![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The satirical postcard is actually from France, and not of Italian origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.157.105.150 ( talk) 03:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any explanations or any sort of sense that can made out of the article frequently (..and then some!) mentioning an anti-semitic character yet being appalled at the Nazis' atrocities and...before he wasn't anti-semitic or not so much and now I guess he is (according to Wikipedia)?
The Kaiser definately made some anti-semitic remarks during his lifetime but then again many people at that time were anti-semitic. However, many of the Kaiser's friends were wealthy jewish captains of industry like Ballin(who killed himself the day the Kaiser abdicated) and the organizer of the German war economy during WW1 was a Jew named Rathenau. Read 'Men around the Kaiser'(1913) available for free download at archive.org. Another good source of information on the Kaiser's views on Hitler is an old magazine article at oldmagazinearticles.com Do a search under 'the Kaiser' and you will find many articles written at the time. On that website is an article from Ken magazine December 1938. It says among other things that when the kaiser was asked what he thought of Hitler, he said "There's a man alone, without family, without children, without God. Why should he be human? Oh without a doubt he is sincere: but this very excessive sincerity keeps him apart, out of touch, with men and realities..." 76.94.18.217 ( talk) 02:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)edwardlovette 76.94.18.217 ( talk) 02:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Just look at the article. Most of the sentences go something like "He was this. However, he was also that" or "He did this. However, he also did [something which nullifies the previous sentence]."
There are too many howevers, neverthelesses, althoughs, and this gives a very...how shall i put it..."stunted" and awkward feel to the article.
Can someone please edit the article for style? And do eliminate the trivia section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.142.96.25 ( talk) 10:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There are some parts of this articles that does not make sense at all. At one moment Wilhelm openly criticize the jews and ask for their destruction and in another, he is against such thing? --- Lecen ( talk) 13:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
so far as i know, it has always been a part of the Netherlands.
The beginning of Kaiser William II's reign was quite fascinating. In May 1889 there was a widespread strike in the Ruhr. Chancellor Otto von Bismarck wanted to use the army to disband the strikers and force them to return to work. At first the Kaiser agreed with these measures, but then he recognized that the workers had valid grievances and decided that major labor reforms had to be implemented. The following passages and translations are from: 1. Emil Ludwig, Wilhelm der Zweite, Ernst Rowohlt Verlag, Berlin (1926). 2. Emil Ludwig, Wilhelm Hohenzollern, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York (1927) [translated by Ethel Colburn Mayne].
In January 1890, the Kaiser decided to convene a Labor Conference.
In March 1890 the Labor Conference convened in Berlin, and the Kaiser gave the opening address. Many of his proposals were incorporated in the Workers Protection Acts of 1891 (Arbeiterschutzgesetze).
Although Bismarck had sponsored social security legislation, by 1889-90 he had become disillusioned with the attitude of workers. In particular, he was opposed to wage increases, improving working conditions, and regulating labor relations. Moreover the Kartell, the shifting political coalition that Bismarck had been able to forge since 1867, had lost a working majority in the Reichstag. Bismarck also attempted to sabotage the Labor Conference that the Kaiser was organizing.
It has been alleged that Bismarck was organizing a military coup that would disband the strikers, dissolve the Reichstag, repeal the universal suffrage law, introduce limited suffrage, reduce the Kaiser to a puppet, and establish a military dictatorship.
In the late 1970s PBS broadcast the BBC series "Fall of Eagles," which covered the period 1848-1918 and traced the downfall of the Romanov, Hapsburg and Hohenzollern dynasties. This series jolted me to overcome my superficial knowledge about this critical period of history.
"The Fall of Eagles," written by C. L. Sulzberger (Crown, 1977) accompanied this series and contains an interview with Louis Ferdinand, a grandson of the Kaiser. On page 391, Louis Ferdinand says:
[User: Domenico Rosa, 6 April 2006] ( 65.171.25.94) 10:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The 13 episodes of "Fall of Eagles" are now available on DVD. A review is posted at:
[User: Domenico Rosa, 28 June 2006] ( 207.210.130.124) 16:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The following is a translation of the social reforms that occurred under Kaiser Wilhelm II, posted at: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II._%28Deutsches_Reich%29#Soziale_Reformen
Survey of social reforms initiated during the reign of William the second.
The reference provided in the article also contained the following in the original German, which was subsequently deleted by the editors:
[User: Domenico Rosa, 17 April 2006]
Joachim was married to U. P. Urass on March 11 1916 in Berlin They had on child HRH Karl Franz Joseph Wilhelm fredrich Eduard Paul Prince of Prussia.
Prince Joachim died of a self-inflicted gunshot on July 18th 1920
DLC
I'm seeking some information that readers of this page might know. I am looking for information of Prince Joachim Von Hohenzollern, son of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Joachim was discussed as a possible 'king of Ireland' by Padraig Pearse and the leaders of Ireland's Easter Rising in 1916. Am I correct is thinking that Prince Joachim was married in 1916 and died in 1920? All info greatly received. JTD
"Frederick Wilhelm Viktor Albert of Hohenzollern" seems to be a strange mixture of English and German:
"Frederick William Victor Albert of Hohenzollern" (English);
"Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert von Hohenzollern" (German).
S.
You say Wilhelm's mother was the sister of the wife of Tsar Nicholas II. But as Wilhelm's mother was the daughter of Queen Victoria, that would make Nicholas II's wife the daughter of Queen Victoria too. But she wasn't, was she?
Let's straighten this out. Wilhelm II's mother was Victoria of Great Britain, ie Queen Victoria's eldest child. Alexandra's mother was Princess Alice of Great Britain. Alice was the second daughter of Queen Victoria. A diagram to illustrate this shows the following:
VICTORIA | -------------------------- | | Victoria Alice | | WILHELM II Alix (Alexandra) = NICHOLAS II
As can be seen, Alexandra and Wilhelm were first cousins, and they were both grandchildren of Queen Victoria.
Of course its a surname - Wilhem II was Wilhelm von Hohenzollern just as Nicholas II was Nicholas Romanov
Well when they were monarchs thats true but after they lost their thrones they used their family names again
They may not use surnames, but they have them. For example, the Royal Family's name in the United Kingdom is Windsor, but the surname is Windsor-Mountbatten (or perhaps Mountbatten-Windsor, I forget which order!). JTD
One might note that the unidentified commenter who claimed that "after they lost their thrones they used their famiy names again" is simply untrue. The Royal House of Prussia, for instance, uses the surname "Prinz von Preussen" (that is to say, Prince of Prussia), and the current head of the house is Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preussen, not "Georg Friedrich von Hohenzollern". john 00:31 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
Good work and 100 per cent accurate. Eireman.
