerns. The ideas held sacred by civic virtue are only of value to a nationalist so long as they serve the nation's collective sense of narrow self-interest first. Nationalism invites heavy feelings of national supremacy and arrogance. It tends towards collectivist notions of citizenship as surpassing and subserviating individual identity. The individual, under a nationalist regime, either must define their identity as the nation's identity or become an enemy of the state. A patriot and a nationalist are wholly different forms of citizenship. A patriot is a free individual guided by civic virtue who holds to principles and values that transcend the state. A nationalist is a subsumed individual who is guided by nothing and beholden to nothing but the state. A patriot is an individualist. A nationalist is a statist. Note that these are not mere abstract musings. These are reflections on history. Every truly nationalist state has followed the patterns we're discussing. As we consider this, how can we rationally conclude that patriotism is “good nationalism”? Can a passing likeness in some aspects of patriotism and nationalism surmount their fundamental opposition to each other? At its heart, patriotism represents a victory of rights and reason over the human drive for tribe and faction. If that's the case, how can patriotism be a sub-category of nationalism, which places tribe and faction above all else? Patriotism, as we have discussed it here, seems better defined as nationalism's antithesis, not a branch of its doctrines. Can Nationalism Be Bridled?Today, many political figures, even some that I admire, have sought to temper the right's nationalist trend by lessening the danger nationalism seems to pose. Figures such as Rich Lowry and even Mike Lee have tried to indulge the budding nationalist movement in hopes of guiding them towards “good nationalism,” which they define as patriotism. Have these efforts gained them any headway? Does the nationalism embraced by so many Republicans under Donald Trump's sway look like the civic virtue of patriotism? Let's take everything I've said so far and have an honest appraisal of the current conservative movement. Consider the following questions: Are principles and ideals held as the highest end, or as impediments to victory? Is individuality held in higher regard, or conformity? Is civil decency more valued, or abject rudeness? Do individuals find their identity in themselves, or their leaders? Is our nation conducting itself internationally based upon consistent values, or pure self-interest? Is the movement based on universal ideals, or a sense of supremacy (liberty for me but not for thee)? Are political opponents treated as fellow citizens with differing opinions, or are they considered “the enemy”? Are stances consistent as individuals stick to their own reasonings, or do positions change and evolve to the marching orders of leadership? Are self-governance and the election process respected in all cases, or are the results questioned and delegitimized when unfavorable? Is the sovereignty of the mind respected, or are those with contrarian views shamed into silence? If you answered these questions honestly, I'm sure your conclusions force you to agree with my own: that the conduct of the conservative movement and the Republican Party in the last four years is far from what we can call patriotism. This is why I see such great danger in letting patriotism and nationalism occupy the same philosophical space. Nationalism is akin to patriotism just enough that it corrupts patriotic feelings and subverts them towards a wholly deranged sense of national pride. A true nationalist will eventually abandon all pretenses of civic virtue, the core of what true patriotism is. Conclusion We should dismiss nationalism to its proper place in the annals of human history. It was a regressive episode that coincided with the rise of nations as new pretexts for absolute power, and centralized authority, were sought. It was wholly distinct from the rise of the American nation. America was built upon the ideas of the social contract and the universal values of freedom and liberty, with limited powers and decentralized government. Sure, we can regard patriotism as a form of civic nationalism, but this should be little more than a philosophical footnote. Patriotism is far too disconnected from the realities of true nationalism to be a sub-category of it. The simple facts are that real patriotism offends the nationalist, and the nationalist always comes to see a patriot as his enemy. So long as well-meaning intellectuals and political leaders give nationalism a safe space to thrive, in the vain hope they can lead it towards a better version of itself, patriotism will increasingly come under assault and cease to be a guiding star of our republic. The rise of nationalism on the modern American right bears no kinship with America's patriotic tradition. In so many ways, it is cynicism and nihilism inuring them towards forsaking the principles, ideals, and virtues that comprise what American Patriotism is. There is no softening of this nationalist phenomenon. There is no directing it or guiding it towards a better version of itself. A citizen is either a patriot or a nationalist and cannot truly be both. If the goal is a resurgence of patriotism and a return to the founding vision, if the goal is to place liberty as the highest end of government, and if the goal is to reassert universal ideals and champion the ideas of self-governance, self-determination, and popular sovereignty then nationalism must be excised, not exhumed. Well, thanks for listening folks. This episode was quite a bit longer than my previous ones, and I hoped you enjoyed something that was a bit more of a philosophical deep dive. If you liked what you heard today, be sure to subscribe and offer a review of the podcast. I encourage you to also check out my writing and subscribe to the Self-Evident newsletter and to follow me on Facebook, Twitter, or Parler. Until next time, stay free my friends. Get full access to Self-Evident at selfevident.substack.com/subscribe
Mata Hari was an exotic dancer, considered to be a man-eating double agent during WWI for years. Crack open the cheapest beer you can find, and join us as we separate cover-up from myth from legend from truth.
