Wilhelm II of Germany 

You might also be interested in a new paper I recently published, available direct from Amazon. Simply search *'How socialist was National Socialism'* in the Amazon search box.

The True fact is that a huge majority of the German people loved the Kaiser . 71% never wanted him to go, he was forced by the other powers.

In my country(Norway) he was known as Norway friend and visited Norway almost every year for many years. In 1905 , he played an important role in persuading Swedish King Oscar II to not attack Norway after Norway abolished the Union. When Ålesund burned down in 1904 was emperor nearby, he organized help and donated large sums for reconstruction.

It's amazing how all of these great monarchs that fought against one another were all so closely related.

I also have Erb's palsy like Kaiser Wilhelm II. I never knew that there was someone famous with this condition as well. Very inspiring!

I've always been perplexed as to why that mainly Kaiser Wilhelm and Germany were blamed for WW1 and not Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary?

Just days before WW1 broke out, he was on board a British Battleship, part of a British Fleet in Germany at his invitation. At a reception he said he didn't think war was necessary and diplomacy will find a solution. 'Stephen King-Hall. "North Sea Diary." King-Hall was a young Royal Navy Lt. on board HMS Southhampton, part of the fleet in Kiel Harbor that day. Fascinating reading about Navy Life during First World War on the North Sea.

Imagine thinking that Germany started WW1.

There's something about the Kaiser that both angers me and feels sorry for him at the same time. He was a pompous arrogant buffoon with a love/hate relationship with England. At the same time he was also a manipulated man by conservatives who had him turn against his liberal parents. These same conservatives who threw him under the bus in 1918 when the war was lost.

You be got to admit I’ve got a swag

He didnt start the war

Being half German I find this documentary very interesting, Thank you for putting this up.

Another German who had a never to be forgotten, nor repeated style of moustache....

As a Canadian, whose great grandfather fought on the side of the World War I Allies against Germany, I will say that at the very least, the beginning comments in this video are pro-British and anti-German propaganda. My country and Britain had their differences with Germany intervening in Belgium that was officially neutral, but that does not make me look at Germany with total scorn. Why should have Germany have stood by and let the British Empire dominate over Europe and the world via its massive economy and navy? Why that anymore than why should China stand by and let the United States dominate the world today? There is no reason, and the only people who claim that there is a reason for Germany to have accepted British dominance are those who did support, or would have supported, Britain's dominance and Germany's acquiescence.

I understand that Wilhelm was highly nationalistic and wanted to expand Germany’s Imperial prestige, which caused problems but Germany didn’t start the war like they seem to assert here. This account seems to be a bit propagandized to suit the narrative of the victors.

Regarding all of the comments accusing this documentary of having an anti-German bias, let me say the following: 1. This documentary is not about a country or a war, but a person. 2. Disliking Donald Trump does not make one anti-American and disliking Wilhelm II does not make one anti-German. 3. One thing I picked up from this documentary is that Wilhelm's mother's side of the family (i.e. the British side) had as much influence on his character and personality as his father's side, and that the Windsors at this time were not the most harmonious family. In other words, the documentary is not really anti-German but anti-Windsor. 4. Another thing I saw in this documentary is that Germans did not particularly like Wilhelm II either. His generals and admirals were willing to humor him by taking part in his stupid male bonding rituals, but it does not appear as though they really respected him much. When WW1 broke out, they did not trust his judgment, and generally kept him out of the decision making process. By the end of the war, he was clearly not a very popular guy in Germany. At the time of his escape to Holland, Wilhelm faced the possibility of imprisonment by the western allies. However, by the late twenties, after the dust from the war had settled, the Germans probably could have worked out a deal to allow him to return home, and maybe even make him a symbolic monarch, but they didn't. Even Hitler refused to do this. 5. One final thought. Many would argue that regardless of anything that Wilhelm II did or didn’t do, a war between Germany and Russia (and France) was inevitable. I think that’s probably true. However, there is quite a bit of debate about whether England’s participation in the war was inevitable. Personally, I don’t think it was, and I think that it was the result of years of bad diplomacy on Wilhelm’s part. Regardless, even if Britain’s entry into the war was inevitable, America’s entry was not. To the extent that one does not view England or America's involvement as inevitable, one could say that Wilhelm II is not responsible for STARTING WW1 but rather, LOSING WW1. In other words, even if you think that the central powers were the “right side” in WW1, you would still have good reason to dislike Wilhelm II.