Could someone clarify how he can be "Prince of Prussia" when Prussia as an entity was legally abolished in 1947?
PMelvilleAustin 11:03 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
If I may answer to that as a German: The "legal" name is Georg Friedrich Ferdinand Prinz von Preussen with Prinz von Preussen being his surname. Strictly speaking it is not allowed to put the Prinz in the front, or abreviate the von, but it's generally tolerated. Regarding the Königliche Hoheit, this is no official part of the name, but only used out of courtesy or lack of knowledge, probably both. I think that I read once about a special law, that the daughter of someone with the surname Prinz von XY can have the surname Prinzessin von XY instead, but I'm not totally sure if this is true. 195.141.122.227 ( talk) 12:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Should the rumoured jealousy between The Kaiser and his uncle (Edward) be mentioned, along with the fact that he was by direct descent of the ELDEST of 9 Victoria's children? The bizarre anatogonist behaviour displayed by the Kaiser during the Dreadnought race and the diplomatic twisting before WW1 need to be emphasised more. (27 Nov 2004)
Would it be perhaps helpful to add in facts about his being raised largely by his grandfather who became his strongest influence and thus resulted in the alienation of Wilhelm from his parents - resulting in the rift between him and his mother after he ascended to the throne? The current reference to his relationship with his mother as being a poor one because of her "cold" feelings toward him and her trying to "beat" his handicap out of him is not accurate. While indeed she did bear a great deal of guilt for his handicap she was never guilty of beating him - indeed - he suffered more at the hands of his grandfather's beliefs as to how a future kaiser should be raised then he ever did from his mother's attentions.
Improbable as it seems, the article appears to paint an anti Nazi picture of the Kaiser. Is this accurate? - Litefantastic 23:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
He was certainly not pro-Nazi. I'd need to look at the article again to see if the impression it gives is accurate, though. john k 02:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The 'Nazi' part of the Trivia section should be edited. Wilhelm's concept of rule was founded on romantic Medieval ideas and he believed that monarchy was installed by the grace of God - it's safe to say he despised all kinds of 'revolutionary' and 'socialist' political movements. Like many other Interbellum conservatives and members of the German nobility, he hated the Nazis' rude behaviour and appearance.
For example, shortly after the Nazis seized power, Göring was sent to see Wilhelm in order to try to talk him into becoming the Nazis' figure-head. They argued a couple of hours and Wilhelm called Göring a fool in his diary.
The paragraph 'Would Wilhelm have been in opposition to the Holocaust if he had lived to witness it?' is pointless in my opinion. 141.53.194.251 14:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
The article quotes Wilhelm as saying that he felt embarrased to be a German upon hearing of Hitler's persecutions of the Jews. No source is quoted. Many other sources seem to say that the Kaiser was anti-semitic, such as his 1921 interview when he referred to Jews as "insects" and he expressed dismay that he wasn't harsher with them--going so far as to blame Jews for WWI. What is the source for the article's quote? Rab sb 12:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Who is the current head of the Hohenzollern house?
The current head of the House of Hohenzollern is HRH Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia. He is the son of Prince Louis Ferdinand II of Prussia; Prince Louis Ferdinand II of Prussia is the son of Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia, who was the son of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Prussia. Hope that helps. Prsgoddess187 17:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Louis Ferdinand I's father was the Crown Prince, not Wilhelm II. LF was Wilhelm II's grandson. john k 14:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Wasn't Wilhelm II also Emperor of Baratśa ( 1937- 1941)?
Shouldn't it also mention his English name? any thoughts? Dudtz 7/30/05 2:36 PM EST
No. He was also called Wilhelm in English.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
18:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
He is often called William in English, so the name should at least be mentioned. 192.87.152.234 09:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Why? People know Wilhelm is German for William. What is the point of stating the bleeding obvious. It is like saying a satellite circles the earth (which is round). We don't have to state the patiently obvious.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
17:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
In English, he is often called William, as the anon notes. I see no reason not to mention it. john k 21:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
There, edited the german name, as Albert is "albrect" in german. Also added the full english, as just an interesting tidbit of info. -Alex 12.220.157.93 11:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
"As Albert is Albrect in german" ? Sorry, I am German and never heared about "albrect" ( there is Albrecht, but Albert and Albrecht are two differrent German names )
131.173.12.120
10:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't it just be Wilhelm seeing as how your name doesn't change when you go to another place?
