Abdication of the Kaiser

[andigger]

I am currently reading Gregor Dallas' book 1918 War and Peace. Of course one of the internal conflicts within Germany that autumn was the continuation of the monarchy, in hind sight we know what happens and that the Hohenzollern dynasty and the other royal families collapse. However, did it have to be that way?

The Crown Prince and his brothers all refused the throne, but was it possible that some other relative could have taken the reigns? (Ok, pun intended) What about the other royal houses in Germany, would it have been possible that they remain on their thrones and only Prussia lose its monarch creating a mixed federal nation with local princes?

I have not studied the German royal experience and abdication enough to know the particulars, so any insight would be helpful. Andy

[Tom Morgan]

There was virtual revolution in Germany in the time leading up to the Kaiser's abdication. Against this background, the monarchy had become something of an irrelevance. The Crown Prince's suggestion that he could save the situation somewhat by being allowed to lead the German Army home from the Western Front was a terrible mis-reading of the situation and was rejected out of hand. People had lost their appetite for that kind of imperial posturing. No-one really wanted a king any more, and no-one wanted to be one. A simplification maybe, but I think that's about it.

Tom

[PhilB]

Quite a contrast between the removal of the Kaiser and the retention of Hirohito after WW2? I wonder if the British Monarchy/Establishment wanted the Kaiser to stay or go? Phil B

[Fred van Woerkom]

Phil,

I remember reading in a biography of the Dutch Queen Wilhelmina that in Britain in the 30s, she tried to see the King and Queen and that she was only allowed a few minutes during a train stop at Carlisle station, because Wilhelmina had given hospitality to the Kaiser. It should be said that otherwise the Dutch queen never bestowed any favours on the Kaiser, but the simple fast that the Kaiser lived in the Netherlands was enough for the British Royal family to give her the cold shoulder.

All the best,

Fred

[historydavid]

I doubt very much if an Armistice would have been granted by the Allies in 1918 if the Germans had insisted on someone taking the Kaiser's throne (he had already abdicated).

America and France were republics and therefore had no sympathy with monarchies, and Britain viewed the Kaiser and the military as being responsible for the war.

The situation in 1945 was different. Enough people, in both America and Britain, knew how the Japanese system worked and accepted that the Emperor was only a figurehead, and certainly not the "hands on" leader that the Kaiser had been.

Best wishes

David

[andigger]

America and France were republics and therefore had no sympathy with monarchies

The only issue with that is that 50% of the major allied powers were monarchies - Italy and the UK. Also the primary national victim in the war was Belgium, which also restored its monarchy after the war. So I am not sure that the idea of a monarchy was that abhorant to the Americans and French. Of course it can be argued that it was the German monarchy in particular that made the difference.

The situation in 1945 was different. Enough people, in both America and Britain, knew how the Japanese system worked and accepted that the Emperor was only a figurehead, and certainly not the "hands on" leader that the Kaiser had been.

I don't disagree that the Japanese experience was very different, but I do think the Emperor was more than a figurehead. Viewed as a god incarnate he inspired legions of kamikazis and soldiers to fight to the death. If not overtly, his spiritual dominance over the Japanese people was more complete than Kaiser Wilhelm ever had over the Germans.

What about the concept that the princes, dukes, etc in the rest of Germany remained on their thrones even though the Prussian king abdicated. Was that an option, because Wilhelm abdicated did that mean the others did as well?

Andy

[Guest Simon Bull]

What about the concept that the princes, dukes, etc in the rest of Germany remained on their thrones even though the Prussian king abdicated.

Andy

Whatever happened to these princes etc of the constituent parts of Germany - when were they deposed or do they still (theoretically) reign?

Also who would be Kaiser now if Wilhelm II had not abdicated?

[Tom Morgan]

Also who would be Kaiser now if Wilhelm II had not abdicated?

This is an important question for the Hohenzollern family, because although there's no prospect of the family taking up the throne again, there's enormous family wealth, so determining who is head of the family (that is, who would theoretically be the Kaiser) is of great significance.

The answer is, Prince Georg Friedrich of Hohenzollern. He's in his late 20s. There was a big legal case a few years ago, when the Kaiser's great-grandson, Prince Frederick William, was apparently disqualified from being the head of the family. I think other family members "disqualified" him because he had married a woman of lower rank than himself. The Prince went to court to try to have himself reinstated. The German supreme court decided that this was a sort of internal family law, which the family was entitled to stick to. So Prince Frederick William had to make way for his nephew Prince Georg Frederick who was educated in Scotland and is supposed to be a thoroughly nice chap, worth about £10 million. He's not married yet but there are apparently hundreds of suitable "would have been" princesses for him to choose from.

Tom

[Guest Simon Bull]

This is an important question for the Hohenzollern family, because although there's no prospect of the family taking up the throne again, there's enormous family wealth, so determining who is head of the family (that is, who would theoretically be the Kaiser) is of great significance.

The answer is, Prince Georg Friedrich of Hohenzollern. He's in his late 20s. There was a big legal case a few years ago, when the Kaiser's great-grandson, Prince Frederick William, was apparently disqualified from being the head of the family. I think other family members "disqualified" him because he had married a woman of lower rank than himself. The Prince went to court to try to have himself reinstated. The German supreme court decided that this was a sort of internal family law, which the family was entitled to stick to. So Prince Frederick William had to make way for Prince Georg Frederick who was educated in Scotland and is supposed to be a thoroughly nice chap, worth about £10 million. He's not married yet but there are apparently hundreds of suitable "would have been" princesses for him to choose from.

Tom

Thanks Tom - sad to see how snobbery is alive and well and living in Germany!

[PhilB]

Prince Georg Frederick was educated in Scotland and is supposed to be a thoroughly nice chap, worth about £10 million. He's not married yet but there are apparently hundreds of suitable "would have been" princesses for him to choose from.

Tom

It`s well known, Tom, that women are attracted primarily to a man`s sense of humour. It`s also well known that a man with £10 million is always considered to have a wonderful sense of humour! Phil B

[Robert Dunlop]

It should be recalled that although the Kaiser was not the operational head of the German Army, the orders that were issued by the German High Command in 1914 to the various army commanders were issued in his name. Furthermore, several of the crown princes, including Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria for example, played an active role in commanding some of the armies or later army groups. Crown Prince Wilhelm, writing in his memoirs, felt that the initial coldness of the locals where he was exiled related in part to their misunderstanding his role as 'the murderer of Verdun'. Interesting that during his youth, Wilhelm had a military governor, one General von Falkenhayn who later rose to fame through the Battle of Verdun. The German Royals were intimately linked to the military prosecution of the war. If you take Verdun as an example, it is not surprising that the Entente would not want any of the royal families restored after the war. It was appreciated that the German General Staff played a far far greater role. Attempts were made to destroy this as well but, as we know from WW2, it was not so easy.

Robert

[carninyj]

The removal of the Kaiser in 1918 was perhaps inevitable but the way it was done caused controversy at the time. This extract is from Stephen Lee's little book, The Weimar Republic.'

the military crisis [failure of the Spring Offensive] destabilised the new administration of Prince Max ... As an awareness of the desperate nature of the situation spread through Germany there was a strong pressure for the abdication of the Kaiser and other German rulers. The wave of unrest was sparked off by the naval mutinies at Wilhelmshaven, