Talk:Wilhelm II/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Apology

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)

I have informed the three wiki-projects listed at the top of this talk page that "there is a proposal to move this article to a new name." Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ready to close?

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)

I agree that it is about time that the change happens.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The last three supports, and I think some others, are also either vacuous or opppose using an anglicized name even when it is most common. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

William II, German Emperor should remain; unless William I, German Emperor, Frederick III, German Emperor and the previous Prussian Kings are changed aswell (for consistancy sake). GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't considered inappropriate for me to do the move, I would move all of these articles. But, may I point out that not all encyclopedias are entirely consistent. The World Book, for example, has the Wilhelms at Wilhelm, but the Friedrichs and Friedrich Wilhelms at their English names. Besides, the consensus seems to be in favor of the move and if you'd like to move all of these articles, be my guest. Emperor001 (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a Wiki-wide policy of using native names; I would strenously oppose moves of the other Prussian kings to German names; they are most commonly known in English by their Anglicized names. Olessi (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait and see what's decided. Sure would be tragic to see this article become like Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (out of sync with the other Swedish monarch names). GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Names withing the article

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)

names and redirects

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

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)

Erased

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)

Linked to eugenics and genocides in Africa

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

Revelations made in Kaiser's Memoirs

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.

1. The British-American-French agreement of 1897

On pp. 69-70, the Kaiser wrote the following.

Professor Usher, in his book published in 1913, made known for the first time the existence and contents of an 'agreement' or 'secret treaty' between England, America and France, dating from the spring of 1897. In this it was agreed that, in case Germany or Austria, or both of them, should begin a war for the sake of 'Pan-Germanism,' the United States should at once declare in favour of England and France and go to the support of these Powers with all its resources. Professor Usher cites at length all the reasons, including those of a colonial character [conquest of the Spanish dependencies, control over Mexico and Central America, the opening up of China and the annexation of coaling stations], which inevitably imposed upon the United States the necessity of taking part, on the side of England and France, in a war against Germany, which Professor Usher, in 1913, prophesied as imminent!

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.

In February, 1900, [...] I received news by telegraph [...] that Russia and France had proposed to Germany to make a joint attack on England, now that she was involved elsewhere [in the Boer War], and to cripple her sea traffic. I objected and ordered that the proposal should be declined.

Since I assumed that Paris and St. Petersburg would present the matter at London in such a way as to make it appear that Berlin had made this proposal to both of them, I immediately telegraphed from Heligoland to Queen Victoria and to the Prince of Wales (Edward) the facts of the Russo-French proposal, and its refusal by me. The Queen answered expressing her hearty thanks, the Prince of Wales with an expression of astonishment.

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:

I immediately asked: 'Against whom?'--for it was evident that if England so suddenly offered to make an alliance in the midst of peace, she needed the German army, which made it worth while to find out against whom the army was needed and for what reason German troops were to fight, at England's behest, by her side. Thereupon the answer came from London that they were needed against Russia, for Russia was a menace both to India and to Constantinople.

The first thing I did was to call London's attention to the old traditional brotherhood-in-arms between the German and Russian armies, and the close family ties between the reigning dynasties of the two countries; in addition I pointed out the dangers of a war on two fronts, in the event of France coming in on the side of Russia, [. . .] and that there was no reason to unloose a conflict with Russia at this time, when we were in the midst of peace;

The Kaiser also realized that:

in case of our making common cause against Russia, Germany would be the only one who would be in great danger [. . .] and Chamberlain's 'plan' therefore came to nothing. Soon afterwards England concluded her alliance with Japan (Hayashi). The Russo-Japanese War broke out, in which Japan--owing to the fact that it fitted in with her schemes--played the role of pawn in England’s interests, which role had originally been reserved for Germany. By this war, Russia was thrown from the East back to the West, where she might concern herself again with the Balkans, Constantinople and India--a result clearly to Japan’s advantage--leaving Japan with a free hand in Korea and China.

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.

(5) According to the memoirs of the then French Ambassador at St. Petersburg, M. Paléologue, published in 1921 in the Revue des Deux Mondes, The Grand Duchesses Anastasia and Militza told him, on July 22, 1914, at Tsarskoe Selo, that their father, the King of Montenegro, had informed them in a cipher telegram, "we shall have war before the end of the month [that is, before the 13th of August, Russian style] . . . nothing will be left of Austria. . . . You will take Alsace-Lorraine. . . . Our armies will meet at Berlin. . . . Germany will be annihilated."

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."

He said that, in 1917, an international meeting of the "Grand Orient" was held, after which there was a subsequent conference in Switzerland. There the following programme was adopted: dismemberment of Austria-Hungary, elimination of the House of Habsburg, abdication of the German Emperor, . . . restitution of Alsace-Lorraine to France, union of Galicia with Poland, elimination of the Pope and the Catholic Church, elimination of every State Church in Europe. Italus (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any point in expanding currently existing mention of unsubstantianted claims the Kaiser made in his memoirs. In case of expanding this section, an apologetical book written by himself could hardly be taken as neutral and reliable source. --ja_62 (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It was not my intention of "expanding currently existing mention," although some competent person should do so. Of the revelations that I listed, the claim about the "Grand Orient Lodge" is the only one that is questionable. Presumably, the telegrams about the Russo-French proposal for war against England are in the archives. Joseph Chamberlain's Anglo-German treaty negotiations are documented, as are Usher's book and Paléologue's memoirs. Italus (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably some individual claims are quite correct and based on facts, or nearly so, but certainly not the whole bunch of Wilhelm's conspiracy theories and odd allegations he made up in his memoirs. In my opinion, the only correct way to cite his (or anyone other's) memoirs is to treat his opinions and recollections as opinions and recollections - i.e. not "In 1897 there was agreed upon a secret treaty between US, UK and France" but like this - "Wilhelm claimed, that there was a secret treaty between... He based this claim on ..."- and so on. Factual statements should be based on reliable third party sources, not upon a memoirs of involved person. BTW - this is nice case of his methods and ways of thinking - from Usher's quite vague guesswork on existence of some kind of general understanding or agreement of those nations, explicitly stating "no papers were signed, no pledges were given", (and erroneously claiming willingness of United States to declare war on Germany "promptly" in case of conflict, which didn't materialise), in Wilhelm's memoirs suddenly "multilateral secret treaty entered into in 1897" emerges. For this Wilhelm's memoirs (and earlier Comparative historical tables, with which he also didn't bother himself with any source material) were much ridiculed in time they came out - and he lost much of his supporters he still had at the time. (And many of them, like Admiral Müller, ex-chief of his Naval cabinet, lost his favour when suggested it would be much wiser not to publish them) And we should remember too, that he hadn't access to any official archives in 1921-1922.--ja_62 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I was one of the first to arrive. The Grand Duchess Anastasia and her sister, the Grand Duchess Militza, gave me a boisterous welcome. The two Montenegrins burst out, talking both at once:

"Do you realize that we're passing through historic days, fateful days! ... At the review to-morrow the bands will play nothing but the Marche Lorraine and Sambre et Meuse. I've had a telegram (in pre-arranged code) from my father to-day. He tells me we shall have war before the end of the month.... What a hero my father is! ... He's worthy of the Iliad! Just look at this little box I always take about with me. It's got some Lorraine soil in it, real Lorraine soil I picked up over the frontier when I was in France with my husband two years ago. Look there, at the table of honour: it's covered with thistles. I didn't want to have any other flowers there. They're Lorraine thistles, don't you see! I gathered several plants on the annexed territory, brought them here and had the seeds sown in my garden ... Militza, go on talking to the ambassador. Tell him all to-day means to us while I go and receive the Tsar ..."