In referring to a monarch, isn't it polite to pronounce his/her name in his/her native language. For example, newspapers in English did not say Hapsburg, they said Habsburg which is the appropriate German way of saying it. So, I think the title of this page should be Wilhelm II, German Emperor; not William II, German Emperor. Emperor001 21:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are all of the sections about the pretenders' to the German Empire names are in German while the actual emperors are referred to by their English names. Shouldn't we be consistent. I am considering changing the name of this article from William II, German Emperor, to Wilhelm II, German Emperor to be consistent with the other pages. Please comment on this so I can be sure that this is or isn't the best decision. I want to avoid an edit war. Emperor001 22:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Most books I have read, including the World Book, say Wilhelm. Emperor001 02:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
All the sources I've found list his as Wilhelm, including all my history texts and period memoirs, he definitely seems to be "one of those exceptions". Since he reigned in a period of growing German nationalism, it makes sense in retrospect that he'd have insisted on the German name. - 68.77.202.224 17:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Also, according to the earlier comments in this section, the article was initially written leaving out his English name, and someone eventually took it upon themselves to then rewrite the article to give the impression that the English name was the more common. All without citing sources to support this or even mention it here. - 68.77.202.224 17:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to put to rest the notion that William is weird, ahistorical and what not. The Times (of London) has called him William all his life: [2] (June 16, 1888) [3] (June 5, 1941) If you check others newspapers I'm sure you'll come to the same result. I don't know when people started referring to him as Wilhelm in English. The birth of Prince William sure has given Wilhelm a boost. Let's not remind people they are relatives is probably what many copy editors thought then. -- 85.181.238.155 ( talk) 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone seen a clear citation that Wilhelm was bisexual, as talked on basis of e.g Eulenburg affair. Arrigo 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I've never seen anything beyond extremely loose speculation. john k 15:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Which famous pe4rson has never been discussed to be bisexual in hstory ? 131.173.12.120 10:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph in the WWI section:
It is POV, polemic, and neither its content nor style conform to a minimum encyclopedic standard. ASav
It was technically Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary who started the war. One could argue that the Serbs precipitated it, as Gavrilo Princep, who assassinated Franz Ferdinand and ignited the spark that began the war, may have been trained in Serbia and backed by the Serbian government, although this is not proved beyond a doubt. But Franz Joseph's armies fired the first artillery shots and it was he who began the war. Of course, it can also be argued that Wilhelm instigated this by giving the Austro-Hungarians a blank cheque, saying he would back them all the way. But Wilhelm did not start the war, Franz Joseph did. But he was not presonally hated so much as Wilhelm, so Wilhelm made a better enemy for PR purposes. RockStarSheister ( talk) 20:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Which blank cheque? You mean the telegram from his Norway cruise where he said that Germany will stand by Austria in face of this terrible even (the assassination)? There was no blanke cheque, there was no real German policy either or half the German government including wouldn't have stayed on holidays so the crisis could spiral out of control further. His (and the German government's) fault was ineptitude in dealing with a diplomatic crisis when facing one. That a 80 year old monarch might overreact when his successor gets shot (and after having seen his wife assassinated decades earlier) is also quite understandable. At the end of his reign he knew Habsburg was in ruins even though he didn't even do anything in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.102.53 ( talk) 22:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"Wilhelm had his summer palace in Stuttgart. When in residence, he held a parade every Sunday at noon. In full military dress and on a white steed, the Kaiser and his cavalry marched up and down the main street; the townsfolk were "encouraged" to attend. " Does somebody know where in Stuttgart he used to reside? For me, as a resident of Stuttgart, it would be quite interesting to know. -- Malbi 13:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
that surely is a mix-up with wilhelm II. last king of württemberg, which capital was stuttgart-- Tresckow 04:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone more astute than I should write a paragraph about Wilhelm's military experience. As I recall, he was head of the Prussian 3nd Army in the Franco-Prussian War and had a similar command in the Prussian-Austrian War of 1866. I'm reading Wawro's book on the subject right now, but I don't think I could marshall too many facts other than that basic one.
Perhaps someone has confused Wilhelm with his father, who certainly served in these campaigns???? Member of the Fan Club 203.10.110.133 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
A minor quibble -- the article refers to him dismissing the "cautious" Bismarck. Given that Bismarck was the architect of German unification, doesn't this make him look a bit weak? Is there a better way to put this? I don't know the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, so I will defer on this.
It has been brought to my attention that during Wilhelm's stay at his Summer Palace in Stuttgart he had an affair with a women named Theresia Burian and she had a child (born in Austria under his instruction) by him named Amandus Burian. Does anyone know anything more about this?
Response: As a grandchild of Amandus Burian, I heard stories of being related to someone in the court of Kaiser Wilhelm but I have found no proof of these stories in my genealogical research to date. It does appear that my grandfather, Amandus Burian who was born in Vienna in 1886 was an illegitimate child whose mother's name, according to Ancestry.com records, appears to have been Theresia Burian. I suppose that if there is any truth to the story it may never come to light unless there is written documentation somewhere. HBurian 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following excerpt from the "Life after 1918" section and restored the original:
Although he had asked Hitler for a small military funeral, which included August von Mackensen and Rupprecht of Bavaria, along with a few other military advisors. Wilhelm's request was ignored and Hitler gave him a grand funeral 'worthy of an emperor' full with Nazi nationalism and swastikas, a symbol which Kaiser Wilhelm II repeatedly asked not to be displayed ,just like other Nazi regalia, at the final rites was completely ignored.
It had obvious grammatical errors and, in my opinion, contained certain partisan elements.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.142.96.179 ( talk) 17:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The Kaiser's hand fetish, to which I have just alluded under "trivia," is attested to in Giles Macdonogh's The Last Kaiser: The Life of Wilhelm II. I added this information last year and it was quickly deleted. If this is because of lack of credulity on the part of whoever edited it out, rest assured that the aforementioned book references it in great detail. I hope the information will remain in the future, if only because it's incredibly interesting. Oldkinderhook 18:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC) hez s smothe prestonater
A hand fetish? Someone want to explain that one, as I thought I had heard them all? I've never heard or read that about William. Is it only included in that one source? Seems qustionable. And to be honest, doesn't pretty much ever teenaged pubescent boy have a "hand fetish"? RockStarSheister ( talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the trivia list has gotten far too long and needs to be cropped. People can go on and on and on and on about Wilhelm's absurdities, weird hobbies, sexual orientation nix nix nix.
It will never be exhaustive.
Any suggestions on the next step?
