StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Winston Churchill in his The Second World War, Book 1, Chapter 1 claims that American prejudice against monarchies led the Germans to believe they would receive more just treatment as a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy. He opines that the Weimar Republic would have been more stable engendered more loyalty with a grandson of Wilhelm on the throne and a regency council. My question is if Wilhelm had abdicated in favor of a grandson, do you think this would have been a stabilizing influence for post-war Germany?

1stPalladin wrote:Winston Churchill in his The Second World War, Book 1, Chapter 1 claims that American prejudice against monarchies led the Germans to believe they would receive more just treatment as a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy. He opines that the Weimar Republic would have been more stable engendered more loyalty with a grandson of Wilhelm on the throne and a regency council.

Of course it would. However, Wilson would not make any peace treaty with a German Emperor on the throne, so Germany had no way but to get rid of him.

This means that there is no way for an emperor to remain on the throne.

My question is if Wilhelm had abdicated in favor of a grandson, do you think this would have been a stabilizing influence for post-war Germany?

Which grandsons? Some of his children were not even married yet and none of their children were of age. I think you mean his children. And no doubt of the stabilizing influence. For once, it is extremely unlikely that one would see that much dissent and infighting.

Thanas wrote:

1stPalladin wrote:Winston Churchill in his The Second World War, Book 1, Chapter 1 claims that American prejudice against monarchies led the Germans to believe they would receive more just treatment as a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy. He opines that the Weimar Republic would have been more stable engendered more loyalty with a grandson of Wilhelm on the throne and a regency council.

Of course it would. However, Wilson would not make any peace treaty with a German Emperor on the throne, so Germany had no way but to get rid of him.

This means that there is no way for an emperor to remain on the throne.

Where did Wilson specifically demand the end of the imperial government itself rather than simply the abdication (and trial, I think) of Wilhelm II? I briefly looked but I'm too lazy to sift through diplomatic telegrams myself.

Thanas wrote:

My question is if Wilhelm had abdicated in favor of a grandson, do you think this would have been a stabilizing influence for post-war Germany?

Which grandsons? Some of his children were not even married yet and none of their children were of age. I think you mean his children. And no doubt of the stabilizing influence. For once, it is extremely unlikely that one would see that much dissent and infighting.

This is wrong. Wilhelm had five grandsons in 1918, I think. The Crown Prince's eldest son was around 12, hence the idea of a regency. There's also Heinrich and his children if for some reason these regency plans included disinheriting Wilhelm II's entire line.

I don't see how maintaining a monarchy in 1918 would have helped Germany's stability at all. Some of the federated monarchies were already being overthrown before Wilhelm himself was (I think Bavaria was the first to go?) so if Germany's to maintain a monarchy then wouldn't the Allies have to prop it up? We saw how well that went in Russia. I'm imagining the Russian intervention but with French (and Belgian) revanchism thrown in as a motivation.

I could see putting the Crown Prince on the throne in the 20s or 30s as being a stabilizing force without knowing more about Germany history. It would rob Hitler of monarchist support, at least, and surely Hindenburg would have preferred it. It's hard to imagine that the presumptive Wilhelm III on the throne would lead to Hitler's Germany.

Oops, the "This is wrong." part is a fragment from my first reactions about something else. I missed the edit window.

Churchill wasn't specific about which "infant grandson." I think Churchill thouhgt that Wilhelm's sons would have been unacceptable from an allied point of view. I don't know enough about the Hohenzollerns to make any assumptions that one prince would have been more acceptable over another from either the German or Allied points of view.

StarshipTitanic wrote:Where did Wilson specifically demand the end of the imperial government itself rather than simply the abdication (and trial, I think) of Wilhelm II? I briefly looked but I'm too lazy to sift through diplomatic telegrams myself.

Link

Yeah, wiki, but accurate in this thing.

Thanas wrote: Which grandsons? Some of his children were not even married yet and none of their children were of age. I think you mean his children. And no doubt of the stabilizing influence. For once, it is extremely unlikely that one would see that much dissent and infighting.

This is wrong. Wilhelm had five grandsons in 1918, I think. The Crown Prince's eldest son was around 12, hence the idea of a regency. There's also Heinrich and his children if for some reason these regency plans included disinheriting Wilhelm II's entire line.

How the heck does that disprove my "none of their children were of age"?

I don't see how maintaining a monarchy in 1918 would have helped Germany's stability at all. Some of the federated monarchies were already being overthrown before Wilhelm himself was (I think Bavaria was the first to go?) so if Germany's to maintain a monarchy then wouldn't the Allies have to prop it up?

THis is wrong. First, Bavaria was not the first to go, it abolished the monarchy after WIlhelm abdicated. And the unrest was not directed against the institution of the monarchy.

We saw how well that went in Russia. I'm imagining the Russian intervention but with French (and Belgian) revanchism thrown in as a motivation.

This is wrong. The reds never had the same kind of support as they did in Russia. Heck, the Reds tried grabbing the Ruhr and the capital twice. Both times they were crushed with little difficulty.

I could see putting the Crown Prince on the throne in the 20s or 30s as being a stabilizing force without knowing more about Germany history. It would rob Hitler of monarchist support, at least, and surely Hindenburg would have preferred it. It's hard to imagine that the presumptive Wilhelm III on the throne would lead to Hitler's Germany.

Indeed, However let us not forget that the best chancellors of the Weimar Republic were from the SPD. The Crown Prince would not have tolerated them. That said, you'd still get Stresemann, so that is about it.

Perhaps descriptive of the political situation in late 1918 is the fact that after the abdication of Wilhelm II there could be no German-born King Of Finland, even though he was not an immediate blood relative of Wilhelm II. So how could there have been another Emperor in Germany?

The situations are clearly linked, since Frederich Karl himself renounced the throne after accepting it just a few months earlier. He clearly thought that a German monarch even in the relatively unimportant position of King of Finland would not be acceptable.

Thanas wrote:

StarshipTitanic wrote:Where did Wilson specifically demand the end of the imperial government itself rather than simply the abdication (and trial, I think) of Wilhelm II? I briefly looked but I'm too lazy to sift through diplomatic telegrams myself.

Link

Yeah, wiki, but accurate in this thing.

Yes, this shows that Wilson insisted on Wilhelm II's abdication but you said Wilson would not tolerate any German Emperor. I don't see an insistence that Germany become a republic in the Fourteen Points or even the armistice agreement.

Thanas wrote:How the heck does that disprove my "none of their children were of age"?

Clearly you have neglected to read my second post. Do so now rather than have me repeat myself. The rest of my reply was addressing your question about what grandsons. Wilhelm II had several and they were all eligible to be a figurehead for a regency so I'm not sure why you questioned 1stPaladin on this fact.

Thanas wrote:THis is wrong. First, Bavaria was not the first to go, it abolished the monarchy after WIlhelm abdicated. And the unrest was not directed against the institution of the monarchy.

Is it wrong? According to Wikipedia, Ludwig III fled Bavaria on 7 November and then released his government from its oaths on 13 November at Anif Palace in Austria. I know that Max von Baden announced Wilhelm II's abdication without authorization on 9 November. Wikipedia mentions this but says that Wilhelm officially abdicated on 18 November. If these dates are wrong, where can I get the correct dates?

What would you say was the catalyst for the end of all the monarchies?

Thanas wrote:This is wrong. The reds never had the same kind of support as they did in Russia. Heck, the Reds tried grabbing the Ruhr and the capital twice. Both times they were crushed with little difficulty.

I'm not sure if we can start to declare unprovable hypotheticals wrong here...

Anyway, what you described happened in real life with the SPD in power and its use of right wingers to suppress the Communists, correct? But you agreed with Churchill's assessment that a postwar constitutional monarchy would have been more stable. Wouldn't a postwar monarchy rule out the SPD's support? What's stopping them from then joining the Communists on the street and fighting the government?

Thanas wrote:Indeed, However let us not forget that the best chancellors of the Weimar Republic were from the SPD. The Crown Prince would not have tolerated them. That said, you'd still get Stresemann, so that is about it.

True. Did the Crown Prince moderate his views as time passed, though? I don't know where he stood on the Nazis in the 30s. If he could succeed Hindenburg, is it plausible that he'd find a powerbase?

StarshipTitanic wrote:

Thanas wrote:

StarshipTitanic wrote:Where did Wilson specifically demand the end of the imperial government itself rather than simply the abdication (and trial, I think) of Wilhelm II? I briefly looked but I'm too lazy to sift through diplomatic telegrams myself.