*In the smallest "nutshell" one can find, it was London (the state) which made Germany (the newly united state after 1871) the default rival in peace, and default enemy in war as a matter of policy. Its elites then set out to make "enemies out of old friends/friends out of old enemies".* While this might sound very "conspiratorial", it is exactly what happened, and it happened out in the open for all to see, and all to analyse while it happened. Unfortunately, same as today, it happens far too slowly for most current witnesses to notice. The reality is that most people are simply too pre-occupied with daily chores and problems, or don't care (indifference) or don't know (aka ignorance), or if they do, they don't act or don't now how things are connected (complacency)... In case they do study and wish to know about history, confusing "causes" and "effects" is one of the basic logical fallacies. Simply "pin a flag on a timeline somewhere suitable", downplay events before that, and start "writing history". Fact? London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting, and as a matter of policy. No "feelings" or "opinions" were involved in this decision by a few London lords. Ever since the establishment of her "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material: Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. An own policy standpoint (Splendid isolation) meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London made "temporary best friends", not lasting alliances. Search for French historian Pozner: "Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin" on the Yale University Channel. *From "open hand" to "clenched fist" in 20-30 years.* "Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. *That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.* Of course people don't want war. Why should a poor fool on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best thing he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?" Hermann Goring

UK declared war on Germany - not the other way around as the introduction makes believe.

Germany didn’t start ww1

This documentary has a lot of inaccuracies

who says He was responsable for the war? nobody else than the Brits ofcourse.

Emperor Wilhelm 2 he is a great monarch, diplomat, general, king, emperor, politician, patriot of his country, an incredible person. Symbol of the nations.

This doc is informative about Wilhelm's weaknesses, but is one-sided about its portrayal of pre-WWI leaders. Many of the same failings were present in Nicholas II of Russia, who was the first person to order his armies to mobilize in July 1914. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was moribund and unstable, and Franz Joseph had not implemented reforms. The Serbian government was corrupt and did not crack down on the violent revolutionaries. So we have multiple parties who were at least as responsible as Wilhelm for starting the war and perhaps even moreso, in the estimation of many analysts. The author of The War That Ended Peace, Margaret Macmillan, writes that the tragedy of the death of Franz Ferdinand was compounded by the fact that not only did his death trigger the war, but also that he was the only man capable of stopping it.

If this was a family affair why didn't they just have a duel instead of millions of innocent people dying?

Thank God the documentary was far more interesting and informative than the diatribe of comments below.🙄

20:44 - “George V...sporting a German helmet...” - Bit of trivia for anyone interested: it was common for European royalty on official State visits to wear the uniforms of one another’s countries. George V for example, had been created a Prussian Field-Marshal by the Kaiser whilst still Prince of Wales, just as Wilhelm II had been made a British Field-Marshal by King Edward VII. In the next scene, in fact, the Kaiser is wearing the regimental uniform of a Colonel of the British Royal Horse Guards (now the ‘Blues and Royals’ - one of the two cavalry regiments of the Household Brigade, in which Princes William and Harry serve, and of which Anne, the Princess Royal, is Col-in-Chief). ADDENDUM: Excellent channel, BTW - many very interesting topics; only just found it and subscribed! Greetings from Greece!🇬🇷

First sentence allready overloaded with anti-german Propaganda...

