![]() | 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 |
I would like to apologize for some canvassing I have recently done. I didn't know it was frowned upon. I was only trying to help Wikipedia which I thought would include enlisting others into discussions and polls. Emperor001 ( talk) 00:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The Requested Move discussion has been largely dead for over a week. There seems to be a consensus toward moving, with the only active hold out being Septentrionalis. The only arguments against seem to be centered around consistently Anglicising names of royalty (which we don't do anyway - i.e. Ivan, Isabel, Alfonso, etc.) and the misreading of WP:NCNT to say that an English (or Anglicised) name is prescribed, when in fact the bold print of NCNT says "most common form of the name used in English" (i.e. the name in common useage in English, not necessarily an English name). I also notice one of the few opposers simply logged in to cast a vote without arguing a case against the move. Is there any further objection before this discussion is closed? Wilhelm meis ( talk) 01:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Now that the article has been moved, all of the Williams within the article should be changed to Wilhelms (except maybe a mentioning that his English name is William. I've already started. Emperor001 ( talk) 16:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
When the article name gets finalized, don't forget to fix all the double redirects. Many ancestor-tree links end up being broken if there are too many redirects. Thanks. DavidRF ( talk) 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Added on his views towards Slavs-seems relevent in context to Russian Empire, and internal policies as they were milions of Slavic people within Germany at the time.-- Molobo ( talk) 17:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I deleted this prahse, whose was in top of the article. "SAM THE KAISER WASNT A MIGET!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.132.5 ( talk) 21:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The articles forgets the fact of this wicked Emperor, be an eugenicist.He also commanded genocides in Africa. Herero and Namaqua Genocide and Maji Maji Rebellion were genocides made by this wicked german. Hitler was even worse than this german crook, but Wilhelm II was also a calamity for his country, its allies, its foes and all the world.Wilhelm II lack of equilibrium began the nightmarish part of XX Century.Whithout this wicked Wilhelm II, never communism, fascism and nazism would never existed, in the world.These useless frauds sent to death more than 150,000,000 of persons, since 1917. Agre22 ( talk) 18:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)agre22
A scanned copy of the Kaiser's My Memoirs: 1878-1918, Cassell and Company (1922) is available at
and contains the following truly startling revelations about various schemes that were being concocted by the other powers.
1. The British-American-French agreement of 1897
On pp. 69-70, the Kaiser wrote the following.
Roland Greene Usher was a professor of political science at Washington University, in St. Louis. His book Pan-Germanism was published in February 1913. The various scanned chapters are at
Chapter X discusses the secret agreement of 1897.
2. The Russo-French proposal for war against England in 1900
On pages 79-84, the Kaiser discusses how the Kruger telegram was composed by Marshall and the controversy that it created. The Kaiser also makes the following revelation.
3. Joseph Chamberlain’s proposal for war against Russia in 1901
On pp. 101-103, the Kaiser makes some startling revelations about Joseph Chamberlain's proposal, made in the spring of 1901, for an alliance between Britain and Germany. According to the Kaiser:
The Kaiser also realized that:
4. The role of the "Grand Orient Lodge" in the outbreak of the war
Chapter 10 is entitled "The Outbreak of War." In pp. 245-252, the Kaiser lists 12 "proofs," from the more extensive "Comparative Historical Tables" that he had compiled, which demonstrate the preparations for war by the Entente Powers made in the spring and summer of 1914. Page 246 contains the following.
On pp. 253-54, the Kaiser makes the following startling revelation concerning the information given to the Kaiser by a German Freemason about the role played in the preparation of the war by the "Grand Orient Lodge."
Item (5) above was indeed written in Maurice Paléologue’s memoirs at: http://www.gwpda.org/memoir/FrAmbRus/palTC.htm . The following is under Wednesday, July 22, 1914 at: http://www.gwpda.org/memoir/FrAmbRus/pal1-01.htm
Does anyone have more information about this telegram sent by the King of Montenegro to his daughters? Italus ( talk) 21:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Sir John Keegan says that he fled to Holland on 10 November, but did not sign his act of abdication until 28 November. If so, the section should be titled "Flight and abdication". There are no citations in the relevant text, so I am amending it. Red Hurley ( talk) 14:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The section heading "Abdication and Flight" continues to convey the utterly misleading impression--propagated by the Entente, U.S. and German press--that the Kaiser "fled." In fact the abdication of the Kaiser was forced by Woodrow Wilson as a condition for granting the armistice requested by the German High Command, and the German High Command dumped the Kaiser when he was no longer useful to them. This utterly misleading heading should be changed to "Exile and Abdication." Italus ( talk) 13:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The Bolshevik Revolution section of the article has no sources. This is not an article for fantasy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 ( talk) 21:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Right, well I was a bit surprised to see Wilhelm II under an article entitled William II. I, like many other UK-english speakers have NEVER heard him referred to as William. Some I see have chosen William in line with 'consistency'. This is not adhering to what he is called the majority of the time in English (Brit-Ger royal connections or not). It really should be renamed back - i nearly navigated away from the page thinking I was in the wrong place. As for 'Kaiser Bill', this seems more of a joke insertion or vandalism. I will take this out within next few hours if no-one can come up with a source. Kaiser Wilhelm the Second is usually called 'The Kaiser' by older working class generations in Britain. Never heard this 'Bill' nickname at all.. -- maxrspct ping me 18:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep.. u beat me to it.. i was actually editing in how out of date the terminology is/was before u reverted. -- maxrspct ping me 21:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't know how important this is, but when I was young, my mom taught me a ryhme similar to this: Kaiser Bill went up a hill to take a peak at France. Kaiser Bill came down the hill with bullets in his pants. Obviously it was a derogatory nickname, but I can't say how common it was. Emperor001 ( talk) 05:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Wilhelm II, German Emperor → William II, German Emperor — Now that his grandfather has been moved to William I, we ought to move him as well. These two monarchs are closely linked, the need for consistency overrides any minor differences. I doubt if any important work treats them differently. He is described as William II in e.g. the text of the Treaty of Versailles. His father is also anglicised as Frederick III on Wikipedia. PatGallacher ( talk) 16:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Moving the three German Emperors to "X of Germany" would bring a big problem. Frederick III, German Emperor would be moved to Frederick III of Germany - a name that may just as well refer to Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor. That is why the present format is used. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
William I, German Emperor → William I of Germany — Most other emperors do not have "Emperor" in the title (e.g. Austria, Russia, Rome) I think the only ones who do are the Holy Roman Emperors. I have seen the argument that with Frederick there is some possibility of confusion with Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor but that applies whatever we call him. PatGallacher ( talk) 11:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 07:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
This is very odd. This article is at Wilhelm II, German Emperor, yet the topic's grandfather is at William I, German Emperor. Noting aswell, we've got Frederick III, German Emperor & not Friedrich III, German Emperor. GoodDay ( talk) 15:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I am uploading photos from the museum in Achilleion, Wilhelm's II summer residence. I think there are numerous items related to Wilhelm II, but they were usually not well described. Somebody may want to look over commons:Category:Achilleion and categorize appropriate images so they also appear in commons:Category:Wilhelm II of Germany. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It says to see the talk page for the discussion on the contradiction. I'm here, I don't see anything. That said, there is an element missing in that part of the article. It seems that Wilhelm was vehemently anti-semetic, but there is nothing which says why he felt this way. Was it a book he read? Did Jerusalem win a powerful battle? What? MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 08:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The section "6.1 October 1918 telegrams" is mostly OR quoting primary sources that are very difficult to interpret. I plan to rework the sections using the standard RS in a few days. Rjensen ( talk) 23:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
A scanned copy of the Kaiser's My Memoirs: 1878-1918, Cassell and Company (1922) is available at http://books.google.com/books?id=ywZoAAAAMAAJ&dq=kaiser+%22My+Memoirs and contains the following truly startling revelations about various schemes that were being concocted by the other powers. These revelations, which I had posted here some time ago and have since been deleted, are very serious and should be given some mention in the article.
1. The British-American-French agreement of 1897: On pp. 69-70, the Kaiser wrote the following.
Roland Greene Usher was a professor of political science at Washington University, in St. Louis. His book Pan-Germanism was published in February 1913. The various scanned chapters are at http://books.google.com/books?id=YFwMAAAAYAAJ Chapter X discusses the secret agreement of 1897.