On the question of trivia: how did Wilhelm cut so many trees? One harmed? Xis 09:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The title "of Germany" may be commonly used, but it is blatantly wrong as it was intentionally not adopted. See Wilhelm_I,_German_Emperor#Kaiser -- Matthead 22:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Also opinions above
Usage of Wilhelm - William within books currently in my possession: Wilhelm:
William:
Biographies of the emperor seem to use Wilhelm (as seen in the Further Reading section of the article), while in my experience books which mention him (but do not feature him) refer to him as William. Olessi 19:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There is consensus about the page move. I think a majority prefers "William" over "Wilhelm", so I'm moving the page to William II, German Emperor (although personally I prefer Wilhelm in this case). Eugène van der Pijll 21:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I prefer Wilhelm II , too, and regard the move to William II as a stupid mistake. I await with baited breath for Ivan the Terrible to become John the Terrible as the logic is exactly the same. However, this comment came by too late to make any difference in this debate. Arno 09:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I have never met a single person who refers to the Kaiser as "William." In over 5 years of study and meetings with many expert historians, the universally recognised form of "Wilhelm" has been used. I have only ever seen the term Emperor William II used in outdated British textbooks. In England he is actually just known as 'The Kaiser'- Change article to Wilhelm II, German Kaiser. ~James
Your comment makes no sense. The Emperor of Austria was, of course, also called "Kaiser" in German. Känsterle 10:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with the comment above that naming Kaiser Wilhelm "William II, German Emperor" is along the same lines as naming Ivan the Terrible "John the Terrible" on the same grounds. Even though the Wikipedia guidelines say to use the English name, nobody in common use ever calls him anything other than "Kaiser Wilhelm". Maybe we should look at changing the guidelines, since the Anglicized name in cases like these are rarely used and probably aren't known by the majority of readers. Alexthe5th 21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
What I notice the most about the article is the ongoing comments and sentences about Great Britain, often in such a way that one might think this article is not about the german emperor, but rather about his connections to the British culture etc. We're not living in the beginning of the 20th century anymore, where even scholars tried to make their countries superior to others etc., so I don't like this kind of bias and I hope the article is going to be normalized at some points to be neutral in content.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.29.82.127 ( talk) 03:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand the rationale behind using the English form William II for the article, but I'm not so sure regarding this introduction:
- I think he was not "born" resp. baptized Frederick William Albert Victor of Prussia but Friedrich Wilhelm Albert Viktor von Preußen. Using the English form for the article's title and when referring to him in the body text seems appropriate and other Wikipedias do the same by using their language (e.g. fr:Guillaume II d'Allemagne, is:Vilhjálmur 2. Þýskalandskeisari, it:Guglielmo II di Germania etc.), but although his mother was a daughter of Queen Victoria, I presume that William, being the son of German Frederick III, was christened in the German form. Therefore, how about:
What do you think? Gestumblindi 03:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This page has grown a lot since I last visited. I remember it being a puny, relatively uninformative page back then, and was disappointed that it didn't mention any of the historical controversy regarding his role in German politics. I'm cheered to see it mentioned in the opening, and to see more info here. Meinen Glückwunsch! Brutannica 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm amazed at the terrible whitewash in the article of Wilhelm's views of Jews. He did criticise the Kristallnacht, but then so did Himmler. I have added sourced information regarding his documented views of Jews and his endorsement of conspiracy theories of world Jewish domination.-- Johnbull 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The horn of the German Emperor's first automobile played Donner's "Heda! Heda! Hedo!" motif from Das Rheingold. William himself thought that Wagner's music made "too much noise".
Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.183.19.77 ( talk) 09:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
With Wilhelm letting Lenin take power in place of the Romonovs-this was William's last and most disastrous foreign policy mistake — for while it did knock Russia out of the war and allow Germany to continue the war on the Western front-it replaced the Romanov dynasty with the so called "Red Tsars" (1917-1991) — such as Stalin (1922-1953). Equally disastrous for Germany and the world was the domestic policy of William and Crown Prince William decision to abdicate claims to political power which led to a power vacuum of a weak republic which would be replaced by Adolf Hitler (1933-1945). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.163 ( talk) 00:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct, this wicked German Emperor did such things. Russian Revolution in 1917 hadn't any worker, only well-born figures;all of them supported with many money and gold from this wicked man. Agre22 ( talk) 17:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)agre22
Image:Kaiser Wilhelm car.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, someone should really incorporate (right word?) the Emperor Tamarin kind-of-fun fact into this article. The king got a monkey named after him, how cool (and off course damn relevant) isn't that! Andy McDandy ( talk) 01:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The full title must be: William II, German Emperor and King of Prussia
After the WW I the Kaiser only abdicated as German Emperor but not as King of Prussia. The prussian title was always the proudest and oldest. -- Kai27 ( talk) 15:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Kai27
This http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7426349.stm says he wrote two volumes of memoirs, but the article does not mention them. 80.2.200.73 ( talk) 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 11:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I propose that this article be moved to Wilhelm II, German Emperor. Wilhelm is much more common than William and therefore to be consistent with other encyclopedias, this arcticle should say Wilhelm. Emperor001 ( talk) 16:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
William II, German Emperor → Wilhelm II, German Emperor — From all of the sources I've seen, he is more frequently referred to as Wilhelm (even in books where monarchs' names are frequently anglicanized). These sources include the World Book Encyclopedia, my World History Book from High School, and multiple other history books and school textbooks. Most newspapers from the timeframe that I've read also say Wilhelm. He seems to be one of those exceptions. — Emperor001 ( talk) 23:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.This shows that
Wilhelm II is the more notable name, even in English. This article should be moved to
Wilhelm II, but not to "Wilhelm II, German Emperor", as the disambiguation "German Emperor" becomes unnecessary (a situation which confirms and supports the notability of Wilhelm II). The same goes for Wilhelm I, which should also be moved to
Wilhelm I.
Wilhelm meis (
talk)
03:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Removing my previous modification per WP:NCNT Sovereigns.3.2 Wilhelm meis ( talk) 19:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The tendency to use Wilhelm seems to be a recent trend, especially amongst Americans. It will be interesting if this move is agreed upon but his grandfather and son remain at William. — AjaxSmack 02:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I would say that Emperor is the English for Kaiser, as Chancellor is the English for Kanzler; but the point is definitely worth discussing. (Similarly, Munich is the English for München, and is used on a majority of English literature; but I will pursue this if Bundesamt wants to.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
From the Survey above: There's a redirect from "Wilhelm II", which in my opinion is sufficient. That's quite irrelevant. If the article is moved, there will of course also be a redirect back from the current name. in the naming convention, it says "use English names". Exactly, and there's ample evidence that Wilhelm rather than William is his common name in English. I don't like the idea of having William I, but Wilhelm II. Wikipedia is full of these inconsistencies and it is our policy to have them. But if in this particular case (and there are other exceptions too) consistency is to be the rule, move the other article. Andrewa ( talk) 20:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Since you guys are so big on consistency and Anglicization, how about we change every Ivan to John and every Isabel to Elizabeth? That will surely help our non-expert readers with clarity and ease of use!-- 76.104.221.167 ( talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This is one of those things that goes on a case by case basis. I have seldom seen "William II" in literature, but I have frequently seen "Wilhelm II" in English-language literature. If this article is renamed to "Wilhelm II", the disambiguation "German Emperor" becomes unnecessary, as he is by far the most notable "Wilhelm II". Therefore, I support moving this article to Wilhelm II. Wilhelm meis ( talk) 02:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the poll seems to be in favor of a move to Wilhelm, should it be Wilhelm II, Wilhelm II, German Emperor, or maybe even an earlier title, Wilhelm II of Germany? Once we decide what the move the article to, I'll move it. Emperor001 ( talk) 17:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
needs better referencing plange 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 11:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 21:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The satirical postcard is actually from France, and not of Italian origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.157.105.150 ( talk) 03:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any explanations or any sort of sense that can made out of the article frequently (..and then some!) mentioning an anti-semitic character yet being appalled at the Nazis' atrocities and...before he wasn't anti-semitic or not so much and now I guess he is (according to Wikipedia)?