Viele kennen sie unter der Abkürzung WWU – ihr vollständiger Name ist: Westfälische Wilhelms Universität Münster. 1907 hat die Uni diesen Namen bekommen, benannt nach dem damaligen deutschen Kaiser, Wilhelm II. Und an diesem Namensgeber stören sich viele Fachleute, weil der letzte deutsche Kaiser unter anderem nationalistisch und antisemitisch eingestellt war. Deshalb will die Uni Münster jetzt ein aufwändiges Aufklärungsprogramm starten.
Als Wilhelm Friedrich von Preußen, Enkel von Wilhelm II., am 26. Mai 1940 an der Front in Frankreich starb, passte das Adolf Hitler nicht ins Konzept. Er fürchtete das "Gegencharisma" des alten Adels.
Am 26. Mai 1940 stirbt Wilhelm Friedrich von Preußen. Dass 50.000 Menschen bei der Trauerfeier für den Enkel von Wilhelm II. die Straßen säumten, gefiel Hitler gar nicht.
Das passte Adolf Hitler gar nichts ins Konzept. Ein toter Hohenzollernprinz, gefallen an der Front in Frankreich. 50.000 Menschen säumten während der Trauerfeier die Straßen in Potsdam, die größte unorganisierte Massenansammlung im Dritten Reich. Hitler erließ daraufhin den Prinzenerlass, der allen Mitgliedern ehemaliger deutscher Herrschaftshäuser den Heeres- und Fronteinsatz untersagte. Autor: Jörg Beuthner
Im Mittelpunkt dieses Romans steht Hugo von Tschudi, der sich früh für die Maler der Moderne wie Monet oder Renoir einsetzte. Unser Kritiker Holger Heimann war berührt, hätte sich aber ein beherztes Lektorat gewünscht.
Det går en forbindelseslinje mellom Store Råholmen i skjærgården utenfor Fredrikstad og Berlin. Adolf Hitler og Albert Speer planla å gjøre Berlin om til Germania. Et vanvittig prosjekt. Eneste synlige spor etter planene er et gigantisk måleinstrument «Schwerbelastungskörper» som står ikke så langt fra den gamle flyplassen Tempelhof. Rett etter forrige århundreskifte dannet norske studenter Norsk roklubb i Berlin. Den lever i beste velgående med eget flott klubbhus. Da krigen brøt ut ble det vanskelig å drive klubben. Bedre ble det ikke etter krigen da klubbhuset i Köpenick brått lå i DDR. Kongsnæs matrosstasjon i Potsdam utenfor Berlin er Die Norwegische Visitenkarte (det norske visittkortet) i Potsdam. Det var norgesvennen over alle norgesvenner, keiser Wilhelm II som anla matrosstasjonen. Keiseren hadde sett både Frognerseteren og Hasselbakken restaurant på St. Hanshaugen i Oslo. Det var arkitektur han likte. Og slik ville også han ha og engasjerte arkitekten Holm Hansen Munthe til å tegne for sitt prosjekt i Potsdam.
On the 31st March 1905, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany landed in the Moroccan city of Tangier and expressed his support for the Sultan’s independence from foreign ...
In 1890, Buffalo Bill's Wild West show toured Europe and during a performance in Berlin, American exhibitionist sharpshooter Annie Oakley shot the ashes off the cigar held in the mouth of a volunteer from the audience--Kaiser Friedrich Willhelm II.What if Oakley had missed and accidentally killed the young German ruler? How might the late 19th and early 20th century have taken a different turn?Listener Chris Coppola joins the episode to discuss this topic that he suggested.About ChrisUseful Web Links:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Oakleyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperorhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance_Treatyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarckhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_WarWebsite: www.aforkintimepodcast.comE-Mail: aforkintimepodcast@gmail.comDirect Link to Listener Survey: https://www.aforkintimepodcast.com/listenersurveyIf you enjoy the podcast, you can help by supporting us via Patreon.https://www.patreon.com/aforkintimeYou can follow A Fork In Time on….Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aforkintimeTwitter: @AFITPodcastPinterest: www.pinterest.com/aforkintimeTheme Music: Conquer by Shane Ivers - https://www.silvermansound.comSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/aforkintime)Buzzsprout - Let's get your podcast launched! Start for FREEDisclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.
Nach seiner Abdankung als Kaiser floh Wilhelm II. nach Holland, wo ihm die Königin der Niederlande Wilhelmina Exil gewährte. Wiederholt forderten die Entente-Mächte eine Auslieferung im Rahmen der Verfolgung von Kriegsverbrechern. Die Regierung der Niederlande, die “Regierung Ihrer Majestät”, verweigerte diese jedoch beharrlich. Der Artikel des Berliner Tageblatts vom 5. März zitiert weite Teile der offiziellen Antwortnote auf ein weiteres Auslieferungsgesuch der Entente. Gelesen von Frank Riede.
Wilhelm II or William II (German: Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert; 27 January 1859 – 4 June 1941) was the last German Emperor (Kaiser) and King of Prussia. He reigned from 15 June 1888 until his abdication on 9 November 1918 shortly before Germany's defeat in World War I. The eldest grandchild of Queen Victoria, Wilhelm's first cousins included King George V of the United Kingdom and many princesses who, along with Wilhelm's sister Sophia, became European consorts. For most of his life before becoming emperor, he was second in line to succeed his grandfather Wilhelm I on the German and Prussian thrones after his father, Crown Prince Frederick. His grandfather and father both died in 1888, the Year of Three Emperors, making Wilhelm emperor and king. He dismissed the country's longtime chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, in 1890. Upon consolidating power as emperor, Wilhelm launched Germany on a bellicose "New Course" to cement its status as a respected world power. However, he frequently undermined this aim by making tactless, alarming public statements without consulting his ministers. He also did much to alienate his country from the other Great Powers by initiating a massive build-up of the German Navy, challenging French control over Morocco, and backing the Austrian annexation of Bosnia in 1908. His turbulent reign ultimately culminated in his guarantee of military support to Austria-Hungary during the crisis of July 1914, resulting in the outbreak of World War I. A lax wartime leader, he left virtually all decision-making regarding military strategy and organisation of the war effort in the hands of the German General Staff. This broad delegation of authority gave rise to a de facto military dictatorship whose belligerent foreign policy led to the United States' entry into the war on 6 April 1917. After losing the support of the German military and his subjects in November 1918, Wilhelm abdicated and fled to exile in the Netherlands, where he died in 1941. Wilhelm was born on 27 January 1859 at the Crown Prince's Palace, Berlin, to Victoria, Princess Royal, the wife of Prince Frederick William of Prussia (the future Frederick III). His mother was the eldest daughter of Britain's Queen Victoria. At the time of his birth, his great-uncle Frederick William IV was king of Prussia, and his grandfather and namesake Wilhelm was acting as regent. He was the first grandchild of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert and one of the two grandchildren born in Albert's lifetime, but more importantly, the first son of the crown prince of Prussia. From 1861, Wilhelm was second in the line of succession to Prussia, and also, after 1871, to the newly created German Empire, which, according to the constitution of the German Empire, was ruled by the Prussian king. At the time of his birth, he was also sixth in the line of succession to the British throne, after his maternal uncles and his mother. A traumatic breech birth resulted in Erb's palsy, which left him with a withered left arm about six inches (15 centimetres) shorter than his right. He tried with some success to conceal this; many photographs show him holding a pair of white gloves in his left hand to make the arm seem longer. In others, he holds his left hand with his right, has his crippled arm on the hilt of a sword, or holds a cane to give the illusion of a useful limb posed at a dignified angle. Historians have suggested that this disability affected his emotional development. In 1863, Wilhelm was taken to England to be present at the wedding of his Uncle Bertie (later King Edward VII), and Princess Alexandra of Denmark. Wilhelm attended the ceremony in a Highland costume, complete with a small toy dirk. During the ceremony, the four-year-old became restless. His eighteen-year-old uncle Prince Alfred, charged with keeping an eye on him, told him to be quiet, but Wilhelm drew his dirk and threatened Alfred. When Alfred attempted to subdue him by force, Wilhelm bit him on the leg. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thehistoryexpress/support