2. The Russo-French proposal for war against England in 1900: On pages 79-84, the Kaiser discusses how the Kruger telegram was composed by Marshall and the controversy that it created. The Kaiser also makes the following revelation.
3. Joseph Chamberlain’s proposal for war against Russia in 1901: On pp. 101-103, the Kaiser makes some startling revelations about Joseph Chamberlain's proposal, made in the spring of 1901, for an alliance between Britain and Germany. According to the Kaiser:
The Kaiser also realized that:
Italus ( talk) 04:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
There was a movement in 1918-19 by the victorious allies in their Pyrrhic victory to hang the Kaiser. Many new orphans and widows felt it was just There is no discussion or mention of it here, nor why the Dutch protected slick Willy for 22 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 ( talk) 12:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
This article has some serious issues in it. Certainly the most serious one is the "Did he hate Jews or not?" issue. Another one that I noticed is that the article seems to portray him as somekind of evil leader. Sentences like "He often tried to bully his royal relatives", "possessed of a quick intelligence, but unfortunately this was often overshadowed by a cantankerous temper", "he remained convinced that he belonged to a distinct order of mankind", " Wilhelm was accused of megalomania as early as 1892", "The hyper-masculine military culture of Prussia in this period did much to frame Wilhelm's political ideals as well as his personal relationships", "Both sides of his family had suffered from mental illness, and this may explain his emotional instability", etc., etc., etc...
And the parts of the article which seems to reveal Wilhelm II as somekind of earlier Hitler is of bad taste. There is no one in Wikiproject Germany working on its royals' articles? -- Lecen ( talk) 14:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
He has behaviour of type X, some policy is considered Y etc.? According to who? Person edit my 'vandalism' does not address this. If no source, no valid statement! If Wiki lets edit so, anyone can say so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.154.10 ( talk) 05:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
– The phrase 'German Emperor' is ugly and clunky, very few people searching for information on any of the articles requested for move are going to type in the long winded names above unless they are a regular viewer of the page (in which case they will quickly adapt to any new name). Kaiser has become a lone word to the English language used to specifically describe the German Emperors to use it would therefore be much more reflective of the usage in English. These three articles are some of the more unique named on Wikipedia due to the use of NAME, German Emperor rather than NAME of Germany but the reason for the articles being named like this has been explained a number of times and can be found in the archives of their talk pages. While articles about the Russian Tsars do not use Tsar in the title of the page (as they are styled normally) they use Tsar rather than King in their main articles reflecting a precedence for using lone words, if these moves are supported then obviously the article texts should be changed to read Kaiser rather than German Emperor/Emperor but this would only take a copy of seconds using find and replace. I understand there has been some debate about whether to use the German or English versions of the monarchs names but this is a different situation than whether to use Kaiser of not, currently one of the articles is entitled Wilhelm and the other William, while this should be resolved I do not want the main premise of this move request to become overshadowed by this detail so any move requests affecting the names should wait until this request has been closed. Shatter Resistance ( talk) 15:37, 5 July 2011 (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 policy on article titles. Larger comments, general discussion and alternative proposals should be expressed in the Discussion area below or in a new relevant subsection.Frederick_III_of_Germany should be a dab page; or there should be a hat note. I'm not arguing that we must do things as we do; merely recording that there was a reason we decided to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Favonian ( talk) 13:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Wilhelm II, German Emperor → Kaiser Wilhelm II – The subject is most commonly referred to as " the Kaiser". It is intuitively obvious that "the Kaiser" is short for "Kaiser Wilhelm II". The currently title is a hybrid of German and English, as well as an unnatural "name, title" format designed to meet the alphabetization needs of dead tree reference works. "German emperor" "Wilhelm II" | "William II" -Wikipedia yields 5,490 post-1980 English-language Google Book hits, compared to 49,100 for Kaiser "Wilhelm II" | "William II" -wikipedia. So he is called "kaiser" a whole lot more than "German emperor", quite apart from the other issues involved. Relisting; discussion is still active here. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Kauffner ( talk) 17:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to be bold in case there's a previous discussion that I've missed, but it seems to me that the article should begin "Wilhelm II (German: Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albrecht von Preußen; English: Frederick William Victor Albert of Prussia), known as Kaiser Wilhelm..." (or "Kaiser Wilhelm II"), since he is obviously (and verifiably) very well known by that name and title. At the moment "Kaiser" is italicised and bracketed and stuck in after "German Emperor", which is the less commonly used title. It looks really strange to me. Scolaire ( talk) 09:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Was glancing through the article and found, under the heading "Break with Bismarck on labor policy," the statement that "The Conservatives would support the bill only in its entirety, and threatened to, and eventually did, veto the entire bill." This was at the end of a paragraph concerning Germany's then-legistature either making all their anti-Socialist laws permanent, or making them all permanent but one.
If they supported the entire bill, why would they veto the entire bill? Or did they veto the ammended bill?
74.113.172.20 ( talk) 18:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Sandra
The sentence at the beginning of the "Shadow Kaiser" section seems to come out of nowhere, has no relevance to the section and is a remarkably specific claim to make without a citation (I've added a citation needed flag)
Upon hearing that his cousin George V had changed the name of the British royal house to Windsor, Wilhelm remarked that he planned to see Shakespeare's play The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
.
1. Where does it come from? 2. Is it relevant (I think it's a nice piece of trivia)? 3. Where should it go?
NetHawk ( talk) 02:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
It's certainly a fairly well-known story, although just possibly it could be apocryphal. PatGallacher ( talk) 02:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyone interested, please take a look at this RfC. -- Lecen ( talk) 17:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
WILHELM is VERY rarely, if at all, referred to as 'William II' by historians. Within the historical community, ruler's names and titles are pronounced in the manner of their respective countries. Hence why we have Tsars and Czars and not 'Caesars' in charge of the Russian Empire and Spanish kings called Phillipe.-- Crimzon2283 ( talk) 14:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
"He was related to many royal figures across Europe, and as war loomed in 1914, Wilhelm was on friendly terms with his cousins the Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and King George V of the United Kingdom."
Repeating this big lie over and over does not make it correct. King George V was cousin of Kaiser Wilhelm II because the King's father and the Kaiser's mother were siblings ( Edward VII and Victoria, children of Queen Victoria ).
King George V was also cousin of the Tsar because King George's danish mother Queen Alexandra's sister was the mother of the Tsar, being the wife of his predecessor.
That doesn't make the Tsar the cousin of the Kaiser at all. If King George was the cousin of the Kaiser through his father, and the cousin of the Tsar through his mother, that does not make the Tsar and the Kaiser cousins.
The Kaiser was a fourth or fifth cousin of the Tsar through some common ancestor in the 18th century. Eregli bob ( talk) 03:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
They were cousins by marriage. Nicholas was married to Wilhelms first cousin Alexandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 ( talk) 16:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
On 15 July 2012, I had added the following quotation, with the reference to page 103 of David Allen Butler's THE BURDEN OF GUILT: How Germany Shattered the Last Days of Peace, Summer 1914, which I added to the Bibliography. I do not understand why Rjensen removed it under the guise: "drop little anecdote mostly about someone else."
When Wilhelm arrived at the Potsdam station late in the evening of July 26, he was met by a pale, agitated, and somewhat fearful Chancellor. Von Bethmann-Hollweg's apprehension stemmed not from the dangers of the looming war, but rather from his fear of the Kaiser's wrath when the extent of his deceptions were revealed. The Kaiser's first words to him were suitably brusque: "How did it all happen?" Rather than attempt to explain, the Chancellor offered his resignation by way of apology. Wilhelm refused to accept it, muttering furiously, "You've made this stew, Now you're going to eat it!" [1]
Italus ( talk) 18:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This could very well be a well-kept secret, but as his illegitimate son Anders' family now has received their recognition from the remaining Preussen family in terms of titles I think this article should be updated to reflect this. Kaiser Wilhelm II had a son in Norway (Bergen to be exact) between 1898 and 1914 named Anders Fosse. Up until recently his descendants in Norway has fought for recognition and earlier this year (I imagine) they got their recognition. This is extremely hard to find information about on the Internet as I am not sure it is for everyone to know, so the source on this would have to be the descendants' respective name changes. Solarclock ( talk) 13:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The german Wikipedia article doesn't represent Emperor Wilhelm the second in anyway anti semitic. On the contrary he had a lot of jewish friends, opposed the national socialists in every way. He did not want to be buried with swastika or anything related to national socialism. He expressed his deepest rejection after the first anti jewish incidents after the Kristallnacht and urged every german to stand against it.