When I was studying in England back in the late ‘80s there was a little old lady - Gracie was her name - who lived in one of the flats of the rooming house where I was staying. In the daytime, she was a sprightly, pleasant lady with a ready smile and a kindly word for everyone (she was particularly warm-hearted to all of us foreign students, so far away from our homes). But sometimes she would wake us all up in the wee hours of the morning, as she wandered through the hallways shouting in her wonderfully syncopated Cockney, “thay should-a ‘ung the Kaiser they should...” As we eventually learned from our landlady, her niece, the poor old thing had lost a brother and a sweetheart (and likely innumerable other young friends, relatives, and acquaintances) in the horrors of the trenches at the Western Front. Now, seventy odd years after the end of the Great War, in her grief and loneliness, she still blamed “Kaiser Bill” for the tragedies of her bygone youth...😢 God rest her soul.

Wilhelm still had such a regal look to him even when in exile.

Mein gott, why blame me when it was actually that fool Hotzendorf?

I hope you realize that at the start of the video, the voice is not the kaiser but is instead his son the crown prince. Look up the RU-vid video "Deutscher Kronprinz Wilhelm complete Interview in Fox Movietone News 1932".

During the period it was common to hear, from open windows on warm spring days, "Gunter! How many times have I told you not to leave that damned spiked helmet on my chair!?"

this is the best video I have seen about the Kaiser.

It's good to see a film stirring up such interesting academic debate. Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far; and for the students who use the film in their studies, be aware of the perceptive arguments advanced below. You get lots of credit for counter-argument, remember!

Wilhelm II was not the person most people teach us he was. My Grandfather met him and he said, that he didn't want the War. He wasn't a war monger.

This is NOT the voice of Kaiser Bill, but that of the Kronzprinz Wilhelm!!!!

There was a popular song in the 1920s: "Billy Billy, his moustache was very silly, his arm was on the wonk and drank too much plonk, and he had a one inch willy." Queen Mary sang it at parties apparently

I actually don't know much about WW1, or royalties, but unlike many other british documentaries, this one seems to be biased and one sided, and leaves out alot about why things developped the way they were.

this is totally not from a biased anglo perspective

If his father had reigned longer, this man might've had more time to prepare for his future role as Emperor. Instead, poor old Fritz died before he could do all the plans him and Victoria planned for years. I swear, if Emperor Friedrich III didn't have that cancer, he would've had more stronger and friendlier ties to Russia and Britain. Things would've been different.

these two mfs in the comments are unemployed 😄

For me, the start of WW1 was like "one thing led to the other" situation. First, all the European powers at the time b4 1914 formed two rival alliances. Each country pledges support to one another. Then the spark; Archduke Franz Ferdinand is assassinated. Serbia is blamed for it. Then Serbia is under attack from Austrio- Hungarian forces. Russia moves in to support Serbia. Germany sees Russian involvement as a threat and declares war. As the days go by, France and Great Britain get involved also. Had there been a mechanism to calm tempers down WW1 would not have started

Outstanding - thanks to Wilhelm's descendants for speaking

I stumbled into a video with the most educated comment section I've ever seen.

“He liked to play childish games on members of his cabinet and military staff… he punched his head of the navy in the stomach during a storm.” WHAT

I don't like monarchs but I have huge respect for that guy

Hitler was NOT, repeat NOT an atheist. There are dozens of quotes to prove this. German soldiers had "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles. He was received with open arms by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Austria in 1938.The idea that Hitler was an atheist was made up by releigious believers who want you to accept that you must believe in a god in order to be a moral person.

They say that Germany & the Keiser started the war, that isn't true all he wanted to do was to support Austria against Serbia. A tiny country at the time with a large Anarchist movement. France, UK, and Russia saw it as a reason to fight Germany, because they were scared of Germany.

0:02 That is not the voice of Kaiser Wilhelm II but of his son Kronprinz Wilhelm. Seach for the video "Deutscher Kronprinz Wilhelm complete Interview in Fox Movietone News 1932"!

It’s really interesting to hear an actual recording of the Kaiser speaking English and his English seemed really good too

Recently discovered letters from the young Wilhelm to his Mother indicate a very strange abnormal attitude towards her. His anger towards her pro-English upbringing & her British Doctors' medical 'treatments', mentally took him down very odd paths.