The Kaiser definately made some anti-semitic remarks during his lifetime but then again many people at that time were anti-semitic. However, many of the Kaiser's friends were wealthy jewish captains of industry like Ballin(who killed himself the day the Kaiser abdicated) and the organizer of the German war economy during WW1 was a Jew named Rathenau. Read 'Men around the Kaiser'(1913) available for free download at archive.org. Another good source of information on the Kaiser's views on Hitler is an old magazine article at oldmagazinearticles.com Do a search under 'the Kaiser' and you will find many articles written at the time. On that website is an article from Ken magazine December 1938. It says among other things that when the kaiser was asked what he thought of Hitler, he said "There's a man alone, without family, without children, without God. Why should he be human? Oh without a doubt he is sincere: but this very excessive sincerity keeps him apart, out of touch, with men and realities..." 76.94.18.217 ( talk) 02:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)edwardlovette 76.94.18.217 ( talk) 02:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Just look at the article. Most of the sentences go something like "He was this. However, he was also that" or "He did this. However, he also did [something which nullifies the previous sentence]."
There are too many howevers, neverthelesses, althoughs, and this gives a very...how shall i put it..."stunted" and awkward feel to the article.
Can someone please edit the article for style? And do eliminate the trivia section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.142.96.25 ( talk) 10:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There are some parts of this articles that does not make sense at all. At one moment Wilhelm openly criticize the jews and ask for their destruction and in another, he is against such thing? --- Lecen ( talk) 13:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
so far as i know, it has always been a part of the Netherlands.
The beginning of Kaiser William II's reign was quite fascinating. In May 1889 there was a widespread strike in the Ruhr. Chancellor Otto von Bismarck wanted to use the army to disband the strikers and force them to return to work. At first the Kaiser agreed with these measures, but then he recognized that the workers had valid grievances and decided that major labor reforms had to be implemented. The following passages and translations are from: 1. Emil Ludwig, Wilhelm der Zweite, Ernst Rowohlt Verlag, Berlin (1926). 2. Emil Ludwig, Wilhelm Hohenzollern, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York (1927) [translated by Ethel Colburn Mayne].
In January 1890, the Kaiser decided to convene a Labor Conference.
In March 1890 the Labor Conference convened in Berlin, and the Kaiser gave the opening address. Many of his proposals were incorporated in the Workers Protection Acts of 1891 (Arbeiterschutzgesetze).
Although Bismarck had sponsored social security legislation, by 1889-90 he had become disillusioned with the attitude of workers. In particular, he was opposed to wage increases, improving working conditions, and regulating labor relations. Moreover the Kartell, the shifting political coalition that Bismarck had been able to forge since 1867, had lost a working majority in the Reichstag. Bismarck also attempted to sabotage the Labor Conference that the Kaiser was organizing.
It has been alleged that Bismarck was organizing a military coup that would disband the strikers, dissolve the Reichstag, repeal the universal suffrage law, introduce limited suffrage, reduce the Kaiser to a puppet, and establish a military dictatorship.
In the late 1970s PBS broadcast the BBC series "Fall of Eagles," which covered the period 1848-1918 and traced the downfall of the Romanov, Hapsburg and Hohenzollern dynasties. This series jolted me to overcome my superficial knowledge about this critical period of history.
"The Fall of Eagles," written by C. L. Sulzberger (Crown, 1977) accompanied this series and contains an interview with Louis Ferdinand, a grandson of the Kaiser. On page 391, Louis Ferdinand says:
[User: Domenico Rosa, 6 April 2006] ( 65.171.25.94) 10:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The 13 episodes of "Fall of Eagles" are now available on DVD. A review is posted at:
[User: Domenico Rosa, 28 June 2006] ( 207.210.130.124) 16:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The following is a translation of the social reforms that occurred under Kaiser Wilhelm II, posted at: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II._%28Deutsches_Reich%29#Soziale_Reformen
Survey of social reforms initiated during the reign of William the second.
The reference provided in the article also contained the following in the original German, which was subsequently deleted by the editors:
[User: Domenico Rosa, 17 April 2006]
Joachim was married to U. P. Urass on March 11 1916 in Berlin They had on child HRH Karl Franz Joseph Wilhelm fredrich Eduard Paul Prince of Prussia.
Prince Joachim died of a self-inflicted gunshot on July 18th 1920
DLC
I'm seeking some information that readers of this page might know. I am looking for information of Prince Joachim Von Hohenzollern, son of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Joachim was discussed as a possible 'king of Ireland' by Padraig Pearse and the leaders of Ireland's Easter Rising in 1916. Am I correct is thinking that Prince Joachim was married in 1916 and died in 1920? All info greatly received. JTD
"Frederick Wilhelm Viktor Albert of Hohenzollern" seems to be a strange mixture of English and German:
"Frederick William Victor Albert of Hohenzollern" (English);
"Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert von Hohenzollern" (German).
S.
You say Wilhelm's mother was the sister of the wife of Tsar Nicholas II. But as Wilhelm's mother was the daughter of Queen Victoria, that would make Nicholas II's wife the daughter of Queen Victoria too. But she wasn't, was she?
Let's straighten this out. Wilhelm II's mother was Victoria of Great Britain, ie Queen Victoria's eldest child. Alexandra's mother was Princess Alice of Great Britain. Alice was the second daughter of Queen Victoria. A diagram to illustrate this shows the following:
VICTORIA | -------------------------- | | Victoria Alice | | WILHELM II Alix (Alexandra) = NICHOLAS II
As can be seen, Alexandra and Wilhelm were first cousins, and they were both grandchildren of Queen Victoria.
Of course its a surname - Wilhem II was Wilhelm von Hohenzollern just as Nicholas II was Nicholas Romanov
Well when they were monarchs thats true but after they lost their thrones they used their family names again
They may not use surnames, but they have them. For example, the Royal Family's name in the United Kingdom is Windsor, but the surname is Windsor-Mountbatten (or perhaps Mountbatten-Windsor, I forget which order!). JTD
One might note that the unidentified commenter who claimed that "after they lost their thrones they used their famiy names again" is simply untrue. The Royal House of Prussia, for instance, uses the surname "Prinz von Preussen" (that is to say, Prince of Prussia), and the current head of the house is Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preussen, not "Georg Friedrich von Hohenzollern". john 00:31 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
Good work and 100 per cent accurate. Eireman.