I believe that the sources who name Wilhelm the second as anti-Semitic are either out of the context or originate in unserious original research by a historian who published a book in which he expressed his wish thinking about Germany and an history of anti-Semitism, which has more to do with the historians narzism rather than reality.
I will as soon as possible work the article out and remove any false claims and accusations for Wilhelm the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.103.44 ( talk) 04:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
We live in a time in which modern historians interpret history over the acceptance of primary and secondary commonly accepted knowledge, that serves to support their claims based on 2 dimensional categorizations, independent if they are right or not. For example the National socialistic " Totenkopf" division is named as a Nazi elite military unit, which is completely insane as the wikipedia article is. As you have been taught in school, this unit included jewish german soldiers who were sent to the division during the dejewification process of the german military during the third reich (of whom you had a lot, prior to world war 2, millions of jews lived in Germany, with access to the military). Political oppositionists as well as captured Russians, Poles, Czechs, etc. everyone with military experience, who was named by the Nazis as "from lesser origin" has been used in that unit, why it always saw frontline assignments. The Japanese did the same with Japanese with Chinese ancestry, see Sino-Japanese kamikaze pilots. That what is published in Wikipedia is sometimes farer away from the truth than anyone can imagine. The same occurs for Wilhelm the second. Everytime when tertiary knowledge is required it is always replaced by 2 dimensional commonly accepted misjudgment, because the same discussions happened over and over again: "These are no solid sources", "The usual historians agreed on this interpretation of the history..." etc... then you only use any source, serious or not,...Cecil, Röhler, Kast....etc... add them in a text in Wikipedia together with a denunciation in form of an accusation of the latest comment and everybody believes it. Most persons know what iam talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.103.30 ( talk) 15:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what your point is. It seems to be well-documented that the Kaiser was anti-Semitic. But saying that he was anti-Semitic is not the same thing as saying he was a Nazi - it seems fairly clear that he was not particularly sympathetic to the Nazis, and, indeed, that his anti-Semitism was of a different, and milder, type. But that doesn't mean he wasn't an anti-Semite. john k ( talk) 01:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The original German (I suppose) for this should be thoroughly gone over with somebody who knows English as a first language. The following sentence is incorrectly punctuated; the semi-colon should be a colon. "...as in the circumstances in which he was raised; close emotional contact between father and son was not encouraged." 71.163.114.49 ( talk) 00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the notes and realized that no source is listed for the 3rd note (Putnam, 2001). Does anyone know the book that this source is from? 174.16.96.168 ( talk) 03:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
His name was "Wilhelm". Why is Wilhelm the First called "William I" and Wilhelm the Second called "Wilhelm II"? Inconsistent in choosing what to change the name of historical characters to...
I agree about the inconsistencies. 80% of the Heinrichs are called "Henry". 50% of the Friedrichs are "Frederick". Wilhelm is consistently not changed to "William". Presidentbalut ( talk) 22:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The marriage of Wilhelm II to Hermine de Greiz shows on this page as 9 November 1922, but on her page (with citation) the date is listed as 5 November 1922. The citation was from Thepeerage.com, which cites "Queen Victoria's descendants by Marlene A. Eilers, page 161". Would an editor please edit this date and give it proper citation as I am new to this and a little on making citations. MacEachan1 ( talk) 04:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)MacEachan1
Death is given correctly as 4 June 1941, but under sub-heading "Death" it is given as 3 June 1941. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.134.20 ( talk) 00:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Both his predecessors as German Emperor ( William I, Frederick III) are listed under their English names. -- megA ( talk) 13:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Argh! Please, not again!!! See the archive for what I mean. Drow69 ( talk) 18:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a common misconception that George V, Wilhelm II, and Nicholas II were cousins. In fact, George V and Nicholas II were cousins through the Danish royal family, while George V and Wilhelm II were related through the British royal family. Wilhelm, and Nicholas, though they shared a common cousin, were not themselves cousins. Wilhelm II was the first cousin of Nicholas' wife, who was the granddaughter of Queen Victoria.
50.66.72.174 ( talk) 02:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Judas
"All Bismarck's resources were deployed; he even asked Empress Victoria to use her influence at her son on his behalf... As Lord Salisbury told Queen Victoria: 'The very qualities which Bismarck fostered in the Emperor in order to strengthen himself when the Emperor Frederick should come to the throne have been the qualities by which he has been overthrown.' The Empress, with what must have been a mixture of pity and triumph, told him that her influence with her son could not save him for he himself had destroyed it." Empress Victoria was indeed Wilhelm's mother. Queen Victoria was his grandmother. But Lord Salisbury is said to be speaking to Queen Victoria, and then suddenly being replied to by The Empress. ??? Who in fact was Lord Salisbury speaking to ? Unlikely to have been speaking to Empress Victoria. And who was Empress Victoria talking to ? Very confusing. I suspect the quote has been botched. Rcbutcher ( talk) 10:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
"Jena came twenty years after the death of Frederick the Great; the crash will come twenty years after my departure if things go on like this" ― a prophecy fulfilled almost to the month.
according to The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations this was said in 1895 thus the prophecy was not fulfilled almost to the month, but four years late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.48.209 ( talk) 22:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this article too long? Jonas Vinther ( talk) 14:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
List of German monarchs:
William II, German Emperor makes sense.-- MICHAVP ( talk) 00:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
In my humble opinion , a very well-written lead. I presume it covers the article and the references are put there, where they belong. But was he concidered "bombastic" also in Germany ? Are we sure it's not just old war time propaganda (question) ? Boeing720 ( talk) 03:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Strange there's no mention in the article about the pivotal Harden-Eulenburg affair or even to the Kaiser's friendship with Philipp zu Eulenburg-Hertefeld.— Ana Bruta ( talk) 21:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
German Emperor; King of Prussia Reign 15 June 1888 – 9 November 1918
He officially abdicated at 28 November, so, this of up should be:
German Emperor; King of Prussia Reign 15 June 1888 – 28 November 1918 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.58.215.49 ( talk) 16:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your explanation. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.58.215.49 (
talk)
16:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Descriptions like "bombastic and impetuous" in the lead make me wonder if this page is written in a POV against the subject. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"Jena came twenty years after the death of Frederick the Great; the crash will come twenty years after my departure if things go on like this" ― a prophecy fulfilled almost to the month.
according to The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations this was said in 1895 thus the prophecy was not fulfilled almost to the month, but four years late.
I have made a little change to the description of the Nine Sovereigns photo. Maymichael2 ( talk) 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
This should be deleted, because there is actually no evidence for Wilhelm´s II anti-Semitism. Wilhelm II was actually a friend of many Jews like Chaim Weizmann, Albert Ballin, James Simon, Emil and Walter Rathenau and others, the so called "Kaiserjuden". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.19.42 ( talk) 20:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
he died on 21st april. you got it wrong
86.6.58.46 ( talk) 20:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
This is not an overly serious change suggestion, but I'm a little confused as to why the infobox image is showing him facing mostly to the side? -- 2601:246:800:43FE:DC0:4ECE:1566:1D5 ( talk) 10:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Has it ever been determined what mental problem he had? ( Jdkd44 ( talk) 19:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC))
The article already briefly mentions that his physical disability may have affected his mentality and emotions: "A traumatic breech birth left him with a withered left arm due to Erb's palsy, which he tried with some success to conceal. In many photos he carries a pair of white gloves in his left hand to make the arm seem longer, holds his left hand with his right, or has his crippled arm on the hilt of a sword or holding a cane to give the effect of a useful limb posed at a dignified angle. His left arm was about 6 inches (15 centimetres) shorter than his right arm. Historians have suggested that this disability affected his emotional development"
Then again, I would guess most people with crippling disabilities may be self-conscious about them and/or have some emotional issues to deal with. Dimadick ( talk) 08:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if Sidney Reilly really did impersonate one of the Kaiser's generals, as was alleged in the book Reilly: Ace of Spies Glammazon ( talk) 17:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Why is there no mention at all of the Kaiser's likely bisexuality, in particular the Harden-Eulenburg Affair, which in Wikipedia's own words is "considered the biggest domestic scandal of the German Second Empire"? 121.73.7.84 ( talk) 11:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, some editor should modify the article to include information about the miners' strike and about the Labor Conference-factors that contributed to the break with Bismarck and to his dismissal.