Perhaps if Frederick III hadn't died so soon, WWI might have been averted since he wanted Germany to follow the example of Great Britain. Here is the link to his story: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_III,_German_Emperor

Sometimes i fantasize about going back in time and warn them that the war earns you nothing but blood and lives.

imagine Bismarck's soul talking with the kaiser in his last moments

From around 10:00 minutes onwards... The so-called "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" is very famous. Also a misnomer. It was in fact a "European Naval Arms Race". As clearly defined by the British 2-Power Standard... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Defence_Act_1889 ...which doesn't mention countries. It just simply stated "build more ships that the next two countries with a margin of 10%", making it (at the time/in reality) a *European Naval Arms Race.* According to the policy, GB was also trying to outbuild Russia and France, carrying out own naval programmes. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battleships_of_France Simplifying it down to "Anglo-German" is a little bit of name branding, just so the people know who "the enemy" is...

People were looking for someone to blame for a war that killed so many millions of people, perhaps as many as fifty millions. And he did ocassionally wear a uniform with a big skull on it. Even I have seen that photo. Who better to blame? And yet he was allowed to live out his life as a private millionaire. In other words no real consequences for his actions.

He speaks English well. I always thought of Kaiser Wilhelm as being a mysterious individual.

I disliked because of the opening description of him which is completely unfair and similar to the propaganda of the day. Then listening to more of this..how simplistic and one-dimensional! As if the British Empire didn’t have ‘nationalism’! ‘Unrepentant’ German nationalist? Whatever...Who tried ‘to bring the British empire to its knees?’ The British were no peace-loving, anti-nationalist victims. And I say that as a great admirer of my British brothers. Looks like I’m not the only one to dislike. 🇺🇸 1-17(AIR)CAV

From my understanding, wasn't he a grandchild of the late queen Victoria, dubbed grandmother of Europe?

Wilhelm II wasn't trying to "conquer Europe" wtf. And that wasn't even him speaking at the begining- it was his son, Wilhelm THE THIRD.

The cool thing about a divide and rule system, is that it does not matter what any individual emphasizes: It exists in parallel to whatever the observer wishes to amplify...

Wilhelm reigned for 30 YEARS. His reign was a golden age in terms of industrial, commercial, scientific and cultural achievement. And above all, it was a time of PEACE.

I firmly believe that the Kaiser wasn't an evil menace and he certainly didn't deserve to be exiled like Napoleon, hell Napoleon didn't deserve it.

Despite being german leader during the first world war he was nowhere near as unruling as hitler

RIP. The West died in 1918

So France Russian and England conspiring against Germany prior to the war. All 3 were supper powers at that time. Do you want? A hopeless situation.

Queen Victoria's favourite grandchild, however the rest of the family mocked him for the clicking of the heels and his pompous behaviour. He loved it when his uncle and aunt, Prince and Princess of Wales, had to bow and curtsey to him. He became Kaiser before his uncle became King. Queen Victoria died in the Kaisers arms. He managed all by himself to put an end to the German Monarchy!

So why is Wilhelm blamed for "starting WW1" because of not doing anything to stop it from happening...but 20 years later, Stalin is not blamed for "starting WW2" because of not doing anything to stop it from happening? Just curious...

Some interesting facts presented but very blatant bias in commentary.

Documentary is biased, not bad, but very, very biased.

It seems obvious from this documentary that the victors write the history books.

The narrator's voice is the most soothing I've ever heard.

The Kaiser was NOT responsible for WWI and he did not start it. Of course he played a significant part but we’ve been made to believe the responsibility was all his.

We meet yet again. Japan did make mistakes, and I hope we have learnt what we could, and continue to learn more in coming years.

Wearing a Prussian helmet to visit the German leader. Sounds like something Trudeau would do

0:18 That was the Crown Prince Wilhelm speaking. There is actually a video of him saying that.