At dinner I was on the left of the Grand Duchess Anastasia and the rhapsody continued, interspersed with prophecies . "There's going to be war ... There'll be nothing left of Austria .... You're going to get back Alsace and Lorraine .... Our armies will meet in Berlin ... Germany will be destroyed ... ." Then suddenly:

"I must restrain myself. The Emperor has his eye on me."

Under the Tsar's stern gaze the Montenegrin sybil suddenly lapsed into silence.

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)

That's just another example of Wilhelm's feeble-mindedness and exculpation attempts based on his falsified sources - though Paléologue clearly wrote about telegram from King Nikola to his daughters which mentioned coming war (which was no wonder evaluation, given the situation in Europe by July 22 1914), but day dreaming of spoils of war and destruction of Austria is clearly attributed to Montenegrin princesses -i.e. At dinner I was on the left of the Grand Duchess Anastasia and the rhapsody continued, interspersed with prophecies. "There's going to be war . . . There'll be nothing left of Austria . . . . You're going to get back Alsace and Lorraine .... Our armies will meet in Berlin ... Germany will be destroyed . . . ." - not to Nikola, or even to other Entente politician - which Kaiser, either intentionally, or may be even inadverently, attributed to Nikola's telegram.:-) Anyway, anyone's memoirs hardly qualifies as a reliable source.--ja_62 (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s.: It also seems that the Kaiser was not particularly good at converting O.S. dates to N.S. ones - actually Julian calendar then used in Russia was "late" in comparison with the Gregorian one (that's why the October Revolution happened in Gregorian November), and 13th of August (Russian style) would be something like Gregorian August 26th. --ja_62 (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Abdication and flight?

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)

"Abdication and Flight" should be "Exile and Abdication"

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)

Kaiser first fled from then already mutinous Berlin to Army Headquarters in Spa on October 29, and then, after Army refused to wage a hopeless civil war on behalf of his rule, he fled to Netherlands. He was not exiled by German Army or Government, they simply abandonned him, and let his fate have him. BTW I don't think its entirely correct to exaggerate external pressure on Kaiser and leave out the fact that on Nov 8/9 Germany was already in revolution against monarchy. And section Life in exile, already exists in the article. --ja_62 (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s.:The "Utterly misleading impression" that the Kaiser abandonned his own cause and supporters was also advocated by many conservative monarchists - e.g. Prince Alexander Hohenlohe, Count Lerchenfeld - who saw it as desertion in time of emergency. --ja_62 (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The following is in Michael Balfour's The Kaiser and his Times, Houghton Mifflin (1964) p. 401:

On the night of 29 October, he yielded to the arguments of Dona and von Berg (who was still lurking on the backstairs) and slipped away from Berlin--for ever as it turned out--back to Spa. His entourage supposed that at Headquarters he would be safe against pressure to abdicate, since Hindenburg would never agree to it. 'Prince Max's Government', he said on his arrival, is trying to throw me out. At Berlin I should be less able to oppose them than in the midst of my generals.' So far from saving the monarchy, this flight may well have proved fatal to it, since if William had remained in Berlin, subject to the arguments of his civilian Ministers and under the influence of developments in the capital, he might have abdicated in time to forestall the proclamation of the Republic. On the other hand he might have fallen into the hands of the revolutionaries, have failed to escape from Germany and so had inadequate security against Allied demands for his surrender.

The Kaiser left Berlin because of the increasing pressure to abdicate. The reference given in the subsection "October 1918 telegrams" states: "the conclusion of the Wilson note of 23 October refers to nothing less than the abdication of the Kaiser as the only way to a peace which is more or less tolerable." I stand by my opinion that this section, as currently written, is utterly misleading and should be modified to reflect more fully the external pressures for the Kaiser's abdication. Italus (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Bolshevik Revolution

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)

Wilhelm, Kaiser Bill please move back!

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)

Recently you reinserted Kaiser Bill into the article as the name he was called in the United States. While he may have been called this around the time of the First World War he is certainly not called this today. Generally when discussing the First World War he is either called Wilhelm II or the Kaiser in American history textbooks. TonyBallioni 21:26, 12 November 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)

"Kaiser Bill" was a slang nickname – with disrepect intended – that was popular during the war in the US and the UK. I'm not sure about the Commonwealth more generally. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have provided a source for this notable nickname. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2010 (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)

Requested move 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Move to Wilhelm II of Germany. It looks like the common style for monarchs is "Name number of place", with no title (i.e. "Emperor") in this case. c.f. Louis XIV of France, Victoria of the United Kingdom, et cetera ad nauseam. I imagine there is a standard for this that others who more closely follow Royal articles in general would advise on (as opposed to people like me for whom he is "just" a person in history).

I'm all for standardisation, but we should standardised to the right thing. If his granddaddy was moved to another title, that's too bad. As far as anglicisation goes, I think that's a separate issue – It's a question of WP:COMMONNAME, I think. While he was often called "King Bill", I am not sure he was often called "King William".

I do realise that while he may have been German he may not have been "of Germany"; but he must have been "of" something? Si Trew (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it Kaiser Bill, or Kaiser Wilhelm more commonly in English? (Kaiser Bill mustache for instance) 76.66.193.119 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I accept that there is a serious case for moving the three German Emperors to "of Germany", but that's a separate issue, let's deal with one problem at a time. PatGallacher (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the consensus in 2008 was to leave it at Wilhelm, it seems. So the only reason I can see for a move towards "consistency", which is what is in the proposal, is with consistency of monarchs in general. Why move it to a name that is still inconsistent? I can see your point of this then splitting the discussion, but I'd rather argue both in one go, than have Yet Another Move Request for what seems to have undergone several already over the last couple of years. Si Trew (talk) 18:08, 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)