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 are from Emil Ludwig, Wilhelm Hohenzollern, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York (1927) [translated by Ethel Colburn Mayne].
"He was soon to have his first opportunity of acting upon his humanitarian principles. Over a hundred thousand miners in the Ruhr came out on strike for higher wages. In the moment when Bismarck was laying before the Cabinet some strong emergency measures, there appeared, suddenly and unannounced, the Emperor in Hussar uniform and blustering mood proclaiming: 'The directors and shareholders must give in; the men are my subjects for whom I am responsible. Yesterday I warned the Chairman of the Committees in the Rhineland, telling them that if the industry doe not at once grant an increase in wages, I shall withdraw my troops. Then, if the owners and directors have their villas burnt down and their gardens trampled on, they will sing a little smarter!'" [pp. 81-82]
In January 1890, the Kaiser decided to convene a Labor Conference.
" ... Two proposals, of which one is written by the Emperor's own hand, are read aloud by Bötticher. [...] Protection of the working-man, no work on Sundays, no child labor: mere common sense. After the reading the Emperor speaks: 'The employers have sqeezed the men like lemons, and then let them rot in the dung-heaps. And so the working-man has come to reflect that he is not a mere machine, and claims his share in the profits created by him. But his relation to the employer must be that of a colleague. These strikes are proof that there is no sympathy whatever between the two parties; hence the increase in Social-Democracy. The modicum of truth that underlies that teaching will be forgotten, and the anarchists will gain the upper hand. Just as a regimental company goes to pieces if the captain takes no interest in it, so it is with industry, In the next strike the men will be better organized and more exacerbated; then there will be risings, which we shall be obliged to shoot down.
"'But it would be terrible if I had to stain the first years of my reign with the blood of my subjects. Everyone who means well by me will do his outmost to avert such a catastrophe. I intend to be le roi des gueux! My subjects shall know that their King is concerned for their welfare. ... We must oppose International Social-Democracy with an international compact. Switzerland did not succeed in that. But if the German Emperor convokes a similar conference it will be quite a different affair. ... And so I have spent two nights in framing these proposals. I propose to have drafts, based upon these, of an edict worded in a spirit of warm goodwill, so that I may promulgate it on the day after to-morrow, which will be my birthday.'" [pp. 91-92]
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). Italus ( talk) 22:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Under this section heading, proposed addition: Christopher Plummer plays an elderly Wilhelm II in exile, in the 2017 film The Exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.2.26 ( talk) 18:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I propose that this quote should be removed because 1. this is only attributed to Wilhelm II 2. there is no source 3. no verifiable source exist, because no historian has ever provided a reliable source to this unsubstantiated hearsay. Suomalainen konformisuus ( talk) 12:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
"High school" is an American term. ( 86.158.167.96 ( talk) 10:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC))
A small edit war cropped up over Wilhelm's surname (if there is one) and title after 1918, which one contributor using "Prinz von Preussen" (his hereditary title at birth) and the other "King of Prussia / German Emperor (pretender). The first is inalienable, but can the second be continued to use? Moreover, are the King (succession in Prussia) and Emperor (elected by the German princes) equal ones and can Wilhelm be a pretender to both? While the hereditary throne of Prussia remained vacant, one could claim that the German President was Wilhelm's rightful successor as German head of state, since the right to elect the head of state was not inalienably tied to the Prussian king but was rather decided by the states. Ilja.nieuwland ( talk) 15:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The empire was officially defined as a federation of the member states under the presidency of Prussia. The King of Prussia was automatically the bearer of the Bundespräsidium, since 1 January 1871 additionally with the title German Emperor (Deutscher Kaiser). Therefore, the imperial crown was tied to the office of the King of Prussia instead of a personal union between the Empire and Prussia. This meant that contrary to what Wilhelm II believed at the end of World War I, he could not abdicate merely as German Emperor while keeping the Prussian crown unless he agreed to renounce the entire constitution, which would have been, in effect, the de jure dissolution of the Empire.
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wikify the Daily Telegraph quote "You English are mad, mad, mad as March hares." to "You English are mad, mad, mad as March hares"
The phrase is less known and sounds quite strange for non native speakers. 81.100.155.161 ( talk) 01:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
It's in the lead. 98.7.201.234 ( talk) 03:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Footnote 66 says "Collier 1974" but there is no Collier in the bibliography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.178.17 ( talk) 17:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 14:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe that both his German and English form of his name should be included as "Wilhem II or William II" before his full name in parenthesis. Ryou14 ( talk) 03:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sorry, what I meant to say was that "Wilhelm II" should be changed back or changed to "Wilhelm II or William II" before his full name in parenthesis, please. Ryou14 ( talk) 03:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You need to include Kaiser Wilhelm II's Marian Cross of the Teutonic Order. It is common in his later pictures in uniform. 49.146.7.158 ( talk) 06:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
// his tactless public statements greatly antagonized the international community and his foreign policy was seen by many as one of the causes for the outbreak of World War I// ... and it sounds like blame shifting. What would be the evidence for this anyway? No serious source is given. -- 105.4.2.43 ( talk) 15:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The lede should only say he remained during the Nazi occupation of Holland, not through it, since he died in its second year. 86.148.205.62 ( talk) 15:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I found these book citations from The Peerage website, but I have to cite this book for titles within this section that referenced to Marlene Eilers.
49.150.100.127 (
talk)
00:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to remove the word "weak" when the article mentions Germany's alliance to Austria Hungary in 1910, as well as adding Italy to the list of allies, and removing the Ottoman empire. Germany and the Ottoman empire did not ally until late 1914, but the article currently lists the Ottoman empire as an ally of Germany in 1910 Quinnisdef ( talk) 00:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tom Hollander’s performance as Kaiser Wilhelm (and as his cousins King George and Tsar Nicholas, if appropriate) in The King’s Man (2021) can be added to the Documentaries and Films section. Harrrlequin ( talk) 15:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "thr" to "the" in sentence "... in what is still called thr Year of the Three Emperors, ...". 2A02:1811:D24:D900:D963:95DA:2645:8297 ( talk) 15:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Very difficult to get this right. 2A02:AA1:1007:DC14:CC27:5972:B55:480C ( talk) 11:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
this is directly from the lede of the article
" Britain became Germany's main enemy when the Kaiser launched a massive expansion of the Imperial German Navy.[1]"
But this cite says nothing of the sort. why is this wiki locked with such completely BS claims? does no one even bother to check cites? 05:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
'... after a decisive defeat on the Western Front in the fall of 1918.' What is the reason for the use of the US dialect of 'fall'? Surely the English (international) 'autumn' be used. 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:5C7E:E26D:2ED:DC1 ( talk) 22:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
When purssia defeated the Austria, Denmark and France in a war. This war of 7 years ended up with the victory of Purssia. Later the Purssian king William Second became the emperor.The efforts were made towards the modernization of currency, banking and judicial system of Germany. 2409:4054:29E:351B:CB05:97FA:84BD:9360 ( talk) 04:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Many sources says that Wilhelm II's death was because of a Pulmonary embolism [2]. So, should editors put it in the Infobox Person? Gabriel Ziegler ( talk) 23:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
In photos, the Kaiser was in possession the Marian Cross of the Teutonic Order. When he was awarded that medal? Please consider adding it to the decorations tab. [1]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.146.14.164 ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The original Wilhelm II quote: "Die tiefste, ekelhafteste Schande, die jemals von einem Volk in der Geschichte begangen wurde, haben die Deutschen sich selbst angetan." is erroneously translated as: "[the] deepest, most disgusting shame ever perpetrated by a person in history, the Germans have done to themselves ..."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.241.194 ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 June 2021 (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 |
I would like to apologize for some canvassing I have recently done. I didn't know it was frowned upon. I was only trying to help Wikipedia which I thought would include enlisting others into discussions and polls. Emperor001 ( talk) 00:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The Requested Move discussion has been largely dead for over a week. There seems to be a consensus toward moving, with the only active hold out being Septentrionalis. The only arguments against seem to be centered around consistently Anglicising names of royalty (which we don't do anyway - i.e. Ivan, Isabel, Alfonso, etc.) and the misreading of WP:NCNT to say that an English (or Anglicised) name is prescribed, when in fact the bold print of NCNT says "most common form of the name used in English" (i.e. the name in common useage in English, not necessarily an English name). I also notice one of the few opposers simply logged in to cast a vote without arguing a case against the move. Is there any further objection before this discussion is closed? Wilhelm meis ( talk) 01:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Now that the article has been moved, all of the Williams within the article should be changed to Wilhelms (except maybe a mentioning that his English name is William. I've already started. Emperor001 ( talk) 16:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
When the article name gets finalized, don't forget to fix all the double redirects. Many ancestor-tree links end up being broken if there are too many redirects. Thanks. DavidRF ( talk) 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Added on his views towards Slavs-seems relevent in context to Russian Empire, and internal policies as they were milions of Slavic people within Germany at the time.-- Molobo ( talk) 17:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I deleted this prahse, whose was in top of the article. "SAM THE KAISER WASNT A MIGET!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.132.5 ( talk) 21:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The articles forgets the fact of this wicked Emperor, be an eugenicist.He also commanded genocides in Africa. Herero and Namaqua Genocide and Maji Maji Rebellion were genocides made by this wicked german. Hitler was even worse than this german crook, but Wilhelm II was also a calamity for his country, its allies, its foes and all the world.Wilhelm II lack of equilibrium began the nightmarish part of XX Century.Whithout this wicked Wilhelm II, never communism, fascism and nazism would never existed, in the world.These useless frauds sent to death more than 150,000,000 of persons, since 1917. Agre22 ( talk) 18:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)agre22
A scanned copy of the Kaiser's My Memoirs: 1878-1918, Cassell and Company (1922) is available at
and contains the following truly startling revelations about various schemes that were being concocted by the other powers.