Could someone clarify how he can be "Prince of Prussia" when Prussia as an entity was legally abolished in 1947?
PMelvilleAustin 11:03 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
If I may answer to that as a German: The "legal" name is Georg Friedrich Ferdinand Prinz von Preussen with Prinz von Preussen being his surname. Strictly speaking it is not allowed to put the Prinz in the front, or abreviate the von, but it's generally tolerated. Regarding the Königliche Hoheit, this is no official part of the name, but only used out of courtesy or lack of knowledge, probably both. I think that I read once about a special law, that the daughter of someone with the surname Prinz von XY can have the surname Prinzessin von XY instead, but I'm not totally sure if this is true. 195.141.122.227 ( talk) 12:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Should the rumoured jealousy between The Kaiser and his uncle (Edward) be mentioned, along with the fact that he was by direct descent of the ELDEST of 9 Victoria's children? The bizarre anatogonist behaviour displayed by the Kaiser during the Dreadnought race and the diplomatic twisting before WW1 need to be emphasised more. (27 Nov 2004)
Would it be perhaps helpful to add in facts about his being raised largely by his grandfather who became his strongest influence and thus resulted in the alienation of Wilhelm from his parents - resulting in the rift between him and his mother after he ascended to the throne? The current reference to his relationship with his mother as being a poor one because of her "cold" feelings toward him and her trying to "beat" his handicap out of him is not accurate. While indeed she did bear a great deal of guilt for his handicap she was never guilty of beating him - indeed - he suffered more at the hands of his grandfather's beliefs as to how a future kaiser should be raised then he ever did from his mother's attentions.
Improbable as it seems, the article appears to paint an anti Nazi picture of the Kaiser. Is this accurate? - Litefantastic 23:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
He was certainly not pro-Nazi. I'd need to look at the article again to see if the impression it gives is accurate, though. john k 02:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The 'Nazi' part of the Trivia section should be edited. Wilhelm's concept of rule was founded on romantic Medieval ideas and he believed that monarchy was installed by the grace of God - it's safe to say he despised all kinds of 'revolutionary' and 'socialist' political movements. Like many other Interbellum conservatives and members of the German nobility, he hated the Nazis' rude behaviour and appearance.
For example, shortly after the Nazis seized power, Göring was sent to see Wilhelm in order to try to talk him into becoming the Nazis' figure-head. They argued a couple of hours and Wilhelm called Göring a fool in his diary.
The paragraph 'Would Wilhelm have been in opposition to the Holocaust if he had lived to witness it?' is pointless in my opinion. 141.53.194.251 14:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
The article quotes Wilhelm as saying that he felt embarrased to be a German upon hearing of Hitler's persecutions of the Jews. No source is quoted. Many other sources seem to say that the Kaiser was anti-semitic, such as his 1921 interview when he referred to Jews as "insects" and he expressed dismay that he wasn't harsher with them--going so far as to blame Jews for WWI. What is the source for the article's quote? Rab sb 12:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Who is the current head of the Hohenzollern house?
The current head of the House of Hohenzollern is HRH Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia. He is the son of Prince Louis Ferdinand II of Prussia; Prince Louis Ferdinand II of Prussia is the son of Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia, who was the son of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Prussia. Hope that helps. Prsgoddess187 17:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Louis Ferdinand I's father was the Crown Prince, not Wilhelm II. LF was Wilhelm II's grandson. john k 14:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Wasn't Wilhelm II also Emperor of Baratśa ( 1937- 1941)?
Shouldn't it also mention his English name? any thoughts? Dudtz 7/30/05 2:36 PM EST
No. He was also called Wilhelm in English.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
18:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
He is often called William in English, so the name should at least be mentioned. 192.87.152.234 09:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Why? People know Wilhelm is German for William. What is the point of stating the bleeding obvious. It is like saying a satellite circles the earth (which is round). We don't have to state the patiently obvious.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
17:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
In English, he is often called William, as the anon notes. I see no reason not to mention it. john k 21:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
There, edited the german name, as Albert is "albrect" in german. Also added the full english, as just an interesting tidbit of info. -Alex 12.220.157.93 11:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
"As Albert is Albrect in german" ? Sorry, I am German and never heared about "albrect" ( there is Albrecht, but Albert and Albrecht are two differrent German names )
131.173.12.120
10:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't it just be Wilhelm seeing as how your name doesn't change when you go to another place?