• Oppose In the United Kingdom at least, he is commonly known as Kaiser Wilhelm, not as Kaiser William, Emperor William or King William. Would support a move to Wilhelm II of Germany. Fred may require alternative disambiguation but Willy doesn't. In any case, the Fred problem could be solved by using Frederick III of the German Empire and Frederick III of the Holy Roman Empire, which would still fit our naming conventions, but clearly disambiguate. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Welhelm is by far the most common name for this person in English, and he's by far the best known of the Wilhelm/Williams of Germany. So any tidying up of article titles needs to provide for this particular article to remain at some variation of Wilhelm rather than William. Andrewa (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support. "Wilhelm II" and "William II" are both in very common use. I'd say the German form is the slightly more common, but that this is outweighed by the fairly strong preference for the anglicized form for the name of every other Prussian monarch, including his grandfather William I. We may as well keep it consistent. I strongly oppose any effort to move to "Wilhelm II of Germany". We should aim for greater precision, not less. john k (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Because of World War 1, he is widely known as Wilhelm. Cjc13 (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Never heard him refer to as William. It would make no sense.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. As we proved two years ago, he's most commonly known as Wilhelm. Emperor001 (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• Frederick III, German Emperor → Frederick III of Germany
• Wilhelm II, German Emperor → Wilhelm II of Germany

Object. This naming convention is explicitly mentioned in WP:NCROY; it is deliberate and for clarity. Personally, I'd prefer to see all monarchs labelled in this style (eg Henry VIII, King of England, rather than Henry VIII of England), but that's a whole other story. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In the course of some previous discussions it was recognised that NCROY is to some extent descriptive rather than prescriptive i.e. it describes names that have involved in practice. You seem to acknowledge that there is no fundamental reason why German emperors are treated differently from most other kings and emperors. "Frederick III of the Holy Roman Empire" is clumsier than "Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor". PatGallacher (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the other Emperors titles were *of *, Emperor of Austria, Emperor of Russia and so on. As discussed in the William I article this title was carefully chosen as “Emperor of Germany” would of given the impression of a claim of sovereignty over the whole of Germany (not just Prussia) which was ruled by other sovereigns and so “German Emperor” was chosen to get consent of these other German sovereigns. - dwc lr (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose We treat these like the Holy Roman Emperors. They were not "of Germany". Seven Letters 23:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The confusion absolutely does not apply at the current location. Holy Roman Emperor's were kings of Germany (or "of the Romans") but are never called "German Emperor." Also, what's going on here? This is the talk page for William II, not William I. Plus, Pat proposed the exact same move a month ago, and it was roundly rejected. We shouldn't have to keep votin on the same thing over and over again. john k (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, something's gone weird with this request (see also the bot's message below, which links straight back to here) - either the template was placed on the wrong page, or the bot has messed up somehow. (As to the proposal, I don't have a strong opinion, but it seems this is a case rather like Louis Philippe I, where historically the "of X" title was rejected for a deliberate reason, so we do better by rejecting it too, unless the sources have united in conferring it anyway.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The recent move request was for an entirely different naming issue. I am not aware of any guideline, in the case of multiple move requests, relating to which of the articles it should be placed at, that's a new one on me. I have moticed before that the bot does screw up sometimes. PatGallacher (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So it is a different naming issue. Was looking over it quickly and missed that. Sorry about that. On the whole I agree with Kotniski; the title "Emperor of Germany" was explicitly rejected and "German Emperor" used instead, which I think also ought to incline us towards the current title. john k (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion should probably have been placed at William I, German Emperor but covers three articles including this one, so it's perfectly OK for it to be listed here. My guess is either this was a slip on the proposer's (User:PatGallacher's) part, or more likely that it was deliberately listed here because of the previous discussion which did not include the others, so as not to appear to try to get the change in by the back door. I removed the bot notice but gott an edit conflict. I'll check the other articles' talk pages link to this. Si Trew (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't beat this bot - it will always keep restoring the mistaken message (I know, I've fought against it before).--Kotniski (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't noted at Wilhelm I, so I guess the bot made a mistake, because it couldn't possibly hav been the proposer :) Si Trew (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. My reliable sources seem to use "William II, German Emperor". Sometimes the "German" is omitted where the book is about German history and it is taken as read. We can't do that on Wikipedia. As an example, Fulbrook (2004) uses William II, King of Prussia, German Emperor. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

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)

See above - this message shouldn't be here, but the bot will edit-war with you if you try to remove it.--Kotniski (talk) 07:36, 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)

Media for categorization

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)

Contradiction and something is missing.

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)

• See Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor/Archive 1 for discussion of contradictions. Cjc13 (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the tag, because the article concludes, at the same time, that he was anti-Semitic and supported the holocaust - then it says that he said he was "ashamed to be a German" because of the holocaust. It also seems to imply that he both supported Hitler, and did not support him. Sorry I didn't add a discussion section. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how he could have either supported or opposed the Holocaust, given that he died before the German invasion of the Soviet Union, which is when the genocide began in earnest. At any rate, my understanding is that Wilhelm's attitude towards both the Jews and the Nazis was complex and problematic. There is no doubt that he held some deeply anti-semitic opinions, which he expressed on numerous occasions; at the same time, he had close relationships with individual Jews like Max Warburg, and never pursued any anti-semitic policies himself. Furthermore, by all accounts he did not support Hitler's anti-semitic policies in the 30s. More broadly, he opposed Hitler in the way many aristocratic conservatives did - as a crass, unpleasant demagogue who had taken power from the classes which naturally ought to rule Germany, most importantly himself and his family. Like many aristocratic conservatives, however, he also had some admiration for Hitler's revival of German power. The article ought to clearly explain the nuances here, and not simply alternate between sentences expressing a harshly negative perspective and ones expressing a fawningly positive one. john k (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This part looks really weird: On 2 December 1919, Wilhelm wrote to Field Marshal August von Mackensen, denouncing his abdication as the "deepest, most disgusting shame ever perpetrated by a person in history, the Germans have done to themselves", "egged on and misled by the tribe of Judah ... Let no German ever forget this, nor rest until these parasites have been destroyed and exterminated from German soil!"[34] He advocated a "regular international all-worlds pogrom à la Russe" as "the best cure" and further believed that Jews were a "nuisance that humanity must get rid of some way or other. I believe the best would be gas! I guess it is completly false, mainly the gas statement, as it looks like either he had a crystal ball or he gave the Nazis this idea to use 30 years later, and I don't believe in both options. 189.13.227.118 (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be more true that violent solutions to what were seen as the country's racial problems were attractive to a lot of Germans at that time, and Wilhelm was just voicing them. Also, the lack of accountability inherent in totalitarianism did not lead Wilhelm to moderation or consistency. In short, he tended to run off at the mouth, which is why it is hard to define his views today. He was grandiose and melodramatic, and often expressed what was running through his mind at the time. He let himself be led by his audience. He was actually a bit of a dill. Rumiton (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The rabid antisemetic remarks that the Kaiser wrote on 2 December 1919 cannot be viewed in a vacuum. They are indicative of the bitterness following the German defeat, his abdication, and the Treaty of Versailles. I would like to point out that, during the war, many Jews living in the western part of the Russian Empire crossed the German lines for protection. Italus (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1918

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)

Revelations made in Kaiser's Memoirs

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.