1. The British-American-French agreement of 1897
On pp. 69-70, the Kaiser wrote the following.
Roland Greene Usher was a professor of political science at Washington University, in St. Louis. His book Pan-Germanism was published in February 1913. The various scanned chapters are at
Chapter X discusses the secret agreement of 1897.
2. The Russo-French proposal for war against England in 1900
On pages 79-84, the Kaiser discusses how the Kruger telegram was composed by Marshall and the controversy that it created. The Kaiser also makes the following revelation.
3. Joseph Chamberlain’s proposal for war against Russia in 1901
On pp. 101-103, the Kaiser makes some startling revelations about Joseph Chamberlain's proposal, made in the spring of 1901, for an alliance between Britain and Germany. According to the Kaiser:
The Kaiser also realized that:
4. The role of the "Grand Orient Lodge" in the outbreak of the war
Chapter 10 is entitled "The Outbreak of War." In pp. 245-252, the Kaiser lists 12 "proofs," from the more extensive "Comparative Historical Tables" that he had compiled, which demonstrate the preparations for war by the Entente Powers made in the spring and summer of 1914. Page 246 contains the following.
On pp. 253-54, the Kaiser makes the following startling revelation concerning the information given to the Kaiser by a German Freemason about the role played in the preparation of the war by the "Grand Orient Lodge."
Item (5) above was indeed written in Maurice Paléologue’s memoirs at: http://www.gwpda.org/memoir/FrAmbRus/palTC.htm . The following is under Wednesday, July 22, 1914 at: http://www.gwpda.org/memoir/FrAmbRus/pal1-01.htm
Does anyone have more information about this telegram sent by the King of Montenegro to his daughters? Italus ( talk) 21:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Sir John Keegan says that he fled to Holland on 10 November, but did not sign his act of abdication until 28 November. If so, the section should be titled "Flight and abdication". There are no citations in the relevant text, so I am amending it. Red Hurley ( talk) 14:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The section heading "Abdication and Flight" continues to convey the utterly misleading impression--propagated by the Entente, U.S. and German press--that the Kaiser "fled." In fact the abdication of the Kaiser was forced by Woodrow Wilson as a condition for granting the armistice requested by the German High Command, and the German High Command dumped the Kaiser when he was no longer useful to them. This utterly misleading heading should be changed to "Exile and Abdication." Italus ( talk) 13:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The Bolshevik Revolution section of the article has no sources. This is not an article for fantasy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 ( talk) 21:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Right, well I was a bit surprised to see Wilhelm II under an article entitled William II. I, like many other UK-english speakers have NEVER heard him referred to as William. Some I see have chosen William in line with 'consistency'. This is not adhering to what he is called the majority of the time in English (Brit-Ger royal connections or not). It really should be renamed back - i nearly navigated away from the page thinking I was in the wrong place. As for 'Kaiser Bill', this seems more of a joke insertion or vandalism. I will take this out within next few hours if no-one can come up with a source. Kaiser Wilhelm the Second is usually called 'The Kaiser' by older working class generations in Britain. Never heard this 'Bill' nickname at all.. -- maxrspct ping me 18:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep.. u beat me to it.. i was actually editing in how out of date the terminology is/was before u reverted. -- maxrspct ping me 21:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't know how important this is, but when I was young, my mom taught me a ryhme similar to this: Kaiser Bill went up a hill to take a peak at France. Kaiser Bill came down the hill with bullets in his pants. Obviously it was a derogatory nickname, but I can't say how common it was. Emperor001 ( talk) 05:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Wilhelm II, German Emperor → William II, German Emperor — Now that his grandfather has been moved to William I, we ought to move him as well. These two monarchs are closely linked, the need for consistency overrides any minor differences. I doubt if any important work treats them differently. He is described as William II in e.g. the text of the Treaty of Versailles. His father is also anglicised as Frederick III on Wikipedia. PatGallacher ( talk) 16:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Moving the three German Emperors to "X of Germany" would bring a big problem. Frederick III, German Emperor would be moved to Frederick III of Germany - a name that may just as well refer to Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor. That is why the present format is used. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
William I, German Emperor → William I of Germany — Most other emperors do not have "Emperor" in the title (e.g. Austria, Russia, Rome) I think the only ones who do are the Holy Roman Emperors. I have seen the argument that with Frederick there is some possibility of confusion with Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor but that applies whatever we call him. PatGallacher ( talk) 11:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 07:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
This is very odd. This article is at Wilhelm II, German Emperor, yet the topic's grandfather is at William I, German Emperor. Noting aswell, we've got Frederick III, German Emperor & not Friedrich III, German Emperor. GoodDay ( talk) 15:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I am uploading photos from the museum in Achilleion, Wilhelm's II summer residence. I think there are numerous items related to Wilhelm II, but they were usually not well described. Somebody may want to look over commons:Category:Achilleion and categorize appropriate images so they also appear in commons:Category:Wilhelm II of Germany. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It says to see the talk page for the discussion on the contradiction. I'm here, I don't see anything. That said, there is an element missing in that part of the article. It seems that Wilhelm was vehemently anti-semetic, but there is nothing which says why he felt this way. Was it a book he read? Did Jerusalem win a powerful battle? What? MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 08:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The section "6.1 October 1918 telegrams" is mostly OR quoting primary sources that are very difficult to interpret. I plan to rework the sections using the standard RS in a few days. Rjensen ( talk) 23:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
A scanned copy of the Kaiser's My Memoirs: 1878-1918, Cassell and Company (1922) is available at http://books.google.com/books?id=ywZoAAAAMAAJ&dq=kaiser+%22My+Memoirs and contains the following truly startling revelations about various schemes that were being concocted by the other powers. These revelations, which I had posted here some time ago and have since been deleted, are very serious and should be given some mention in the article.
1. The British-American-French agreement of 1897: On pp. 69-70, the Kaiser wrote the following.
Roland Greene Usher was a professor of political science at Washington University, in St. Louis. His book Pan-Germanism was published in February 1913. The various scanned chapters are at http://books.google.com/books?id=YFwMAAAAYAAJ Chapter X discusses the secret agreement of 1897.