Stuttgart, 1879: Naturforscher Gustav Jäger bringt Kleidung aus reiner Wolle auf den Markt. König Wilhelm II. trägt sie, Oscar Wilde ebenfalls. Jägers "Dufttheorie" weist auffallende Parallelen zum Roman "Das Parfum" auf. Von Pia Fruth
Der Erste Weltkrieg fand von 1914 bis 1918 statt. 17 Millionen Menschen starben in diesem Krieg. Wer kämpfte gegen wen? Es kämpften Deutschland, Österreich und weitere Staaten gegen Russland, Frankreich und Großbritannien. Wie kam es zum Krieg? Darüber sind sich die Wissenschaftler bis heute nicht einig. Machen wir also eine Reise in die damalige Zeit. Es gibt wenige kleine Länder, sondern vor allem einige große Länder wie Frankreich und Großbritannien oder das Deutsche Reich. Diese Länder misstrauen sich. Jedes Land möchte noch mehr Macht haben. Es gibt kein friedliches Europa, sondern Einzelstaaten, die große Armeen haben und bewaffnet sind. Manche Staaten schließen sich zusammen. Sie sagen: Wenn das eine Land angegriffen wird, dann helfen wir und halten zusammen. Sie sind Verbündete. Frankreich und Großbritannien haben sich schon 1904 zusammengeschlossen. Auch Russland kam später dazu. Titelblatt Sonntagsbeilage des Corriere della Sera vom 5. Juli 1914 - Attentat von Sarajevo Am 28. Juni 1914 wurde dann ein österreichischer Prinz in Sarajevo erschossen. Es war der österreichische Thronfolger Franz Ferdinand. Sarajevo war eine Stadt in Österreich-Ungarn - heute ist es die Hauptstadt von Bosnien und Herzegowina. Getötet wurde der Prinz von einem serbischen Studenten. Hatte ihm sogar die serbische Regierung geholfen? Die Menschen waren wütend. Serbien begann, die Sache zu untersuchen - Österreich-Ungarn wollte eigene Polizisten nach Serbien schicken. Österreich-Ungarn erklärte Serbien den Krieg. Hinter Österreich-Ungarn stand Deutschland. Hinter Serbien stand Russland. Deutschland erklärte am 1. August 1914 Russland den Krieg. Viele Länder kamen nach und nach dazu, sogar die heutige Türkei und die USA. Die geografische Lage von Deutschland war schlecht: An der Ostfront kämpften die Deutschen gegen Russland, an der Westfront gegen Frankreich und Großbritannien. 70 Millionen Soldaten kämpften in diesem Krieg. 10 Millionen von ihnen starben. Letztlich verloren Deutschland, Österreich und Ungarn. Am 11. November 1918 wurde der Waffenstillstand beschlossen. Es wurden Friedensverträge unterzeichnet. In diesen Verträgen stand auch, dass die Verlierer viel Geld zahlen mussten und Land an die Gewinner abgeben mussten. Nach dem verlorenen Krieg dankte Wilhelm II. ab - er war der letzte deutsche Kaiser. Es folgte die Weimarer Republik. Vom Zweiten Weltkrieg haben wir viele Bilder gesehen. Wir können uns ungefähr vorstellen, wie die Soldaten damals aussahen und wie sie kämpften. Der Erste Weltkrieg ist aber natürlich viel länger her. Wie sah dieser Krieg aus? Gekämpft wurde vor allem an Land und auf dem Meer. Kriegsschiffe kämpften gegeneinander, die ersten U-Boote waren im Einsatz. An Land wurde mit Maschinengewehren gekämpft. Um sich vor den Kugeln in Sicherheit zu bringen, wurden Schützengräben gegraben. Das waren tiefe Gräben, in denen sich die Soldaten verstecken konnten. Auch Giftgas und Panzer gab es damals schon. Hier ein kleines Video, das alles zusammenfasst: Text der Episode als PDF: https://slowgerman.com/folgen/sg190kurz.pdf
Eine Legende schon zu Lebzeiten – Friedrich der Große. Schwer hatte es dadurch sein Neffe und Nachfolger, noch dazu, weil der Onkel ihn offen verachtete. Friedrich Wilhelm II. galt lange als dümmlich und faul. Zeitgenossen und Historiker übernahmen das Urteil. Autorin: Almut Finck
Diese Folge begeben wir uns auf eine kleine Zeitreise der Orthografie vom späten 19. Jahrhundert bis in die heutige Zeit. Ich decke den großen Duden-Raub auf und ihr erfahrt, was Wilhelm II. mit Rechtschreibung zu schaffen hatte, wie der Nationalsozialismus seine Spuren in unserer Sprache hinterließ und warum es zwei unterschiedliche Duden-Rechtschreibungen gab...
Sie war eine Fürstin, persönlich bekannt mit Wilhelm II. und befreundet mit Karl Kraus, vor allem aber: eine Schriftstellerin von Rang und eine geistreiche Chronistin der Zeitläufte.
Deutsches Kaiserreich 1871 ist dein Thema für die nächste Klausur und du hast keine Ahnung was du alles wissen musst? Ich sag es DIR! Du bist hier genau richtig, denn du musst einfach nur diesen Podcast hören und du weißt alles was du wissen musst. Von der Innenpolitik Bismarcks, welche immer Nationalistischer wird sowie der Kampf gegen die Kirche, bis zur Außenpolitik Bismarcks mit den Stichwörtern: Bündnissystem und Wilhelm II ist alles dabei. Wichtige Einzelheiten wie das Dreierbündnis sowie das Scheitern der Taktik Bismarcks dürfen nicht fehlen und sind auch im Podcast genauer erklärt. Hör es dir so oft an wie du willst, wo du willst und wann du willst! Abonniere den Podcast um nichts zu verpassen und Teile ihn gerne mit deinen Mitschülern Verwandten oder deiner OMA :) Viel Spaß beim HÖREN und LERNEN! Instagram: adg.offiziell Modelinie: adg.clothing
Saates tuleb juttu Brest-Litovski rahulepingust, Saksamaa ja Nõukogude Venemaa suhetest ning Wilhelm II elu viimastest aastatest.
Saates tuleb juttu Brest-Litovski rahulepingust, Saksamaa ja Nõukogude Venemaa suhetest ning Wilhelm II elu viimastest aastatest.
Saates tuleb juttu Brest-Litovski rahulepingust, Saksamaa ja Nõukogude Venemaa suhetest ning Wilhelm II elu viimastest aastatest.
Saates tuleb juttu Brest-Litovski rahulepingust, Saksamaa ja Nõukogude Venemaa suhetest ning Wilhelm II elu viimastest aastatest.
Räägime tsaar Nikolai II ja Preisimaa kuninga Wilhelm II omavahelisest suhetest ja kirjavahetusest.
Räägime tsaar Nikolai II ja Preisimaa kuninga Wilhelm II omavahelisest suhetest ja kirjavahetusest.
Räägime tsaar Nikolai II ja Preisimaa kuninga Wilhelm II omavahelisest suhetest ja kirjavahetusest.
Räägime tsaar Nikolai II ja Preisimaa kuninga Wilhelm II omavahelisest suhetest ja kirjavahetusest.
König Wilhelm II. von Württemberg galt als Demokrat auf dem Thron, der sich u.a. für sozialistische Ideen begeisterte. 1918 zwangen ihn Revolutionäre zur Abdankung. Von Pia Fruth (Produktion 2009)
In this episode of Half-Arsed History, explore the absolute lunacy of the last emperor of Germany, Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Al sinds de vroege ochtend is het Nederlandse grensdorpje Eijsden in de ban van de aankomst van de afgezette Duitse keizer. Wilhelm II staat die middag op het stationsperron te wachten op de Nederlandse vertegenwoordigers uit Den Haag. De spanning zit er goed in: wat als zijn asielaanvraag geweigerd wordt? Hij rookt de ene na de andere sigaret en ijsbeert over het perron. Ondertussen komen steeds meer mensen naar het station om te kijken wat er gaande was.