Professor Usher, in his book published in 1913, made known for the first time the existence and contents of an 'agreement' or 'secret treaty' between England, America and France, dating from the spring of 1897. In this it was agreed that, in case Germany or Austria, or both of them, should begin a war for the sake of 'Pan-Germanism,' the United States should at once declare in favour of England and France and go to the support of these Powers with all its resources. Professor Usher cites at length all the reasons, including those of a colonial character [conquest of the Spanish dependencies, control over Mexico and Central America, the opening up of China and the annexation of coaling stations], which inevitably imposed upon the United States the necessity of taking part, on the side of England and France, in a war against Germany, which Professor Usher, in 1913, prophesied as imminent!

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.

In February, 1900, [...] I received news by telegraph [...] that Russia and France had proposed to Germany to make a joint attack on England, now that she was involved elsewhere [in the Boer War], and to cripple her sea traffic. I objected and ordered that the proposal should be declined.

Since I assumed that Paris and St. Petersburg would present the matter at London in such a way as to make it appear that Berlin had made this proposal to both of them, I immediately telegraphed from Heligoland to Queen Victoria and to the Prince of Wales (Edward) the facts of the Russo-French proposal, and its refusal by me. The Queen answered expressing her hearty thanks, the Prince of Wales with an expression of astonishment.

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:

I immediately asked: 'Against whom?'--for it was evident that if England so suddenly offered to make an alliance in the midst of peace, she needed the German army, which made it worth while to find out against whom the army was needed and for what reason German troops were to fight, at England's behest, by her side. Thereupon the answer came from London that they were needed against Russia, for Russia was a menace both to India and to Constantinople.

The first thing I did was to call London's attention to the old traditional brotherhood-in-arms between the German and Russian armies, and the close family ties between the reigning dynasties of the two countries; in addition I pointed out the dangers of a war on two fronts, in the event of France coming in on the side of Russia, [. . .] and that there was no reason to unloose a conflict with Russia at this time, when we were in the midst of peace;

The Kaiser also realized that:

in case of our making common cause against Russia, Germany would be the only one who would be in great danger [. . .] and Chamberlain's 'plan' therefore came to nothing. Soon afterwards England concluded her alliance with Japan (Hayashi). The Russo-Japanese War broke out, in which Japan--owing to the fact that it fitted in with her schemes--played the role of pawn in England’s interests, which role had originally been reserved for Germany. By this war, Russia was thrown from the East back to the West, where she might concern herself again with the Balkans, Constantinople and India--a result clearly to Japan’s advantage--leaving Japan with a free hand in Korea and China.

Italus (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The poor Kaiser was never well informed about world affairs and was always dreaming up episodes that never happened. On #1 there never was such an agreement --it's odd that the Kaiser bases his knowledge on an American essay that came out in 1913--in it Usher admits he has no evidence whatever for any such plan--and no historian has ever found any. People interested in what really happened should look at a RS like AJP Taylor, The struggle for mastery in Europe 1848-1918 pp 396-7Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hang the Kaiser

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)

"Hang the Kaiser" was a political slogan used, with great success, by David Lloyd George in the December 1918 British general election. The request for the extradition and trial of the Kaiser was mostly "pro forma." The Dutch government had no intention to accept it--probably much to the relief of the British and French governments.Italus (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wilhelm II, the Evil One?

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)

crying "Hitler" does not help poor Wilhelm. the Kaiser scores very low indeed among the scholars cited as RS--a good reason for abolishing the monarchy in the view of most Germans. I have not seen a single scholar giving him high marks for personality, diplomacy or military leadership. (The article does tell about his good deeds for science). Rjensen (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your reply still has not answered why he is portrayed in this cartoonish way in this article. --Lecen (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

because that's how leading historians depict him--as an incompetent, bumbling fool who always made matters worse. It's Wiki's job to reflect the work of the experts. Rjensen (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not how "leading historians" describe him. That's how historians from the era of Tuchman describes Wilhelm, but modern historians are much more neutral in their portrayal, by citing the good things that Wilhelm accomplished, such as the dismissal of Bismarck and pointing out that things like the Daily Telegraph crisis, while scandalous, had no effect whatsoever on world events. -- LightSpectra (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a reader from England I can see that this article contains points of view, something wikipedia should not contain. It is not for wikipedia editors to synth an article with POV's in this way. It is also not for wikipedia to direct an article toward a negative stance. Earlier historians may have been influenced by propoganda. The article needs balance and needs more work to be objective. At present this article tells me that Kaiser Bill as he was known here was the brains behind the theories that led to the Nazi exterminations in world war II, was he? it does not tally with what the English are taught. --88.104.19.133 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

LightSpectra, you should try Emil Ludwig's unflattering biography of 1927, long before Tuchman, based entirely on quotations from Willi's friends. Or just quote Alexander III of Russia, "c'est un enfant mal élevé" - the ultimate put-down.86.42.193.86 (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Where are your sources in first section?

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)

First, you were reverted by a bot not a human...and the bot was correct. What you did was made a mess. Citations are often not found in the lead section because those points are addressed in the body per this guideline. If you find that something in the lead is not addressed in the article body, then you bring it here to the talk page to ask. I'd suggest that you look for the answers you seek there first.

If within the body, you see that something needs citations then you use {{cn}} which stands for citation needed but do not place that many at once (known to editors as "driveby tagging")...it is too unprofessional to do that many. Rather, you should come here to the talk page to inquire. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Wilhelm II, German Emperor → Wilhelm II, Kaiser
• Frederick III, German Emperor → Frederick III, Kaiser
• William I, German Emperor → William I, Kaiser

– 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)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''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.

• Strong Support - Nominator. Shatter Resistance (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Agreed that "Kaiser" is closely associated in English language historical literature with Wilhelm II due to his role leading up to and during WWI, it seems less frequent now than in 19th & 20th century writings. But it is not prevalent in English usage for the prior German emperors. FactStraight (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose My reliable sources use "William II, German Emperor" or "William II, Emperor" where the book is about German history and "German" is taken as read. As an example, Fulbrook (2004) uses "William II, King of Prussia, German Emperor". Not really "ugly" or "clunky" IMHO, but very clear. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I could live with Kaiser Wilhelm as this is widely used in English but when we use name, position an English term should be used. Agathoclea (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it should be moved to William II, German Emperor. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, I never cared for the name, title style. It's a relic of the alphabetization schemes of dead-tree based reference works. This proposed name abandons our style, except for the aspect of it that I find most annoying. Come on: Kaiser Wilhelm II, or possibly Emperor William II of Germany. 08:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; should be Kaiser Wilhelm II. Powers ^T 13:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; "Name, Kaiser" and "Name of Germany." The title reflects the actual title used by the Kaisers German Emperor or Emperor of the German Empire. Never were they Emperor of Germany or Emperor of the Germans. I can live with Kaiser Wilhelm II also, but would rather not.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment, why isn't it "Wilhem II of XXXX" ie in the same style as his contemporaries and relations Nicholas II of Russia, George V of the United Kingdom. I it isn't a style issue then that leaves the principles of common name - "Kaiser Wilhelm II" - or disambiguation - "Wilhem II (German emperor)". GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• As mentioned previously it is in the archive, the explanation is here. Shatter Resistance (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Briefly, as a way of distinguishing them from the Holy Roman Emperors, who can also be of Germany. Since there is a Frederick III in both sets, this is not a hypothetical problem, but a real one. Since there is a natural form of disambiguation, we use it.