Link

Yeah, wiki, but accurate in this thing.

Yes, this shows that Wilson insisted on Wilhelm II's abdication but you said Wilson would not tolerate any German Emperor. I don't see an insistence that Germany become a republic in the Fourteen Points or even the armistice agreement.

No, this shows that Wilson was unwilling to compromise with any German Emperor or King. Note how the telegram refers to "monarchial autocrats" in the plural.

Clearly you have neglected to read my second post. Do so now rather than have me repeat myself. The rest of my reply was addressing your question about what grandsons. Wilhelm II had several and they were all eligible to be a figurehead for a regency so I'm not sure why you questioned 1stPaladin on this fact.

Yeah, I know that. Your entire idea however was to leap the line of succession, which is pretty stupid in itself, especially as nobody would be in favor of replacing a war hero with a child in the time of crisis.

Is it wrong? According to Wikipedia, Ludwig III fled Bavaria on 7 November and then released his government from its oaths on 13 November at Anif Palace in Austria. I know that Max von Baden announced Wilhelm II's abdication without authorization on 9 November. Wikipedia mentions this but says that Wilhelm officially abdicated on 18 November. If these dates are wrong, where can I get the correct dates?

That shows that Ludwig fled and then abdicated when he got confirmation the army would not come to his help. If you look at the other abdications, you will see they happened all around the same time anyway - After von Baden announced it, you'll see a sleuth of abdications.

(Note: Wilhelm, as always, dragged his feet with the abdication as well).

What would you say was the catalyst for the end of all the monarchies?

Wilson and the unwillingness of the Army to fight on or to fight a civil war, both of which it was in no shape to fight.

I'm not sure if we can start to declare unprovable hypotheticals wrong here...

Anyway, what you described happened in real life with the SPD in power and its use of right wingers to suppress the Communists, correct? But you agreed with Churchill's assessment that a postwar constitutional monarchy would have been more stable. Wouldn't a postwar monarchy rule out the SPD's support? What's stopping them from then joining the Communists on the street and fighting the government?

Because the SPD split in two factions during WWI. One was the SPD, the other the USPD. The SPD trended to the right during WWI, renouncing regime change in favor of the common good.

The USPD also did not join in this, however their numbers were - at the times of their greatest success - not even 8% of the populace (7.3 iirc), so they cannot do much.

True. Did the Crown Prince moderate his views as time passed, though? I don't know where he stood on the Nazis in the 30s. If he could succeed Hindenburg, is it plausible that he'd find a powerbase?

Well, he did help the Nazis in the beginning due to hoping to be placed back on the throne, but after the murder of von Schleicher he stopped supporting them.

Thanas wrote:No, this shows that Wilson was unwilling to compromise with any German Emperor or King. Note how the telegram refers to "monarchial autocrats" in the plural.

A constitutional monarch would not be an autocrat and it would preserve a monarchy. Why would Wilson object to the German Empire reforming itself into a federation of constitutional monarchies? I've never seen the idea advanced that Wilson wanted to forcibly turn Germany into a republic. This would go against his ideology of self-determination.

Thanas wrote:Yeah, I know that. Your entire idea however was to leap the line of succession, which is pretty stupid in itself, especially as nobody would be in favor of replacing a war hero with a child in the time of crisis.

Winston Churchill's idea is his own and his to defend, not mine.

Anyway, I'm not sure who you mean by nobody but I'll say that you're wrong as some Germans themselves advanced the very same regency plan:

Max von Baden from the same source cited in Wikipedia, p. 495-496 wrote:The abdication has become a matter of necessity, if civil war is to be averted, and the Emperor's peace-mission to reach a favorable conclusion... We can no longer rely on the troops; Cologne is in the hands of Councils of Working Men and Soldiers: on Your Majesty's daughter's castle at Braunschweig the red flag is flying; Munich is a Republic, in Schwerin a Council of Soldiers is sitting. I see two alternatives: abdication, renunciation of the thrown by the Crown Prince, and a Regency for your grandson; or abdication, nomination of a Regent, and a National Assembly. The Committee of the Reichstag demands the latter, and it seems to be the better of the two, because it offers any chances there still are for the Monarchy.