2. The Russo-French proposal for war against England in 1900: On pages 79-84, the Kaiser discusses how the Kruger telegram was composed by Marshall and the controversy that it created. The Kaiser also makes the following revelation.
3. Joseph Chamberlain’s proposal for war against Russia in 1901: On pp. 101-103, the Kaiser makes some startling revelations about Joseph Chamberlain's proposal, made in the spring of 1901, for an alliance between Britain and Germany. According to the Kaiser:
The Kaiser also realized that:
Italus ( talk) 04:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
There was a movement in 1918-19 by the victorious allies in their Pyrrhic victory to hang the Kaiser. Many new orphans and widows felt it was just There is no discussion or mention of it here, nor why the Dutch protected slick Willy for 22 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 ( talk) 12:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
This article has some serious issues in it. Certainly the most serious one is the "Did he hate Jews or not?" issue. Another one that I noticed is that the article seems to portray him as somekind of evil leader. Sentences like "He often tried to bully his royal relatives", "possessed of a quick intelligence, but unfortunately this was often overshadowed by a cantankerous temper", "he remained convinced that he belonged to a distinct order of mankind", " Wilhelm was accused of megalomania as early as 1892", "The hyper-masculine military culture of Prussia in this period did much to frame Wilhelm's political ideals as well as his personal relationships", "Both sides of his family had suffered from mental illness, and this may explain his emotional instability", etc., etc., etc...
And the parts of the article which seems to reveal Wilhelm II as somekind of earlier Hitler is of bad taste. There is no one in Wikiproject Germany working on its royals' articles? -- Lecen ( talk) 14:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
He has behaviour of type X, some policy is considered Y etc.? According to who? Person edit my 'vandalism' does not address this. If no source, no valid statement! If Wiki lets edit so, anyone can say so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.154.10 ( talk) 05:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
– The phrase 'German Emperor' is ugly and clunky, very few people searching for information on any of the articles requested for move are going to type in the long winded names above unless they are a regular viewer of the page (in which case they will quickly adapt to any new name). Kaiser has become a lone word to the English language used to specifically describe the German Emperors to use it would therefore be much more reflective of the usage in English. These three articles are some of the more unique named on Wikipedia due to the use of NAME, German Emperor rather than NAME of Germany but the reason for the articles being named like this has been explained a number of times and can be found in the archives of their talk pages. While articles about the Russian Tsars do not use Tsar in the title of the page (as they are styled normally) they use Tsar rather than King in their main articles reflecting a precedence for using lone words, if these moves are supported then obviously the article texts should be changed to read Kaiser rather than German Emperor/Emperor but this would only take a copy of seconds using find and replace. I understand there has been some debate about whether to use the German or English versions of the monarchs names but this is a different situation than whether to use Kaiser of not, currently one of the articles is entitled Wilhelm and the other William, while this should be resolved I do not want the main premise of this move request to become overshadowed by this detail so any move requests affecting the names should wait until this request has been closed. Shatter Resistance ( talk) 15:37, 5 July 2011 (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 policy on article titles. Larger comments, general discussion and alternative proposals should be expressed in the Discussion area below or in a new relevant subsection.Frederick_III_of_Germany should be a dab page; or there should be a hat note. I'm not arguing that we must do things as we do; merely recording that there was a reason we decided to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Favonian ( talk) 13:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Wilhelm II, German Emperor → Kaiser Wilhelm II – The subject is most commonly referred to as " the Kaiser". It is intuitively obvious that "the Kaiser" is short for "Kaiser Wilhelm II". The currently title is a hybrid of German and English, as well as an unnatural "name, title" format designed to meet the alphabetization needs of dead tree reference works. "German emperor" "Wilhelm II" | "William II" -Wikipedia yields 5,490 post-1980 English-language Google Book hits, compared to 49,100 for Kaiser "Wilhelm II" | "William II" -wikipedia. So he is called "kaiser" a whole lot more than "German emperor", quite apart from the other issues involved. Relisting; discussion is still active here. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Kauffner ( talk) 17:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to be bold in case there's a previous discussion that I've missed, but it seems to me that the article should begin "Wilhelm II (German: Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albrecht von Preußen; English: Frederick William Victor Albert of Prussia), known as Kaiser Wilhelm..." (or "Kaiser Wilhelm II"), since he is obviously (and verifiably) very well known by that name and title. At the moment "Kaiser" is italicised and bracketed and stuck in after "German Emperor", which is the less commonly used title. It looks really strange to me. Scolaire ( talk) 09:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Was glancing through the article and found, under the heading "Break with Bismarck on labor policy," the statement that "The Conservatives would support the bill only in its entirety, and threatened to, and eventually did, veto the entire bill." This was at the end of a paragraph concerning Germany's then-legistature either making all their anti-Socialist laws permanent, or making them all permanent but one.
If they supported the entire bill, why would they veto the entire bill? Or did they veto the ammended bill?
74.113.172.20 ( talk) 18:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Sandra
The sentence at the beginning of the "Shadow Kaiser" section seems to come out of nowhere, has no relevance to the section and is a remarkably specific claim to make without a citation (I've added a citation needed flag)
Upon hearing that his cousin George V had changed the name of the British royal house to Windsor, Wilhelm remarked that he planned to see Shakespeare's play The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
.
1. Where does it come from? 2. Is it relevant (I think it's a nice piece of trivia)? 3. Where should it go?
NetHawk ( talk) 02:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
It's certainly a fairly well-known story, although just possibly it could be apocryphal. PatGallacher ( talk) 02:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyone interested, please take a look at this RfC. -- Lecen ( talk) 17:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
WILHELM is VERY rarely, if at all, referred to as 'William II' by historians. Within the historical community, ruler's names and titles are pronounced in the manner of their respective countries. Hence why we have Tsars and Czars and not 'Caesars' in charge of the Russian Empire and Spanish kings called Phillipe.-- Crimzon2283 ( talk) 14:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
"He was related to many royal figures across Europe, and as war loomed in 1914, Wilhelm was on friendly terms with his cousins the Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and King George V of the United Kingdom."
Repeating this big lie over and over does not make it correct. King George V was cousin of Kaiser Wilhelm II because the King's father and the Kaiser's mother were siblings ( Edward VII and Victoria, children of Queen Victoria ).
King George V was also cousin of the Tsar because King George's danish mother Queen Alexandra's sister was the mother of the Tsar, being the wife of his predecessor.
That doesn't make the Tsar the cousin of the Kaiser at all. If King George was the cousin of the Kaiser through his father, and the cousin of the Tsar through his mother, that does not make the Tsar and the Kaiser cousins.
The Kaiser was a fourth or fifth cousin of the Tsar through some common ancestor in the 18th century. Eregli bob ( talk) 03:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
They were cousins by marriage. Nicholas was married to Wilhelms first cousin Alexandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 ( talk) 16:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
On 15 July 2012, I had added the following quotation, with the reference to page 103 of David Allen Butler's THE BURDEN OF GUILT: How Germany Shattered the Last Days of Peace, Summer 1914, which I added to the Bibliography. I do not understand why Rjensen removed it under the guise: "drop little anecdote mostly about someone else."
When Wilhelm arrived at the Potsdam station late in the evening of July 26, he was met by a pale, agitated, and somewhat fearful Chancellor. Von Bethmann-Hollweg's apprehension stemmed not from the dangers of the looming war, but rather from his fear of the Kaiser's wrath when the extent of his deceptions were revealed. The Kaiser's first words to him were suitably brusque: "How did it all happen?" Rather than attempt to explain, the Chancellor offered his resignation by way of apology. Wilhelm refused to accept it, muttering furiously, "You've made this stew, Now you're going to eat it!" [1]
Italus ( talk) 18:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This could very well be a well-kept secret, but as his illegitimate son Anders' family now has received their recognition from the remaining Preussen family in terms of titles I think this article should be updated to reflect this. Kaiser Wilhelm II had a son in Norway (Bergen to be exact) between 1898 and 1914 named Anders Fosse. Up until recently his descendants in Norway has fought for recognition and earlier this year (I imagine) they got their recognition. This is extremely hard to find information about on the Internet as I am not sure it is for everyone to know, so the source on this would have to be the descendants' respective name changes. Solarclock ( talk) 13:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The german Wikipedia article doesn't represent Emperor Wilhelm the second in anyway anti semitic. On the contrary he had a lot of jewish friends, opposed the national socialists in every way. He did not want to be buried with swastika or anything related to national socialism. He expressed his deepest rejection after the first anti jewish incidents after the Kristallnacht and urged every german to stand against it.
I believe that the sources who name Wilhelm the second as anti-Semitic are either out of the context or originate in unserious original research by a historian who published a book in which he expressed his wish thinking about Germany and an history of anti-Semitism, which has more to do with the historians narzism rather than reality.
I will as soon as possible work the article out and remove any false claims and accusations for Wilhelm the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.103.44 ( talk) 04:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
We live in a time in which modern historians interpret history over the acceptance of primary and secondary commonly accepted knowledge, that serves to support their claims based on 2 dimensional categorizations, independent if they are right or not. For example the National socialistic " Totenkopf" division is named as a Nazi elite military unit, which is completely insane as the wikipedia article is. As you have been taught in school, this unit included jewish german soldiers who were sent to the division during the dejewification process of the german military during the third reich (of whom you had a lot, prior to world war 2, millions of jews lived in Germany, with access to the military). Political oppositionists as well as captured Russians, Poles, Czechs, etc. everyone with military experience, who was named by the Nazis as "from lesser origin" has been used in that unit, why it always saw frontline assignments. The Japanese did the same with Japanese with Chinese ancestry, see Sino-Japanese kamikaze pilots. That what is published in Wikipedia is sometimes farer away from the truth than anyone can imagine. The same occurs for Wilhelm the second. Everytime when tertiary knowledge is required it is always replaced by 2 dimensional commonly accepted misjudgment, because the same discussions happened over and over again: "These are no solid sources", "The usual historians agreed on this interpretation of the history..." etc... then you only use any source, serious or not,...Cecil, Röhler, Kast....etc... add them in a text in Wikipedia together with a denunciation in form of an accusation of the latest comment and everybody believes it. Most persons know what iam talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.103.30 ( talk) 15:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what your point is. It seems to be well-documented that the Kaiser was anti-Semitic. But saying that he was anti-Semitic is not the same thing as saying he was a Nazi - it seems fairly clear that he was not particularly sympathetic to the Nazis, and, indeed, that his anti-Semitism was of a different, and milder, type. But that doesn't mean he wasn't an anti-Semite. john k ( talk) 01:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The original German (I suppose) for this should be thoroughly gone over with somebody who knows English as a first language. The following sentence is incorrectly punctuated; the semi-colon should be a colon. "...as in the circumstances in which he was raised; close emotional contact between father and son was not encouraged." 71.163.114.49 ( talk) 00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the notes and realized that no source is listed for the 3rd note (Putnam, 2001). Does anyone know the book that this source is from? 174.16.96.168 ( talk) 03:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
His name was "Wilhelm". Why is Wilhelm the First called "William I" and Wilhelm the Second called "Wilhelm II"? Inconsistent in choosing what to change the name of historical characters to...
I agree about the inconsistencies. 80% of the Heinrichs are called "Henry". 50% of the Friedrichs are "Frederick". Wilhelm is consistently not changed to "William". Presidentbalut ( talk) 22:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The marriage of Wilhelm II to Hermine de Greiz shows on this page as 9 November 1922, but on her page (with citation) the date is listed as 5 November 1922. The citation was from Thepeerage.com, which cites "Queen Victoria's descendants by Marlene A. Eilers, page 161". Would an editor please edit this date and give it proper citation as I am new to this and a little on making citations. MacEachan1 ( talk) 04:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)MacEachan1
Death is given correctly as 4 June 1941, but under sub-heading "Death" it is given as 3 June 1941. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.134.20 ( talk) 00:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Both his predecessors as German Emperor ( William I, Frederick III) are listed under their English names. -- megA ( talk) 13:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Argh! Please, not again!!! See the archive for what I mean. Drow69 ( talk) 18:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a common misconception that George V, Wilhelm II, and Nicholas II were cousins. In fact, George V and Nicholas II were cousins through the Danish royal family, while George V and Wilhelm II were related through the British royal family. Wilhelm, and Nicholas, though they shared a common cousin, were not themselves cousins. Wilhelm II was the first cousin of Nicholas' wife, who was the granddaughter of Queen Victoria.
50.66.72.174 ( talk) 02:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Judas
"All Bismarck's resources were deployed; he even asked Empress Victoria to use her influence at her son on his behalf... As Lord Salisbury told Queen Victoria: 'The very qualities which Bismarck fostered in the Emperor in order to strengthen himself when the Emperor Frederick should come to the throne have been the qualities by which he has been overthrown.' The Empress, with what must have been a mixture of pity and triumph, told him that her influence with her son could not save him for he himself had destroyed it." Empress Victoria was indeed Wilhelm's mother. Queen Victoria was his grandmother. But Lord Salisbury is said to be speaking to Queen Victoria, and then suddenly being replied to by The Empress. ??? Who in fact was Lord Salisbury speaking to ? Unlikely to have been speaking to Empress Victoria. And who was Empress Victoria talking to ? Very confusing. I suspect the quote has been botched. Rcbutcher ( talk) 10:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
"Jena came twenty years after the death of Frederick the Great; the crash will come twenty years after my departure if things go on like this" ― a prophecy fulfilled almost to the month.
according to The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations this was said in 1895 thus the prophecy was not fulfilled almost to the month, but four years late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.48.209 ( talk) 22:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this article too long? Jonas Vinther ( talk) 14:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
List of German monarchs:
William II, German Emperor makes sense.-- MICHAVP ( talk) 00:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
In my humble opinion , a very well-written lead. I presume it covers the article and the references are put there, where they belong. But was he concidered "bombastic" also in Germany ? Are we sure it's not just old war time propaganda (question) ? Boeing720 ( talk) 03:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Strange there's no mention in the article about the pivotal Harden-Eulenburg affair or even to the Kaiser's friendship with Philipp zu Eulenburg-Hertefeld.— Ana Bruta ( talk) 21:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
German Emperor; King of Prussia Reign 15 June 1888 – 9 November 1918
He officially abdicated at 28 November, so, this of up should be:
German Emperor; King of Prussia Reign 15 June 1888 – 28 November 1918 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.58.215.49 ( talk) 16:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your explanation. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.58.215.49 (
talk)
16:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Descriptions like "bombastic and impetuous" in the lead make me wonder if this page is written in a POV against the subject. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"Jena came twenty years after the death of Frederick the Great; the crash will come twenty years after my departure if things go on like this" ― a prophecy fulfilled almost to the month.
according to The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations this was said in 1895 thus the prophecy was not fulfilled almost to the month, but four years late.
I have made a little change to the description of the Nine Sovereigns photo. Maymichael2 ( talk) 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
This should be deleted, because there is actually no evidence for Wilhelm´s II anti-Semitism. Wilhelm II was actually a friend of many Jews like Chaim Weizmann, Albert Ballin, James Simon, Emil and Walter Rathenau and others, the so called "Kaiserjuden". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.19.42 ( talk) 20:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
he died on 21st april. you got it wrong
86.6.58.46 ( talk) 20:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
This is not an overly serious change suggestion, but I'm a little confused as to why the infobox image is showing him facing mostly to the side? -- 2601:246:800:43FE:DC0:4ECE:1566:1D5 ( talk) 10:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Has it ever been determined what mental problem he had? ( Jdkd44 ( talk) 19:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC))
The article already briefly mentions that his physical disability may have affected his mentality and emotions: "A traumatic breech birth left him with a withered left arm due to Erb's palsy, which he tried with some success to conceal. In many photos he carries a pair of white gloves in his left hand to make the arm seem longer, holds his left hand with his right, or has his crippled arm on the hilt of a sword or holding a cane to give the effect of a useful limb posed at a dignified angle. His left arm was about 6 inches (15 centimetres) shorter than his right arm. Historians have suggested that this disability affected his emotional development"
Then again, I would guess most people with crippling disabilities may be self-conscious about them and/or have some emotional issues to deal with. Dimadick ( talk) 08:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if Sidney Reilly really did impersonate one of the Kaiser's generals, as was alleged in the book Reilly: Ace of Spies Glammazon ( talk) 17:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Why is there no mention at all of the Kaiser's likely bisexuality, in particular the Harden-Eulenburg Affair, which in Wikipedia's own words is "considered the biggest domestic scandal of the German Second Empire"? 121.73.7.84 ( talk) 11:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, some editor should modify the article to include information about the miners' strike and about the Labor Conference-factors that contributed to the break with Bismarck and to his dismissal.