• There may be a better solution; if so, we have not found it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay so there seems to be a very strong census against my proposal but numerous suggestions that Kaiser Wilhelm II be used (A name I also actually prefer to my own proposal but which I did not think would get any support). Therefore I will apply to get this discussion closed and open a new one proposing Kaiser Wilhelm II. However, should Wilhelm I/William I and Frederick III also be included in that application? Shatter Resistance (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Powers ^T 19:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You could but I don't think it will get the same level of support. While Commonname could be held to apply to "Kaiser Bill", the other two are really quite obscure by comparison. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

They can have NCROY titles: "William I of Germany" and "Frederick III of Germany." The other Frederick III is at Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor, so he wouldn't have to be moved. Kauffner (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not who is at what title. It's the fact that "Frederick III of Germany" which now links to Frederick the Fair can be used to refer to him and Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor and Frederick III, German Emperor.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That remains true regardless of what article titles we use. We can't stop people from people from having the same names. Kauffner (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

But we can use distinct titles. Frederick the Fair was not Emperor of Germany; the brief reign of Queen Victoria's son-in-law was not as Holy Roman Emperor; so the present titles are at least unambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't want to use the obvious name because it could conceivable refer to more than one person? Frederick III of Germany is not the title of any article at the moment. As a redirect, it gets 30 views a month -- not all of them necessarily looking for Frederick the Fair. It not a common search term for any topic, and not phrase that is used in the RS. It a wikistyle that we created. It refers to whatever we point it at. It is a fallow piece of domain space, waiting for us to put it to good use. Kauffner (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move: To "Kaiser Wilhelm II"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• Support - I agree that Kaiser Wilhelm II is more appropriate than Wilhelm II, German Emperor, as he is referred to as 'the Kaiser' the majority of the time and not 'German Emperor'. However, if Wilhelm II is moved, Wilhelm I, German Emperor and Frederick III, German Emperor should be moved as well to Kaiser Wilhelm I and Kasier Frederick III to keep a consistency with the three emperors of the German Empire.

If this suggested move were to fail in support, my second choice would be to move to Wilhelm II of Germany, as this as well would be more appropriate than Wilhelm II, German Emperor, and would keep the style of the majority of other article on monarchs. The same for Wilhelm I and Frederick III.

As for the issue with 'Frederick III of Germany' being redirected to Frederick the Fair, the redirect can be changed to the Frederick III disambiguation page to solve that. -- Lord Gorbachev (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you support moving the Austrian Emperors to "Kaiser", as well? Opera hat (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Austrian Emperors have the format [Name] of [Country], besides Francis I who has the format [Name], [Title]. And that is because he is also the last Holy Roman Emperor, and the Holy Roman Emperors have the [Name], [Title] format. Personally, the only Austrian Emperor I've heard referred to as 'Kaiser' in the English language is Franz Joseph I, but due to the fact that I haven't studied Austrian history as much as I have German and Russian history, I can't really support or oppose the Austrian emperors being moved to 'Kaiser'. Then that would possibly lead into whether we should call the Holy Roman Emperors 'Kaiser', which I would oppose, because no one calls them Kaisers in the English language. -- Lord Gorbachev (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Es giebt nur ein Kaiserstadt,

's giebt nur ein Wien! Quoted by Hans Christian Andersen before Franz Joseph came to the throne. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The official title for the Holy Roman Emperors was in Latin, Romanorum Imperator Augustus. No logic in calling them "kaiser". Kauffner (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Das ist, der Kaiser des Heiligen Römischen Reiches. Where do you suppose the Hohenzollern found the title? If we can speak German for one set of Emperors, we can for two. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have decided to change my vote to Oppose due to the fact that if the move were successful, it would apply only to Wilhelm II, and in my opinion it could possibly be confusing to some people without a consistency in the titles with the three German Emperors. I know some people don't mind Wilhelm II being the only one with a different title, but I just feel differently about it. Its not like there are many German Emperors, and only a few have different common names; (e.g. Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Ivan the Terrible, of the Russian monarchy). There are only three, and I feel their names should be consistent. As I feel I should mention, I don't necessarily have a problem with the titles of the articles of the German Emperors' as it is now, I just figured they could be improved with a more common form. Also, the current format is slightly funky, in my honest opinion.