Emphasis mine. Also it's interesting to note that Bavaria was already considered to be a republic by the imperial government before Wilhelm II's own abdication.

So a grandson regency was the long shot plan and a referendum the safer plan. Both aimed at preserving the monarchy in some form, though the latter plan obviously leaves its fate to a constitutional convention. It is hard to believe that the German government would consider either course if they agreed with your anti-monarchy interpretation of Wilson's telegram.

Thanas wrote:Well, he did help the Nazis in the beginning due to hoping to be placed back on the throne, but after the murder of von Schleicher he stopped supporting them.

Ah, sounds like he was one of the many monarchists used by the Nazis to earn a veneer of legitimacy, then. Were monarchists all just fixated on some notion of the inevitability of restoration without considering the political situation or Nazi duplicity? I'm not usually one to root for monarchists but it's terribly frustrating to see in hindsight how if they managed to stumble into power then it's possible that the 20th century would have worked out for the better.

Thanas and Starship Titanic,

Thank you for the time and effort you put into answering my question.

StarshipTitanic wrote:

Thanas wrote:No, this shows that Wilson was unwilling to compromise with any German Emperor or King. Note how the telegram refers to "monarchial autocrats" in the plural.

A constitutional monarch would not be an autocrat and it would preserve a monarchy. Why would Wilson object to the German Empire reforming itself into a federation of constitutional monarchies? I've never seen the idea advanced that Wilson wanted to forcibly turn Germany into a republic. This would go against his ideology of self-determination.

You do know that the German Empire was already a constitutional monarchy which was far more liberal towards its citizens and gave them more rights than the average borough voter in Britain? Do you also know that every monarchy in Germany was a constitutional monarchy?

Which is why Wilhelm had so much trouble with it and which is why Bismarck, who had the parliamentary majority, was the strong person of the Empire and not Wilhelm I.

However, that was not enough for Wilson, who still referred to them as autocrats. So either he was woefully ignorant of the law of Germany (this is Wilson after all, so that is not out of the question) or he still though of constitutional German monarchs as autocrats.

Max von Baden from the same source cited in Wikipedia, p. 495-496 wrote:The abdication has become a matter of necessity, if civil war is to be averted, and the Emperor's peace-mission to reach a favorable conclusion... We can no longer rely on the troops; Cologne is in the hands of Councils of Working Men and Soldiers: on Your Majesty's daughter's castle at Braunschweig the red flag is flying; Munich is a Republic, in Schwerin a Council of Soldiers is sitting. I see two alternatives: abdication, renunciation of the thrown by the Crown Prince, and a Regency for your grandson; or abdication, nomination of a Regent, and a National Assembly. The Committee of the Reichstag demands the latter, and it seems to be the better of the two, because it offers any chances there still are for the Monarchy.

Emphasis mine.

Must have slipped my mind then. I wonder why the Crown Prince was not considered suitable.

Also it's interesting to note that Bavaria was already considered to be a republic by the imperial government before Wilhelm II's own abdication.

That is most likely a translation error. (Räte-)Republik was used as a sort of blanket term to mean any left-leaning government. In any case, this merely tells us about political realities and has no bearing on the effect of Wilhelm's abdication.

It is hard to believe that the German government would consider either course if they agreed with your anti-monarchy interpretation of Wilson's telegram.

Why? It specifically mentions the peace mission. Once more, this is von Baden at a time when Germany still believed there could be a compromise (something they paid dearly for in Versailles), so it would make sense for him to go "hey, the monarch really has got nothing to say anymore, won't you be satisfied with that).

Ah, sounds like he was one of the many monarchists used by the Nazis to earn a veneer of legitimacy, then. Were monarchists all just fixated on some notion of the inevitability of restoration without considering the political situation or Nazi duplicity?

To be honest, you have to consider that Germans have had kings for over 1200 years by then. There always was an Emperor. That said, Hitler went to great lengths to use propaganda specifically designed to emulate his "desire" to continue the traditions of the Reich. This was very effective and sufficed to keep the nobles in line until 1934.

I'm not usually one to root for monarchists but it's terribly frustrating to see in hindsight how if they managed to stumble into power then it's possible that the 20th century would have worked out for the better.

The whole mess could have been avoided if Versailles hadn't been such a disaster on all fronts.