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 are from Emil Ludwig, Wilhelm Hohenzollern, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York (1927) [translated by Ethel Colburn Mayne].
"He was soon to have his first opportunity of acting upon his humanitarian principles. Over a hundred thousand miners in the Ruhr came out on strike for higher wages. In the moment when Bismarck was laying before the Cabinet some strong emergency measures, there appeared, suddenly and unannounced, the Emperor in Hussar uniform and blustering mood proclaiming: 'The directors and shareholders must give in; the men are my subjects for whom I am responsible. Yesterday I warned the Chairman of the Committees in the Rhineland, telling them that if the industry doe not at once grant an increase in wages, I shall withdraw my troops. Then, if the owners and directors have their villas burnt down and their gardens trampled on, they will sing a little smarter!'" [pp. 81-82]
In January 1890, the Kaiser decided to convene a Labor Conference.
" ... Two proposals, of which one is written by the Emperor's own hand, are read aloud by Bötticher. [...] Protection of the working-man, no work on Sundays, no child labor: mere common sense. After the reading the Emperor speaks: 'The employers have sqeezed the men like lemons, and then let them rot in the dung-heaps. And so the working-man has come to reflect that he is not a mere machine, and claims his share in the profits created by him. But his relation to the employer must be that of a colleague. These strikes are proof that there is no sympathy whatever between the two parties; hence the increase in Social-Democracy. The modicum of truth that underlies that teaching will be forgotten, and the anarchists will gain the upper hand. Just as a regimental company goes to pieces if the captain takes no interest in it, so it is with industry, In the next strike the men will be better organized and more exacerbated; then there will be risings, which we shall be obliged to shoot down.
"'But it would be terrible if I had to stain the first years of my reign with the blood of my subjects. Everyone who means well by me will do his outmost to avert such a catastrophe. I intend to be le roi des gueux! My subjects shall know that their King is concerned for their welfare. ... We must oppose International Social-Democracy with an international compact. Switzerland did not succeed in that. But if the German Emperor convokes a similar conference it will be quite a different affair. ... And so I have spent two nights in framing these proposals. I propose to have drafts, based upon these, of an edict worded in a spirit of warm goodwill, so that I may promulgate it on the day after to-morrow, which will be my birthday.'" [pp. 91-92]
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). Italus ( talk) 22:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Under this section heading, proposed addition: Christopher Plummer plays an elderly Wilhelm II in exile, in the 2017 film The Exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.2.26 ( talk) 18:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I propose that this quote should be removed because 1. this is only attributed to Wilhelm II 2. there is no source 3. no verifiable source exist, because no historian has ever provided a reliable source to this unsubstantiated hearsay. Suomalainen konformisuus ( talk) 12:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
"High school" is an American term. ( 86.158.167.96 ( talk) 10:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC))
A small edit war cropped up over Wilhelm's surname (if there is one) and title after 1918, which one contributor using "Prinz von Preussen" (his hereditary title at birth) and the other "King of Prussia / German Emperor (pretender). The first is inalienable, but can the second be continued to use? Moreover, are the King (succession in Prussia) and Emperor (elected by the German princes) equal ones and can Wilhelm be a pretender to both? While the hereditary throne of Prussia remained vacant, one could claim that the German President was Wilhelm's rightful successor as German head of state, since the right to elect the head of state was not inalienably tied to the Prussian king but was rather decided by the states. Ilja.nieuwland ( talk) 15:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The empire was officially defined as a federation of the member states under the presidency of Prussia. The King of Prussia was automatically the bearer of the Bundespräsidium, since 1 January 1871 additionally with the title German Emperor (Deutscher Kaiser). Therefore, the imperial crown was tied to the office of the King of Prussia instead of a personal union between the Empire and Prussia. This meant that contrary to what Wilhelm II believed at the end of World War I, he could not abdicate merely as German Emperor while keeping the Prussian crown unless he agreed to renounce the entire constitution, which would have been, in effect, the de jure dissolution of the Empire.
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wikify the Daily Telegraph quote "You English are mad, mad, mad as March hares." to "You English are mad, mad, mad as March hares"
The phrase is less known and sounds quite strange for non native speakers. 81.100.155.161 ( talk) 01:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
It's in the lead. 98.7.201.234 ( talk) 03:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Footnote 66 says "Collier 1974" but there is no Collier in the bibliography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.178.17 ( talk) 17:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 14:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe that both his German and English form of his name should be included as "Wilhem II or William II" before his full name in parenthesis. Ryou14 ( talk) 03:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sorry, what I meant to say was that "Wilhelm II" should be changed back or changed to "Wilhelm II or William II" before his full name in parenthesis, please. Ryou14 ( talk) 03:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You need to include Kaiser Wilhelm II's Marian Cross of the Teutonic Order. It is common in his later pictures in uniform. 49.146.7.158 ( talk) 06:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
// his tactless public statements greatly antagonized the international community and his foreign policy was seen by many as one of the causes for the outbreak of World War I// ... and it sounds like blame shifting. What would be the evidence for this anyway? No serious source is given. -- 105.4.2.43 ( talk) 15:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The lede should only say he remained during the Nazi occupation of Holland, not through it, since he died in its second year. 86.148.205.62 ( talk) 15:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I found these book citations from The Peerage website, but I have to cite this book for titles within this section that referenced to Marlene Eilers.
49.150.100.127 (
talk)
00:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to remove the word "weak" when the article mentions Germany's alliance to Austria Hungary in 1910, as well as adding Italy to the list of allies, and removing the Ottoman empire. Germany and the Ottoman empire did not ally until late 1914, but the article currently lists the Ottoman empire as an ally of Germany in 1910 Quinnisdef ( talk) 00:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tom Hollander’s performance as Kaiser Wilhelm (and as his cousins King George and Tsar Nicholas, if appropriate) in The King’s Man (2021) can be added to the Documentaries and Films section. Harrrlequin ( talk) 15:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wilhelm II, German Emperor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "thr" to "the" in sentence "... in what is still called thr Year of the Three Emperors, ...". 2A02:1811:D24:D900:D963:95DA:2645:8297 ( talk) 15:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Very difficult to get this right. 2A02:AA1:1007:DC14:CC27:5972:B55:480C ( talk) 11:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
this is directly from the lede of the article
" Britain became Germany's main enemy when the Kaiser launched a massive expansion of the Imperial German Navy.[1]"
But this cite says nothing of the sort. why is this wiki locked with such completely BS claims? does no one even bother to check cites? 05:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
'... after a decisive defeat on the Western Front in the fall of 1918.' What is the reason for the use of the US dialect of 'fall'? Surely the English (international) 'autumn' be used. 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:5C7E:E26D:2ED:DC1 ( talk) 22:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
When purssia defeated the Austria, Denmark and France in a war. This war of 7 years ended up with the victory of Purssia. Later the Purssian king William Second became the emperor.The efforts were made towards the modernization of currency, banking and judicial system of Germany. 2409:4054:29E:351B:CB05:97FA:84BD:9360 ( talk) 04:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Many sources says that Wilhelm II's death was because of a Pulmonary embolism [2]. So, should editors put it in the Infobox Person? Gabriel Ziegler ( talk) 23:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
In photos, the Kaiser was in possession the Marian Cross of the Teutonic Order. When he was awarded that medal? Please consider adding it to the decorations tab. [1]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.146.14.164 ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The original Wilhelm II quote: "Die tiefste, ekelhafteste Schande, die jemals von einem Volk in der Geschichte begangen wurde, haben die Deutschen sich selbst angetan." is erroneously translated as: "[the] deepest, most disgusting shame ever perpetrated by a person in history, the Germans have done to themselves ..."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.241.194 ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)