This documentary is full of inaccuracies and false beliefs, and lacks evidence for many of the claimed "facts". In many ways it is a repetition of common misconceptions.

my grandma always told us this rhyme : " Der Kaiser ist ein lieber Mann und wohnet in Berlin. Und wär´es nicht soweit von hier so ging ich heut´noch hin." ( The Kaiser is a nice man and lives in Berlin. And if it were´nt such far away i would walk this very day )

Strange to think that he died thinking Germany had won the war.

He was a fool and a fanatical monarchist, but he was not a complete tyrant and he treated Jews decently. Compared to many other absolute monarchs, he was enlightened and humane. Compared to Hitler, he was a saint. To his credit, he never supported the Nazis, even though they expressed interest in restoring him as a figurehead. He was not the best of men, but he was far from the worst. His biggest mistake was his blind loyalty to his ally, Emperor Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary. Wilhelm II let him drag Germany into war. Ironically, they came closer to winning WWI than they did to WWII.

British Propaganda

British propoganda at it's finest

As a child in I would walk past his statue in my hometown in Germany. Always admired him. What a great man.

@Invisibleman One of the most persistent arguments against Wilhelm II was that he was erratic, or even a psychopath, and didn't have clear goals and aims. The argument usually goes something like this. "Wilhelm wasn't exactly consistent in his policies, and was so unpredictable that he constantly exasperated his own ministers and his generals, who said he 'couldn't lead three soldiers over a gutter'. Wilhelm thought that he was a good diplomat when actually he was a terrible one, and he seemed to have the habit of saying the worst possible things to alienate almost everybody else in Europe." (copied form a YT comment by Invisibleman) "Wilhelm wasn't exactly consistent in his policies..." Actually, he was. *The end goal was unity in Europe, to balance out the rise of the USA, either by alliance with the continental powers, or by alliance with GB, which (could/might) then draw the others in.* "...and was so unpredictable that he constantly exasperated his own ministers and his generals, who said he 'couldn't lead three soldiers over a gutter'...." That is an actual means in a "divide and rule"-strategy, since most of these German leaders were extremely conservative in their views, and as expalined in some of the below essays, in order to achieve a higher aim (European unity, by peacefull means), one FIRST has to the destroy the existing structures in the OWN political system, which was conservative, meant a wish to stick to the status quo... "Wilhelm thought that he was a good diplomat when actually he was a terrible one, and he seemed to have the habit of saying the worst possible things to alienate almost everybody else in Europe." Same "divide and rule"-strategy for other European powers. These utterings can be easily explained, when looking at whom was being "woed" in order to create a rapprochement, or an alliance/treaty/agreement of sorts, and who had to be kept out until such unity was achieved. Here it is very important, NOT to scramble the timeline of events, by simply rattling down such utterings without looking at the complete picture, but to analyse these "utterings" within the context at one particular timepoint on the timeline. *First in line for such "unity", was Great Britain (early-1890s), whilst trying to build up better relations to France in slow steps, or "enable a rapprochement" with France.* In order to understand this, one must evaluate the strategies of "game theory" and the process of slow incremental steps towards an (lol) "endsieg", and why I stated waaaaaay down in this thread that after Bismarck was "fired", that Berlin "leaned west" (gravitating/geopolitics). *Tit-for-tat, is not only a "kids game".* It is in fact one of the key means in diplomacy. One makes a small step, and then checks what effect this has, or how another side responds to this "small step". The wishful effect desired, would be that the other "side" mirrors the attempt with an equally small positive step. Then, to take in from there in small steps... (Search for Game Theory/Strategy/Tit-for-Tat) The exact scientific analysis of the strategy is elabored under the essay about EU High Council Rep. Joseph Borrel, about 6 months ago (ALL essays are interlinked, and solely based on the analysis of "systems" and "strategies" which are timeless, so that the "logic" of criticizing any "hopping around on the timeline" does not exist. Also I use this means, because I do not personally follow any ideology). The strategy can be applied for good intentions, or bad intentions, and assuming bad intentions as a default would be admitting to own biases... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_attribution_bias Especially in an environment of extreme mistrust and typical deceptive politics, this is a way to discover the intentions of an opposing side, without "leaning out of the window" too far, or "letting the cat out of the bag" too early, meaning that opposition to new alignments BOTH in the own empire, as well as in other empires can create an opposing conservative strategy to any observed "more unity in Europe". *Evidence for the above statement that Wilhelm II/some elements in Berlin actually did want to "balance out the rise of the USA", is provided in the below comments section, which actually provides an essay for each and every "begged question" which might or might not arise from any other essay.* After a looooooong 5 years or so, by 1896, after both Great Britain and France had declined this "gradual process" of tit-for-tat, Berlin "leaned east" again, hoping for a "protype EU" of sorts using an axis Berlin-St. Petersburg as basis. The memorandum was titled something like "on the need to create a politico/economic union against the USA" (paraphrasing, but the exact wording and title is under the essay starting with "Why Wilhelm had to go in 1918...") Why London refused such cooperation, regardless of the "narratives" hobby historians grew up with. *London did not want to,* because London thought (strategy/own historical POV) that they could master each and every European crisis and war, and gain from these, without a binding treaty with any power. Evidence for this, if one doesn't want to read any of the below, is actually in simply studying what London did NOT do in the leadup to WW1, and beyond until after WW2, when they themselves became weak and a "US poodle" (Peter Hitches). This is not only true for GB today, but also for each and every European country, who despite all declarations and words, are not a unity, but easily bullied US "poodles".