28 czerwca 1838 Wiktorii została koronowana jako królowa Wielkiej Brytanii. Osiem dni wcześniej zmarł król Wilhelm IV, tak więc w zasadzie Wiktoria była królową już 20 czerwca. Jednak uroczystość koronacyjna przypadła na 28 czerwca 1838. W 1876 do tytułu królowej Wielkiej Brytanii doszedł jej jeszcze tytuł Cesarzowej Indii. Okres jej panowania nazywany jest epoką wiktoriańską. Razem ze swoim mężem mieli czterech synów i pięć córek. Niektórzy nazywają ją matką lub babcią Europy. Wiele domów królewskich w Europie było spokrewnionych właśnie przez jej dzieci bądź wnuki. Np. jej najstarsza córka, także o imieniu Wiktoria została żoną Frederyka III i przez trzy miesiące była cesarzową Niemiec. Później zmarł jej mąż i cesarzem został jej syn Wilhelm II. Gdy wybuchła I wojna światowa niemieckie wojska Wilhelma II walczyły z angielskimi wojskami Jerzego V. Wilhelm II i Jerzy V byli kuzynami, wnukami Wiktorii królowej Wielkiej Brytanii.
Warum Tesa, Tesa heisst, klären Alex und Patrice am Klebebandtag auf. Alex findet dass Wilhelm II. ein ziemlicher Trottel war, während Patrice nicht glauben kann, dass Alex keinen Kallabums kann... wie, Ihr wisst nicht was ein Kallabums ist, dann aber nichts wie reingehört und die 22. Folge von P-Day!!!
This Lessons segment ran a little long in the tooth, so to avoid a gigantic episode, I decided to post it as an extra on the feed! Listen along as Lay Back gets the RETold treatment as Becca shares the strange and sad story of Wilhelm II!Link to Show Notes: https://otherbluegirl.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/lay-back-and-think-of-england-episode-6-show-notes/Link to Jane Austen Content Poll: https://otherbluegirl.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/lay-back-and-think-of-england-content-poll/Link to My GoFundMe Page: https://www.gofundme.com/obglaptopfundLink to All My Podcasting Projects: https://otherbluegirl.wordpress.com/podcast-links/ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
In the years before the First World War, the great European powers Britain, Germany and Russia were ruled by three cousins: George V; Wilhelm II; and Nicholas II. They presided over the last years of dynastic Europe and the outbreak of one of the deadliest conflicts in history. Miranda Carter, author of The Three Emperors, scrutinises the trio and their times. Supported by Heartland Bank AUCKLAND WRITERS FESTIVAL 2017
Learn To Keep People Dependent On You An uncomfortable Law that makes us consider just who we are important to – and how precarious that can be as we struggle to become the power behind the throne. This is about the need to become indispensable... or at least to appear to be, making it the complementary piece to Law 1: here we learn how to be and remain The Master, but also how to remain essential to a Master without coming to outshine them. Along the way we hear how Dre managed to keep ahead of the game by diversifying his skillset before he became replaceable, while Jon failed at every turn to seed doubt in the minds of others or to defeat any bureaucrats at all. We also drop in on the bizarre world of Russian cloakrooms, dog-eating squirrels, and take time to consider the artificial, fast-food way we try to feel power over our lives by using social media, rather than cultivating meaningful relationships. This Episode includes: How to make yourself indispensable, and the price you pay if you don't The awesome power of coat-check attendants in Russia Ally yourself with someone weak who you can help make strong; don't get lost in the crowd of the already-strong Find your niche, which will become your domain of power How modern, short-term thinking distracts you from the road to power: play the long (even the 'infinite') game if you want to succeed Does knowing other people's secrets make you powerful, or more vulnerable? How to drop hints to make people worry that you have power over them The master of psych-outs: Arnold Schwarzenegger Why power only exists in relation to other people Becoming the power behind the power behind the throne, and the web of dependence involved The bizarre cult of 'authenticity' Dre goes full Machiavelli and reveals his plans to predict all human behaviour Mentioned in the Episode: Our favourite Bismarck T-Shirt! The famous painting of the declaration of the formation of Germany, featuring Bismarck as the central figure 'Dropping the Pilot' – the cartoon satirising Wilhelm II's dismissal of Bismarck – a decision that would have disastrous consequences Dre's 'best film ever': Pumping Iron Some of Michael Schumacher's most controversial moments in the pursuit of victory Russia's terrifying killer squirrels The Russian dogs who know how to ride the Moscow Metro The book Jon mentioned: Finite and Infinite