In referring to a monarch, isn't it polite to pronounce his/her name in his/her native language. For example, newspapers in English did not say Hapsburg, they said Habsburg which is the appropriate German way of saying it. So, I think the title of this page should be Wilhelm II, German Emperor; not William II, German Emperor. Emperor001 21:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are all of the sections about the pretenders' to the German Empire names are in German while the actual emperors are referred to by their English names. Shouldn't we be consistent. I am considering changing the name of this article from William II, German Emperor, to Wilhelm II, German Emperor to be consistent with the other pages. Please comment on this so I can be sure that this is or isn't the best decision. I want to avoid an edit war. Emperor001 22:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Most books I have read, including the World Book, say Wilhelm. Emperor001 02:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
All the sources I've found list his as Wilhelm, including all my history texts and period memoirs, he definitely seems to be "one of those exceptions". Since he reigned in a period of growing German nationalism, it makes sense in retrospect that he'd have insisted on the German name. - 68.77.202.224 17:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Also, according to the earlier comments in this section, the article was initially written leaving out his English name, and someone eventually took it upon themselves to then rewrite the article to give the impression that the English name was the more common. All without citing sources to support this or even mention it here. - 68.77.202.224 17:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to put to rest the notion that William is weird, ahistorical and what not. The Times (of London) has called him William all his life: [2] (June 16, 1888) [3] (June 5, 1941) If you check others newspapers I'm sure you'll come to the same result. I don't know when people started referring to him as Wilhelm in English. The birth of Prince William sure has given Wilhelm a boost. Let's not remind people they are relatives is probably what many copy editors thought then. -- 85.181.238.155 ( talk) 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone seen a clear citation that Wilhelm was bisexual, as talked on basis of e.g Eulenburg affair. Arrigo 13:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I've never seen anything beyond extremely loose speculation. john k 15:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Which famous pe4rson has never been discussed to be bisexual in hstory ? 131.173.12.120 10:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph in the WWI section:
It is POV, polemic, and neither its content nor style conform to a minimum encyclopedic standard. ASav
It was technically Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary who started the war. One could argue that the Serbs precipitated it, as Gavrilo Princep, who assassinated Franz Ferdinand and ignited the spark that began the war, may have been trained in Serbia and backed by the Serbian government, although this is not proved beyond a doubt. But Franz Joseph's armies fired the first artillery shots and it was he who began the war. Of course, it can also be argued that Wilhelm instigated this by giving the Austro-Hungarians a blank cheque, saying he would back them all the way. But Wilhelm did not start the war, Franz Joseph did. But he was not presonally hated so much as Wilhelm, so Wilhelm made a better enemy for PR purposes. RockStarSheister ( talk) 20:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Which blank cheque? You mean the telegram from his Norway cruise where he said that Germany will stand by Austria in face of this terrible even (the assassination)? There was no blanke cheque, there was no real German policy either or half the German government including wouldn't have stayed on holidays so the crisis could spiral out of control further. His (and the German government's) fault was ineptitude in dealing with a diplomatic crisis when facing one. That a 80 year old monarch might overreact when his successor gets shot (and after having seen his wife assassinated decades earlier) is also quite understandable. At the end of his reign he knew Habsburg was in ruins even though he didn't even do anything in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.102.53 ( talk) 22:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"Wilhelm had his summer palace in Stuttgart. When in residence, he held a parade every Sunday at noon. In full military dress and on a white steed, the Kaiser and his cavalry marched up and down the main street; the townsfolk were "encouraged" to attend. " Does somebody know where in Stuttgart he used to reside? For me, as a resident of Stuttgart, it would be quite interesting to know. -- Malbi 13:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
that surely is a mix-up with wilhelm II. last king of württemberg, which capital was stuttgart-- Tresckow 04:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone more astute than I should write a paragraph about Wilhelm's military experience. As I recall, he was head of the Prussian 3nd Army in the Franco-Prussian War and had a similar command in the Prussian-Austrian War of 1866. I'm reading Wawro's book on the subject right now, but I don't think I could marshall too many facts other than that basic one.
Perhaps someone has confused Wilhelm with his father, who certainly served in these campaigns???? Member of the Fan Club 203.10.110.133 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
A minor quibble -- the article refers to him dismissing the "cautious" Bismarck. Given that Bismarck was the architect of German unification, doesn't this make him look a bit weak? Is there a better way to put this? I don't know the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, so I will defer on this.
It has been brought to my attention that during Wilhelm's stay at his Summer Palace in Stuttgart he had an affair with a women named Theresia Burian and she had a child (born in Austria under his instruction) by him named Amandus Burian. Does anyone know anything more about this?
Response: As a grandchild of Amandus Burian, I heard stories of being related to someone in the court of Kaiser Wilhelm but I have found no proof of these stories in my genealogical research to date. It does appear that my grandfather, Amandus Burian who was born in Vienna in 1886 was an illegitimate child whose mother's name, according to Ancestry.com records, appears to have been Theresia Burian. I suppose that if there is any truth to the story it may never come to light unless there is written documentation somewhere. HBurian 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following excerpt from the "Life after 1918" section and restored the original:
Although he had asked Hitler for a small military funeral, which included August von Mackensen and Rupprecht of Bavaria, along with a few other military advisors. Wilhelm's request was ignored and Hitler gave him a grand funeral 'worthy of an emperor' full with Nazi nationalism and swastikas, a symbol which Kaiser Wilhelm II repeatedly asked not to be displayed ,just like other Nazi regalia, at the final rites was completely ignored.
It had obvious grammatical errors and, in my opinion, contained certain partisan elements.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.142.96.179 ( talk) 17:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The Kaiser's hand fetish, to which I have just alluded under "trivia," is attested to in Giles Macdonogh's The Last Kaiser: The Life of Wilhelm II. I added this information last year and it was quickly deleted. If this is because of lack of credulity on the part of whoever edited it out, rest assured that the aforementioned book references it in great detail. I hope the information will remain in the future, if only because it's incredibly interesting. Oldkinderhook 18:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC) hez s smothe prestonater
A hand fetish? Someone want to explain that one, as I thought I had heard them all? I've never heard or read that about William. Is it only included in that one source? Seems qustionable. And to be honest, doesn't pretty much ever teenaged pubescent boy have a "hand fetish"? RockStarSheister ( talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the trivia list has gotten far too long and needs to be cropped. People can go on and on and on and on about Wilhelm's absurdities, weird hobbies, sexual orientation nix nix nix.
It will never be exhaustive.
Any suggestions on the next step?