Interesting history but I think it is important to recognize the presenter's bias. It's not a clear cut case of Germany bad, England good.

What a sham of a documentary with no objectivity - relying on age old stereotypes of Emperor Wilhelm II: the documentary doesn't do any favors to its credibility by making a big mistake in the first seconds - that's the Emperor's son speaking in English, NOT Emperor Wilhelm II!

Wilhem the second was unfit for kaiser. Bismark and kaiser Wilhem the first (his grandfather), thought that as well as alot of the parliament

Philip Eulenberg went on trial for perjury, not for homsexuality. He lied about participating in homosexual acts, while under oath. Thus he was tried for perjury. The Harden-Eulenberg Affair is well documented. Even General Kuno von Moltke, the one who was part of the camarilla and known to the Berlin Police as gay, and accused of being Eulenberg's long time lover, was not tried as a homosexual, This is poorly done.

Old Prussian Proverb - If you win, you stay; if you lose, you go.

Utter nonsense from the opening statement...

When the Kaiser Wilhelm II died Germany was the most powerful nation in Europe. Sounds odd but it’s true. That must have made him happy.

"If you were a Confederate soldier in 1865, were you the "good guy" or the "bad guy"?" If you were a Confederate soldier in 1865, you were ultimately fighting for the preservation of slavery. What was the German soldier of 1940 ultimately fighting for? That's another dark picture.

It wasn't a German doctor who helped deliver the baby, but and English one.

The geopolitical implications of trying to "cordon off" rivals are strikingly similar... In the late-19th Century, France fought back against the German attempts to isolate it politically, by cordoning off Germany and the Central Powers with a ring of alliance partners. France, in the west, a hostile Russia (as the "dissed girlfriend") in the east. GB's RN in the position to cut off the north, in case of war. That only left a small corridor of access either through Serbia, or Austria-Hungary's ports in the Adriatic (threatened by British hegemony over Greece). Today, we see a similar strategy concerning China. Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines controlling sea access to the east. Trump playing it nice with Putin/Russia [yup, "collusion" in some form or other *is real.* Geopolitics almost dictates it to be true], would cut off the north-west/north-east. A more hostile India, will cover the south-west sector...almost there. That only leaves a narrow corridor of access to the south, in the South China Sea. The Sprattly Islands... History might not always be 100% the same, but it certainly rhymes. Let's see if the effects are going to be the same...

Really appreciate the archival video footage...