Nevertheless, I have a better idea for this particular issue. So if the move were to fail, I'd strongly suggest that the common title of "Kaiser" for Wilhelm II should be mentioned within the lead paragraph; as to mention Kaiser Wilhelm II as a common name for him. -- Lord Gorbachev (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• support per common name principles. But specifically without prejudice to the article names of other German emperors which should be decided on merits of case by case. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Note: links to this discussion have been posted on WT:ROYALTY and WT:GERMANY. — Favonian (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. We've just been through this, immediately above. There is no reason, in this English Wikipedia, to use Kaiser for the German Emperor. Those who worry about hybrid forms should support moving this page back to William II. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, and there was significant support for this idea in that section, so I don't see why "We've just been through this" should be any reason to avoid getting a clear reading on this proposal. Powers ^T 01:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I know that it is preferred to use English in the English Wikipedia, but the the common name used in the English language also applies. For example, Hitler's title in the German language is "der Führer", and in the English language the title "the Führer, or Fuehrer" is used, hardly ever "the Leader" or "the Guide". I feel that the same concept applies here as 'Wilhelm II' is more commonly referred to as "the Kaiser"(der Kaiser) in the English language, and less commonly "the Emperor". Of course, Führer is used to refer to Hitler much more than Kaiser is used to refer to Wilhelm II, but it is still the same concept. -- Lord Gorbachev (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The No. 1 biography is Kaiser Wilhelm II (2000, 2009) by Christopher Clark. Then there is The Last Kaiser: The Life of Wilhelm II (2003), The Kaiser and his Court (1994), and Germany in the Age of Kaiser Wilhelm II (1996). When a word is used routinely in the titles of popular books, that's pretty mainstream English. Kauffner (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The statistics here, show what is the most common name used when people search for Wilhelm II on Google, and it proves that without a doubt it is "Kaiser Wilhelm II". -- Lord Gorbachev (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • And notice too that most of those people are searching from Germany—could they perhaps be using the guy's German name? Ucucha 04:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, thanks for spotting that. I forgot to set the search to the United States only. New statistics. It didn't make much of a change, though. You can set it to any English speaking country, and the results all are very similar. -- Lord Gorbachev (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried using the UK, but I added "Kaiser Wilhelm" (without the II) [1] and repeated for the US. "Kaiser Wilhelm" predominates as a term. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Powers ^T 01:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:GOOGLEHITS is unreliable and should not be the decider. My references (Fulbrook 2009 and Schayan and Giele 2010) both use "Emperor". "The Kaiser" is more of a popular nickname IMHO. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it should be William II, German Emperor. GoodDay (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per User:Bermicourt above. Borsoka (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, per --Bermicourt. FactStraight (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bermicourt and I believe the article name should be more formal. - dwc lr (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment I am surprised to find that this proposal is controversial. The current name is quite non-standard, not his common name, not his official style, not his native name, and not a title based on WP:NCROY. What's the reason for it? As near as I can tell, it reflects a preceived need to avoid confusion between German Emperor Frederick III and King Frederick the Fair. The king got 417 page views in the last 30 days, compared to 46145 for "Wilhelm II, German Emperor". Not only that, but the king already has a perfectly good, non-ambiguous title that would not be affect by this move. Kauffner (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is based on naming conventions. WP:NCROY#Sovereigns point 3 “However, in some cases the title rather than the state is followed, including: for the Holy Roman Emperors (until 1806): Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor. for the German Emperors (1871–1918): William I, German Emperor (not "of Germany")” - dwc lr (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP naming conventions. - Darwinek (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean, because this title is listed as an exception in NCROY? That is a description of the existing situation, which would change if we moved the article. To list a title as an exception without any further explanation is an acknowledgement that it does not follow any convention. Kauffner (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is fine. I particularly oppose the idea of "Kaiser Frederick III," which is just an awkward mixture of German and English forms. john k (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If you read the nom, the logic of this proposal is that in English "Kaiser" is the short form, common name of this individual in particular. So there is no suggestion of applying the word to anyone else. That was the move request immediately above, which I voted against and which was rejected. Kauffner (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support12.28.236.6 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support per WP:COMMONNAME.184.98.204.157 (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Note for closing admin Both IP´s above are sockppupets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/12.28.236.6. --Yopie (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but don't worry. We know to ignore plain "votes" with no rationale, and the WP:COMMONNAME page had already been invoked, so the IPs aren't having any effect here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Kaiser is nick, not his title in English or his name.--Yopie (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title gets the job done. It is recognisable, unambiguous, concise. I'd prefer "William II" for consistency, but it's no big deal, as both are recognisable and unambiguous. We don't need to break with our systematic forms just to get closer to how we native Anglophones talk(ed). Srnec (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The systematic name would be Wilhelm II of Germany, not the current title. Kauffner (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The current title is systematic. There is not only one system at work in Wikipedia for article titling. Srnec (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The title is not going to work with Frederick III in the way. I was going to support this move to Kaiser Wilhelm II, as long as the other two pages are left alone, due to the fact it his most common name in English. But I see that most people are not in favor of it. I just want to say I strongly oppose any form with "of Germany" at the end for these three German Emperors.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Question - Would it be acceptable to say "Wilhelm II of [something else]", maybe "of the German Empire"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Answer - Not for me. But that's not the title under discussion. Also this and this seems to show that "Wilhelm II, German Emperor" is not totally uncommon.
      • Many move requests are closed with moves to titles other than the one originally proposed. There's no rule that we have to have a separate request for each possible title we may think about. It's good to brainstorm and possibly discover good compromises that we wouldn't have thought of otherwise. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not an improvement. Deb (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Powers 208.248.82.6 (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep it where it stands. As said above, we have already just had this argument, so stet., let it stand. We went through all the business of before. We don't need to argue about "Kaiser" being "Caesar" or "King" or whatever, since it does not form part of his article title, neither does any other king queen or noble have that as part of their article title, so the point it moot. Punch (magazine) and various music-hall songs refer to him as Kaiser Bill, which redirects to this article, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would suggest the article had that title. By that same reductio ad absurdem, to convert it to William is pure pedantry, because he is not known by that name. Take WP:COMMONNAME as stated above. Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• support per common name principles.12.28.236.6 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Wilhelm II. Any other people named "Wilhelm II" should be disambiguated. In lieu of this, his title/nickname prefix of Kaiser is preferred as COMMONNAME, as (I'm sure) many will point out. Int21h (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Kaiser Wilhelm" in the lead

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)

No reason not to, apparently, so I'll go ahead. Scolaire (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Confusing statement

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

Shakespeare Joke

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)

A link to Miranda Carter's George, Nicholas and Wilhelm: three royal cousins and the road to World War I , p. xxiii, has been provided.Italus (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Should royals have their names in their native tongues?

Anyone interested, please take a look at this RfC. --Lecen (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems there is not a consensus. I am for reverting to English name, which at least non-German speakers can pronounce, and is consistent with tradition for all nobility. It is quite pedantic to try and have all names in their original languages. To that effect, I am removing the note at the top which requests that the German name be use, at it references nothing authoritative, not even a discussion. — 189.61.24.117 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 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)

The Kaiser and Tsar were not cousins

"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)

it says Willi and Kicky were cousins (true)--it does not say first cousins. Willy signed his telegrams to Nicky "Your very sincere and devoted friend and cousin, Willy". See King, Kaiser, Tsar: three royal cousins who led the world to war (2007) by Catrine Clay - and note the book's title. Rjensen (talk) 04:05, 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)

The closest actual relationship between the Kaiser and the Tsar, is that the Kaiser was the great-grandson of Prussian King Frederick William III of Prussia (1770-1840), through the direct Prussian male line, and the Tsar was the great-great-grandson of Frederick William III, as Frederick William's daughter Princess Charlotte became the wife of Nicholas II's great-grandfather Nicholas I of Russia. So Nicholas II was the Kaiser's second cousin, once removed.Eregli bob (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Potsdam station, 26 July 1914

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!"

Italus (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe he removed because it's the kind of quotation that could make sense in 400+ pages book, not in an article like this one. --Lecen (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion this is an important quotation because it points to the deceptions by Bethmann-Hollweg and others while the Kaiser was on his annual cruise of the North Sea.Italus (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Illegitimate son in Norway

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)

Mentioned in the newspaper today in Norway. <http://www.smp.no/nyheter/alesundogomland/article499359.ece> Son was born in 1905 to Kaizer Wilhelm and a local unnamed woman from Sogn. The two met in Hardanger in 1904 and this woman attended many of Kaizer Wilhelm's travels during Summer time, for several years. The boy was named Anders Fosse as mentioned, and was adopted by a childrenless married couple after birth. The connection was confirmed by highest protector of the family, King of Spain, his majesty King Juan Carlos, this summer. Solarclock (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A couple of questions - what is the basis for the claim that Juan Carlos is the "highest protector of the family"? What does that mean? Isn't Prince Georg Friedrich the head of the house? He's a grown man - why does he need a protector? Second, I'll just note a rather major error in that the article says Juan Carlos is protector of the Habsburg family - Kaiser Wilhelm was a Hohenzollern, not a Habsburg. john k (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is another article regarding the subject: <http://www.ba.no/nyheter/article6201889.ece> This one has slightly more information, and says they got in contact with the aforementioned prince eventually. I am fairly sure the article referred to earlier is saying that he is the "protector" (maybe 'guardian' could be a more precise word?) to both the Habsburgs and the Hohenzollerns. Citing the article it says (translated to English): "As the german emperor house (?) does no longer exist it is King of Spain, his majesty King Juan Carlos, who is the highest protector of the kaizer-heritage." Solarclock (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Antijudaism