On the question of trivia: how did Wilhelm cut so many trees? One harmed? Xis 09:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The title "of Germany" may be commonly used, but it is blatantly wrong as it was intentionally not adopted. See Wilhelm_I,_German_Emperor#Kaiser -- Matthead 22:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Also opinions above
Usage of Wilhelm - William within books currently in my possession: Wilhelm:
William:
Biographies of the emperor seem to use Wilhelm (as seen in the Further Reading section of the article), while in my experience books which mention him (but do not feature him) refer to him as William. Olessi 19:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There is consensus about the page move. I think a majority prefers "William" over "Wilhelm", so I'm moving the page to William II, German Emperor (although personally I prefer Wilhelm in this case). Eugène van der Pijll 21:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I prefer Wilhelm II , too, and regard the move to William II as a stupid mistake. I await with baited breath for Ivan the Terrible to become John the Terrible as the logic is exactly the same. However, this comment came by too late to make any difference in this debate. Arno 09:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I have never met a single person who refers to the Kaiser as "William." In over 5 years of study and meetings with many expert historians, the universally recognised form of "Wilhelm" has been used. I have only ever seen the term Emperor William II used in outdated British textbooks. In England he is actually just known as 'The Kaiser'- Change article to Wilhelm II, German Kaiser. ~James
Your comment makes no sense. The Emperor of Austria was, of course, also called "Kaiser" in German. Känsterle 10:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with the comment above that naming Kaiser Wilhelm "William II, German Emperor" is along the same lines as naming Ivan the Terrible "John the Terrible" on the same grounds. Even though the Wikipedia guidelines say to use the English name, nobody in common use ever calls him anything other than "Kaiser Wilhelm". Maybe we should look at changing the guidelines, since the Anglicized name in cases like these are rarely used and probably aren't known by the majority of readers. Alexthe5th 21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
What I notice the most about the article is the ongoing comments and sentences about Great Britain, often in such a way that one might think this article is not about the german emperor, but rather about his connections to the British culture etc. We're not living in the beginning of the 20th century anymore, where even scholars tried to make their countries superior to others etc., so I don't like this kind of bias and I hope the article is going to be normalized at some points to be neutral in content.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.29.82.127 ( talk) 03:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand the rationale behind using the English form William II for the article, but I'm not so sure regarding this introduction:
- I think he was not "born" resp. baptized Frederick William Albert Victor of Prussia but Friedrich Wilhelm Albert Viktor von Preußen. Using the English form for the article's title and when referring to him in the body text seems appropriate and other Wikipedias do the same by using their language (e.g. fr:Guillaume II d'Allemagne, is:Vilhjálmur 2. Þýskalandskeisari, it:Guglielmo II di Germania etc.), but although his mother was a daughter of Queen Victoria, I presume that William, being the son of German Frederick III, was christened in the German form. Therefore, how about:
What do you think? Gestumblindi 03:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This page has grown a lot since I last visited. I remember it being a puny, relatively uninformative page back then, and was disappointed that it didn't mention any of the historical controversy regarding his role in German politics. I'm cheered to see it mentioned in the opening, and to see more info here. Meinen Glückwunsch! Brutannica 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm amazed at the terrible whitewash in the article of Wilhelm's views of Jews. He did criticise the Kristallnacht, but then so did Himmler. I have added sourced information regarding his documented views of Jews and his endorsement of conspiracy theories of world Jewish domination.-- Johnbull 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The horn of the German Emperor's first automobile played Donner's "Heda! Heda! Hedo!" motif from Das Rheingold. William himself thought that Wagner's music made "too much noise".
Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.183.19.77 ( talk) 09:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
With Wilhelm letting Lenin take power in place of the Romonovs-this was William's last and most disastrous foreign policy mistake — for while it did knock Russia out of the war and allow Germany to continue the war on the Western front-it replaced the Romanov dynasty with the so called "Red Tsars" (1917-1991) — such as Stalin (1922-1953). Equally disastrous for Germany and the world was the domestic policy of William and Crown Prince William decision to abdicate claims to political power which led to a power vacuum of a weak republic which would be replaced by Adolf Hitler (1933-1945). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.163 ( talk) 00:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct, this wicked German Emperor did such things. Russian Revolution in 1917 hadn't any worker, only well-born figures;all of them supported with many money and gold from this wicked man. Agre22 ( talk) 17:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)agre22
Image:Kaiser Wilhelm car.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, someone should really incorporate (right word?) the Emperor Tamarin kind-of-fun fact into this article. The king got a monkey named after him, how cool (and off course damn relevant) isn't that! Andy McDandy ( talk) 01:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The full title must be: William II, German Emperor and King of Prussia
After the WW I the Kaiser only abdicated as German Emperor but not as King of Prussia. The prussian title was always the proudest and oldest. -- Kai27 ( talk) 15:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Kai27
This http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7426349.stm says he wrote two volumes of memoirs, but the article does not mention them. 80.2.200.73 ( talk) 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 11:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I propose that this article be moved to Wilhelm II, German Emperor. Wilhelm is much more common than William and therefore to be consistent with other encyclopedias, this arcticle should say Wilhelm. Emperor001 ( talk) 16:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
William II, German Emperor → Wilhelm II, German Emperor — From all of the sources I've seen, he is more frequently referred to as Wilhelm (even in books where monarchs' names are frequently anglicanized). These sources include the World Book Encyclopedia, my World History Book from High School, and multiple other history books and school textbooks. Most newspapers from the timeframe that I've read also say Wilhelm. He seems to be one of those exceptions. — Emperor001 ( talk) 23:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.This shows that
Wilhelm II is the more notable name, even in English. This article should be moved to
Wilhelm II, but not to "Wilhelm II, German Emperor", as the disambiguation "German Emperor" becomes unnecessary (a situation which confirms and supports the notability of Wilhelm II). The same goes for Wilhelm I, which should also be moved to
Wilhelm I.
Wilhelm meis (
talk)
03:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Removing my previous modification per WP:NCNT Sovereigns.3.2 Wilhelm meis ( talk) 19:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The tendency to use Wilhelm seems to be a recent trend, especially amongst Americans. It will be interesting if this move is agreed upon but his grandfather and son remain at William. — AjaxSmack 02:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I would say that Emperor is the English for Kaiser, as Chancellor is the English for Kanzler; but the point is definitely worth discussing. (Similarly, Munich is the English for München, and is used on a majority of English literature; but I will pursue this if Bundesamt wants to.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
From the Survey above: There's a redirect from "Wilhelm II", which in my opinion is sufficient. That's quite irrelevant. If the article is moved, there will of course also be a redirect back from the current name. in the naming convention, it says "use English names". Exactly, and there's ample evidence that Wilhelm rather than William is his common name in English. I don't like the idea of having William I, but Wilhelm II. Wikipedia is full of these inconsistencies and it is our policy to have them. But if in this particular case (and there are other exceptions too) consistency is to be the rule, move the other article. Andrewa ( talk) 20:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Since you guys are so big on consistency and Anglicization, how about we change every Ivan to John and every Isabel to Elizabeth? That will surely help our non-expert readers with clarity and ease of use!-- 76.104.221.167 ( talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This is one of those things that goes on a case by case basis. I have seldom seen "William II" in literature, but I have frequently seen "Wilhelm II" in English-language literature. If this article is renamed to "Wilhelm II", the disambiguation "German Emperor" becomes unnecessary, as he is by far the most notable "Wilhelm II". Therefore, I support moving this article to Wilhelm II. Wilhelm meis ( talk) 02:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the poll seems to be in favor of a move to Wilhelm, should it be Wilhelm II, Wilhelm II, German Emperor, or maybe even an earlier title, Wilhelm II of Germany? Once we decide what the move the article to, I'll move it. Emperor001 ( talk) 17:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
needs better referencing plange 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 11:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 21:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)