*"If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past." Baruch Spinoza* All throughout history we have been implored to study the past, and be honest about the past, lest we repeat it. And it is indeed repeated in endless cycles, because we are not honest about our past. In the timeframe relevant to this documentary, "poor little Belgium" had the function as a "barrier state" between great powers, in order to keep them apart (grand strategy). It was created under a completely different "big picture" reality of the post-Napolionic Wars, at a time weaker nations (incl. Germans in single states and kingdoms) needed protection from France. For GB/Empire it had the main intention for London to have a "reason for war", which it could present to its own isolationist inhabitants and leaders not versed in military strategy. Note, there was no defense pact of any kind between London and Brussels, and no alliance. London simply did not sign any binding (geopolitical/grand strategy) treaties with continental states, as a policy standpoint. For GB as a state, nation, and empire, there was no legal obligation to ever do anything. Only "feelings". "Poor little Belgium" had a function as a "barrier state", and Belgian leaders went along with it. For London Belgium's main raison d'etre was to have a "reason for war" which it could sell to its own people and leaders. Note again, there was no defense pact of any kind, and no mutual alliance. *Belgium of the past, set up as a "barrier state" with the good intention of avoiding dynastical wars, morphed over time as "tools" of an empire."* *In that regard, and concerning "strategy" and "feelings" and Finnland in 1939/40, and the Ukraine today.* In 1939 Stalin did not *need* an outright "win" in order to get his demands met. All he wanted, was to get his demands met. In 1939 the SU neither set out, nor strove for "total war" and "total victory". Stalin's demands were finally met in 1940, because nobody meddled too much. The "non-agression pact" (lol) with Germany created a barrier which effectively seperated Finnland from the rest of the world (apart from the tiny port of Petsamo in the Artic which was Finnish at the time). The Baltic as access to Finnland was off limits. Similarly, today and re. strategy, Putin does not *need* an outright "win" in order to get his demands met (No NATO forces in the Ukraine/acknowledgement of the Crimean and Donets "reality"). Again, 90% of the "experts" we see on TV these days, and their "expert analyses" miss the point entirely. Again, either intentionally or unintentionally (misleading audiences). *In 1939/40, what anybody in the outside world wanted for "poor little Finland" was entirely irrelevant.* *Today, what anybody in the outside world wants for "poor little Ukraine" is entirely irrelevant.* Why? In 1939 Nazi Germany acted as a "shield" isolating Finnland from the rest of the world. Today, what the USA and their "little NATO helpers" (or the UN, or anybody else) want or desire for "poor little Ukraine" is not relevant. Today the "barrier" isn't geography, but a weapon: nukes (MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction). The situation doesn't need to be 100% the same in "3d chess" world of strategists, in order for the outcome to be the same. *Outcome: No or little outside meddling.* And after the current "Ukraine War" has passed? *2022: "poor little Finnland" today, getting "set up" as sacrificial pawn by the "alphas" yet again.* And regarding "poor little Finnland" as the sacrificial pawn of the morphed "economic alpha empires" USA/EU (NATO alliance), dangling the "NATO membership prize" for Finnland, *while at the same time creating a "red cape" as the "lighting rod" for the bull (Russia).* Let's see how smart their leaders are today. *It has all happened before, and I hope "poor little" Finnish leaders know their history, and are versed in strategy.* Their *real* history, not the spun emotional versions for the fans in the relevant countries. Today, Finnland and the Ukraine are on Washington DC's "list" of states that will involuntarily do their bidding for them, same as the unfortunate Finnland (geographically and politically cut off from the rest of the world) was for the "empires" back in 1939/40, and same as "poor little Belgium" back in the leadup to 1914... In 1914, and for the British Empire, the first neighbor to invade Belgium was "the enemy". Irrelevant of who it was, Belgium's struggle would then automatically become a struggle to uphold the British Empire, and London's "right" to meddle on the continent. In London, the strategists didn't care about "Belgians" as such. They were simply a tool to ensure that in any potential future scenario, the average Brit would feel outrage. Today with the war in the Ukraine. The Ukraine's "function" is to fight Washington's rival/enemy, and weakening it, while at the same time the alpha can sit "on the fence" and watch, conserving its strength... All of this has happened before. Of course it has. Not exactly, but history rhymes. Also not as one might think. *Strategy (of a few) = pawns = tools = the emotions (of the many).