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)

better provide some sources for those unusual assertions. For example, Jonathan Petropoulos - 2006 p 104 says, "Wilhelm's second wife...was an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazis, as were several of the Kaiser's sons." As for the Jews, Lamar Cecil says: "Chamberlain's diatribes against the Jews were welcome to Wilhelm, for they confirmed his own curious but well-developed anti-Semitism." in 1888 a friend of Wilhelm, "declared that the young Kaiser's dislike of his Hebrew subjects, one rooted in a perception that they possessed an overweening influence in Germany, was so strong that it could not be overcome. Wilhelm never changed, and throughout his life he believed that Jews were perversely responsible, largely through their prominence in the Berlin press and in leftist political movements, for encouraging opposition to his rule. For individual Jews, ranging from rich businessmen and major art collectors to purveyors of elegant goods in Berlin stores, he had considerable esteem, but he prevented Jewish citizens from having careers in the army and the diplomatic corps and frequently used abusive language against them." see full text at LaMar Cecil (1996). Wilhelm II: Emperor and Exile, 1900-1941. UNC. p. 57. Rjensen (talk) 07:39, 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)

reads like a translation

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)

hat's a stupid comment. If you find a typo please fix it. Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's because the page is semi-protected...Drow69 (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Missing citation

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)

it's William Lowell Putnam - 2001 The Kaiser's Merchant Ships in World War I books.google.com/books?isbn=1622336992 Rjensen (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Why can't people figure out if his name was "Wilhelm" or "William" ?

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...

Since you're interested in doing things by the book and getting things right, you might follow our rules and sign and date your post by adding 4 tildes (~) at the end of it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That only works if you have an account. Which is not required to post new sections...

Untrue. If the editor does not have an account, 4 tildes still produces their IP address and the date/time. That IP address is generally good enough to identify the editor. The instruction at the top of this page "Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)." applies to all editors. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

• Its all based on which name the majority of reliable English-language sources use. For the early HREs, they are generally anglicized. For the Kaiser here, the name is generally not anglicized. Blame academia if you want a scapegoat, but please stop spamming every German ruler talk page you can find. You would have gotten this answer just as easily by asking at a single talk page. Indrian (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur that it is an annoying debate. But to have William I and Wilhelm II listed under different names is clearly not an optimal solution. Besides, the names used by reliable English-language sources may change over time. So if they used to call him "William" in his own time, but most recent publications refer to him as "Wilhelm" that should also be a consideration. Not sure if that is the case, though. Drow69 (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Second Marriage Date

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

Date of Death

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)

Shouldn't the article name be "William II,..."?

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)

Aah, I see. "Most commonly known as Wilhelm" – The inconsistency still tingles my OCD senses... -- megA (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. However, IMO these guys should all be under "Wilhelm" and "Friedrich". :-) Drow69 (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It will be a long while until English sources will correct names in retrospect over the usage which way back was so prevelant. In fact it was done so all over Europe and even into Latin in accademia. I think the cut-off point is about 1870 where translation of names died a death. Agathoclea (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You can think that but you'd be wrong. William acceded in 1888 and was called "William" in the English-speaking press almost consistently. Seven Letters 20:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wilhelm II and Nicholas II were not second cousins

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

Wilhelm II and Nicholas II were second cousins once removed (great-grandson and great-great-grandson respectively of Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia) and also third cousins as great-great-grandsons of Paul I of Russia. Opera hat (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

...which is rather remote in terms of royalty. Surtsicna (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I know. But to say that Wilhelm and Nicholas "were not themselves cousins" is wrong. Opera hat (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The poster states in the section header they were not second cousins but only uses the word cousins afterwards. So I am not seeing the problem here.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Confusion between Queen Victoria and Empress Victoria ?

"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)

Lord Salisbury made the quoted comment to Queen Victoria, the Kaiser's grandmother. Empress Victoria, the Kaiser's mother, told Bismarck that she could not intervene on his behalf because he had destroyed what little influence she had over her son.Italus (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Bismarck quote

"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)

According to AJP Taylor, http://books.google.com/books?id=ILpoS0S3KisC&pg=PA264&lpg=PA264#v=onepage&q&f=false , the above was said after the 1897 meeting with the Kaiser. Taylor's comment, "a prophecy fulfilled almost to the month," implies that the prediction was fulfilled twenty years after Bismarck's DEATH, just as "Jena came twenty years after the death of Frederick the Great."Italus (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Article size

Isn't this article too long? Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed it a bit. It's a complicated subject and needs full coverage but readers can skip around to read the topics they want. Rjensen (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick glance at the article also shows sentences that can be shorter reformulated or removed as being either irrelevant or poorly/unreliably sourced. I'm currently busy with actress stubs, but I will offer my hand in terms of a massive improvement. Jonas Vinther (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

we don't want to erase statements that are poorly sourced--they may be important. It's better to tag them as citation needed. Rjensen (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This article should be renamed.

List of German monarchs:

• 1871–1888: William I, German Emperor (English)
• 1888: Frederick III, German Emperor (English)
• 1888–1918: Wilhelm II, German Emperor (German)

William II, German Emperor makes sense.--MICHAVP (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No. we follow the reliable sources & scholars/editors/publishers--scan the article's bibliography and note that nearly all prefer "Wilhelm" with only one exception (Macdonogh's title). Rjensen (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at: William II Encyclopædia Britannica. The company is American. I do not have a problem with Wilhelm II.Thank you for the explanation.--MICHAVP (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead

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)

I trimmed the list of relatives from the lede (it says he was related to many such). As for being bombastic, the Germans at the time thought so especially after the The Daily Telegraph humiliation. Rjensen (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No mention to Eulenburg affair

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)

Date of Abdication

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)

No, effectively he was (illegally) deposed on 9 November, when his chancellor, Max von Baden, announced his resignation. That day the German Republic was declared (twice). This surely is the more relevant date than 28 November when he finally accepted that he had lost his throne.Drow69 (talk) 16:39, 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)

Possible negative POV

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)

No, that's the consensus of the historians, as documented in the text. for RS evidence see 3000+ quotes by historians re bombastic....as well as 3000+ cites for "impetuous", including a biography titled The Last Kaiser: William the Impetuous (2001). Rjensen (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur, Wilhelm II had admirable qualities (was more "German-identified" than his father, encouraged technological innovation, loyal husband) but those which affected his internal political position in Germany and his image outside of Germany are widely summarized as "bombastic and impetuous". His role in the start of WWI and Germany's loss are still debated, but hardly anyone seriously argues that his comments or attempts at intervention diminished the likelihood of the war, nor that he exercised significant leadership once it began. FactStraight (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bismarck quote

"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.