Games, by James Carse The picture of the Éminence grise Dre described Sir Thomas More – another ultimately dispensable figure in Henry VIII's court Chris Ryan's brilliant podcast, Tangentially Speaking, and his upcoming book, Civilized to Death Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy and the idea of Psychohistory Join us as we continue our exploration of Robert Greene’s provocative and compelling study of the 48 Laws of Power, in which he lays bare the history, practice, psychology, and philosophies of power that ultimately shape all human relations. Often seen as a handbook for the ‘modern Machiavelli’, we take a closer look, beyond the hyperbole, and discuss how understanding and implementing these Laws can actually enrich your life personally, professionally and spiritually. Jon and Dre aim to get to the heart of each of the Laws, grapple with their sometimes disturbingly amoral nature, and discuss what the Laws mean in everyday life (often revealing their own experiences – good and bad – when they’ve either observed or transgressed them). FULL NOTES: http://voicesinthedark.world/2016/08/15/learn-to-keep-pe…power-episode-11/
Kaiser Wilhelm II: Part One When the World War I ended, King George V of England wrote of his cousin Kaiser Wilhelm II: “…I look upon him as the greatest criminal known for having plunged the world into this ghastly war.” But who was Kaiser Wilhelm II? Was he criminal bent on world domination? Or was he a bumbling fool in a picklehaub? Throughout the war, Allied propaganda seemed to suggest either identity was a possibility. Ironically, it wasn’t just his enemies who were confused about his identity. Throughout his life, the Kaiser also struggled to come to terms with his own identity. As the grandson of Queen Victoria, the half English Kaiser was supposed to be the champion of Anglo-German unity. Instead, he would spend a lifetime torn between the two identities. To explain these contradictions, Kaiser Wilhelm II’s life will be examined over the course of two podcast episodes. Part one will discuss his early life and years as emperor.
Denne uken har Hardcore sett på det nye Battlefield som foregår under 1. verdenskrig! Vi ser på forskjellene mellom dette og CoD som drar til verdensrommet, tar en kikk på det nye Uncharted 4, og Daniel har fundert på hva som er best av å kjøpe en ferdigbygget PC eller å montere den selv!
I del to om Keiser Wilhelm i Norge er vi i det prøyssiske historiske arkivet i Berlin og på matrosstasjonen Kongsnæs i Potsdam. Etter det vellykkede statsbesøket i Christiania i 1890 fikk keiser Wilhelm II se Frognerseteren og flere andre bygg i dragestil. Det ville også han ha. Da fikk han bygget en jakthytte og flere andre bygninger i Øst-Prøyssen og senere matrosstasjonen Kongsnæs som fortsatt er delvis inntakt. Historiker Stefan Gammelien gleder seg over at stedet nå skal restaureres.. I Kiel forteller museumsdirektør Doris Tillmann ved By og sjøfartsmuseet der at keiser Wiløhelm II var pioneren i tysk norgesturisme. Hun har vært med på utgivelsen «Nordlandreise» som tar for seg mange aspekter ved dette.
Keiser Wilhelm II reiste på sommerferie til Norge 23 ganger fra 1889 til 1914. Han besøkte hele kysten opp til Finnmark. Svein Skotheim har skrevet boken "Keiser Wilhelm i Norge og i dette programmet tar han oss med til Hardanger. I denne regionen er det spor og historier etter keiserens besøk.Keiseren var gavmild og i Odda sørget han for at stedet fikk sit første sykehus. Anne Gravdal og Brita Jordal ved Norsk Vasskraft og industristadmueseum forteller at Keiser Wilhelms ånd fortsatt lever i Sørfjorden. Så sent som i september fikk museet overrakt et flott ur som en bondegutt hadde fått som påskjønnelse av keiseren. Programleder er Jan Henrik Ihlebæk
In this episode, we talk about the true founding of the country of Germany under the guidance of Otto von Bismarck, as well as the decades of delicate peace created by his leadership, and the systematic dismantling of his system by Wilhelm II. Dan McGinnis returns as guest.
In 1890 Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck, allowing the French to break out of isolation; the British face a looming crisis in the years after 1894.
30 Jahre lang war Wilhelm II. preußischer König und deutscher Kaiser. Er begann 1888 als ehrgeiziger Monarch, der "sein Volk" einen und befrieden wollte. Er endete 1918 als moralisch bankrotter Kriegsherr. Autor: Rainer Volk
An audio revision guide covering the breakdown of the Bismarckian system from 1890 under Wilhelm II. Reference is made to key issues including Weltpolitik, the alliance system, the arms race, and nationalism. These are used to explain the changing relationships between the European powers.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