* The victim in the past (WW2) was Norway, and the "schemers" were London/British Empire and their "little helper" France. They intended to drag Norway into the war, while falsely and insidiously claiming to "want to help Finland (Winter War)". *One needs to truly understand history and strategy by delving into the details, and being honest about the motivations of the own past leaders, in order to honestly understand the present.* Of course, British and French forces in any Scandinavian state (Norway or Sweden) would have acted as a "red cape" for either Berlin or Moscow. A threat to their northern flanks they could not and would not ignore. The minute Norway and Sweden opened their doors to outside forces "just wanting to help" the "poor little Finns", the war would expand north, away from the own homelands (France and GB). For Finnish leaders today it means truly understanding what happened in 1939/40 re. the Finnish Winter War, and how London/Paris intended to turn Scandinavia into a "soft underbelly" (or rather "soft overbelly") and to turn Scandinavia into a war zone so that they would suffer less casualties themselves as some other region of the world went up in flames. "Poor little Finnland" would do nicely as an excuse, thank you. All the more reason for Stalin to "settle matters quickly" in March 1940, before the summer came... *Let's see if Finnland today has learnt their lesson from the past and today (Belgium/the Ukraine/Finnland 1939).* Whether they did will be revealed to us "commoners" in due time. Soon. Their leaders will reveal if the "lessons" have been learned, if we are all suddenly "surprized" (lol) by a newspaper article proclaiming that a "fait accompli" of overnight NATO membership had been quickly signed, after a short secret negotiation (lol again). In case these negotions are taking place in the open, and drag on for months? Good luck Finnland, in case you then end up with a "little border incident" with Russia, meaning a state of duress or war. There is always the wise option of threatening a neutrality deal with Moscow of course, in case a demand to Washington DC/NATO for secret and rapid signing is "delayed". Delayed? By golly...just like the Ukraine, which had the "promise of NATO membership" (since 2007/08) and "you'll be one us...soon" (EU) dangled in front of their noses... In case of any "Crimea/Donbass"-style duress evolving in Finnland during an overly long approval process, *NATO will not sign Finnland up.* Again, see Ukraine, and the "...but, but...danger of expanded nuclear war"-shrug of the old shoulders... Re. the strategies our leaders follow. They have not changed much over time. Age-old strategies to advance own interests, which do not exclude cheating "brothers". Finnland take note. "Friendship" does not exist on the ladder to success, or to stay on top of the pyramid kicking down. A tale as old as the Bible. Essau and Jacob is of course a cautionary tale to *beware of brothers,* which has morphed over time and now means "winning means everything"... Note that in this biblical "tale" about eternal deceit and "cheating own brothers out of their inheritance", *the deceiver* is the hero of the story. Go figure. The deceiver's name and slimey ways continue. Essau the "hunter type" as a name has sorta died out... Very telling indeed. The "smoothe talking good guy" deceiving his own brother, is the "hero". *"If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past." Baruch Spinoza*

The Film beginns with a lie in the first second. The first citation ist not the Kaiser it is his brother.

If you REALLY study it, The First World War started with the death of an Archduke, most people had NEVER heard of, in a city most people could NOT pronounce correctly, in a country most people could NOT correctly locate on a map.

What a load of rubbish. Germany never tried to conquer Europe during WWI. No question it had territorial ambitions, but the Balkans, in particular, were of no interest to the Kaiser, nor were Italy, Western France, Britain or Spain.

@Tracy Thank you for your kind words. Are you from China? In case you are, and you decide to come here, IMO the people from China should be proud of their own names, and not use these "westernized" ones to communicate. The essay about how history doesn't have a start or stop, and isn't about good or bad people fighting eternal wars, has been swiped. I'll try to repost it here. rgds