The ODQ cites A.J.P. Taylor's Bismarck. Page 264 at https://books.google.com/books?id=g6zx6hF5DngC&pg=PA264#v=onepage&q&f=false states that this was said after December 1897, following the Kaiser's last visit to see Bismarck. Bismarck died in July 1898. Thus this prediction was indeed "fulfilled almost to the month."Italus (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits

I have made a little change to the description of the Nine Sovereigns photo. Maymichael2 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism

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)

we rely on the experts like Cecil who have lots of evidence. Most antisemites could claim a few Jews they liked. Rjensen (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The user-IP may have got the impression from the article that he was a "raging" anti-semite, rather that the more mild, common form of anti-semitism that was wide-ranging in Europe at the time. The Nazi's viewed him with much suspicion when they came to power. 98.67.180.187 (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2016

he died on 21st april. you got it wrong

86.6.58.46 (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Image

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)

Mental disorder?

Has it ever been determined what mental problem he had? (Jdkd44 (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC))

He was a little too full of himself. He was also not too bright. Those are not really mental problems. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Was he clinically insane? (Jdkd44 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC))

No, I've never heard of any indication of that. He was a very inept monarch, remember that the German Emperor carried considerable powers in theory. He just wasn't up to it. But we are not dealing with an insane person here. Basically a victim of circumstances he was unable to deal with. But that's just my opinion... The trouble was also that the same thing applied to the Russian Tsar at that point in time. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Wilhelm might have had his problems, but he was not a stupid man. Do not underestimate the influence of WW1 propaganda, and the desire after the conflict by many in Germany, particularly in the military, to cleanse themselves of responsibility for the debacle and shift the blame to a Kaiser that was now safely locked away in the Netherlands. That, in turn, influenced the nazi image of Wilhelm as a beacon of ineptitude (in contrast to, for instance, Bismarck and Hindenburg) that still haunts his image today. --Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2017 (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)

Sidney Reilly

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)

Harden-Eulenburg affair

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)

First of all, why is everyone on Wikipedia so obsessed with accusing every single Prussian King of being homosexual? Not only does it make no sense that they all were, but also, this obsession is really something that feels out of place to me in the 21st century. All that aside, there is no indication whatsoever that the Eulenburg Affair points to a possible homosexuality of Wilhelm. No serious historian today would make that assumption. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Every modern serious study addresses the issue of Wilhelm's sexuality in some form. e.g Kaiser Wilhelm II New Interpretations: The Corfu Papers published by Cambridge University Press: "The view of Wilhelm II as a repressed homosexual is gathering support as the Eulenberg correspondence and similar new evidence is studied and digested. It is a view which certainly helps explain several of the peculiar characteristics of the emperor and- some would say - of his empire….Nevertheless, repressed homosexuality…was surely not the most basic fact of his life. The disturbance lay deeper, at a more primitive level." p48-50.

However, aside from this, the Harden-Eulenberg affair needs to be in the article in some form because it was one of the biggest scandals of Wilhelm's reign - probably the biggest. And like the Kotze affair (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotze-Affäre) which is also unaccountably missing from the article, damaged the reputation of Wilhelm and popularity of the monarchy. Their omission is akin to leaving out Watergate from Nixon's article. Eulenberg was his closest friend for God's sake: the impact of the scandal on his public image was immense. I'm presuming at least one or both had been in the article earlier but possibly written in a non-neutral tone guaranteed to incite bigots and/or mad monarchists. They need to be mentioned for historical accuracy. Engleham (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I will include all the affairs once I get to a do-over of this article, which will probably be towards the end of the year. However, if anyone can do it before that, feel free to start :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added three sentences on the Eulenberg scandal: its most important impact was, of course, the change it created in foreign policy. Have also added one sentence on the Kotze affair. Engleham (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The Harden-Eulenburg affair should be mentioned in the lede as it began in 1908 at the same time as his Telegraph interview. (Jdkd44 (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC))

@Jdkd44: No it did not. It began in November 1906. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever was written on the Eulenburg affair appears to have been removed again for unclear reasons. While the Daily Telegraph affair was damaging for Wilhelm's personal prestige, the Eulenburg affair undermined confidence in the whole ruling elite of the German empire (so much so that Harden later regretted his role in publicizing it). It should be included, and prominently as well.--Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ribbentrop's father was sacked from a government job for saying the Kaiser was gay. Valetude (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Miners' Strike, Labor Conference, Dismissal of Bismarck

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)

Documentaries and Films

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)

• Another one: Rainer Sellien in the 2014 BBC Two miniseries 37 Days, in which Wilhelm II plays a major role. ElGaith (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggested entry, per the above: "Rainer Sellien portrayed Wilhelm II during the immediate lead-up to the First World War in the 2014 BBC Two miniseries 37 Days." ElGaith (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"the greatest criminal in history" quote

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)

As far as I understand it, the Ashton & Hallema source covers that statement. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

George V wrote the statement in his diary, it is mentioned in Kenneth Rose's 1983 biography of the monarch. The actual quotation was, "I look upon him as the greatest criminal known for having plunged the world into war." (86.158.167.96 (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC))

Finished high school?

"High school" is an American term. (86.158.167.96 (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC))

Title post-1918?

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)

@Ilja.nieuwland: In the second empire, the title of emperor was not elected, but hereditary and tied to the Kingdom of Prussia. His full name is Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert von Preußen. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. To quote the relevant part from the article on the German constitution:

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 interpretation by Wilhelm might explain some of the confusion regarding the use of both titles.--Ilja.nieuwland (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019

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)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

edit request: Tsar Nicholas II was not "of the United Kingdom"

It's in the lead. 98.7.201.234 (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Guerre 14-18-Humour-L'ingordo, trop dur-1915.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Broken Reference

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)

Move discussion in progress

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2020

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)

 Not done. As far as I can tell, "Wilhelm II" is spelled the same way in German, and his full name is included in the parenthesis. Ryou14, please be more specific: what exactly do you want to add, and where do you want to add it? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

 Done, added after parenthesis, as "Wilhelm" is used much more commonly. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2020

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Bogus statement....

// 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2021

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)

 Done Interesting Geek (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2021

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.

• 27 January 1859 – 9 March 1888: His Royal Highness Prince Wilhelm of Prussia
• 9 March 1888 – 15 June 1888: His Imperial and Royal Highness The German Crown Prince, Crown Prince of Prussia
• 15 June 1888 – 18 November 1918: His Imperial and Royal Majesty The German Emperor, King of Prussia
  • 18 Nov 1918 – 4 June 1941: His Imperial and Royal Majesty The German Emperor, King of Prussia (in pretence)

49.150.100.127 (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Where did you want this to be added? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2022

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2022

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)

 Done casualdejekyll 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2022

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)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Eulenberg, Eulenburg

Very difficult to get this right.2A02:AA1:1007:DC14:CC27:5972:B55:480C (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is this locked and why is it so wrong?

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)

I revised the text and dropped the reference to Jastrow's outdated book. Rjensen (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Why American dialect

'... 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)

William Second

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)

Cause of Death

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)

Wilhelm II's Marian Cross of the Teutonic Order

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.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.146.14.164 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

misleading translation: 'person' should read 'people [Volk]'

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)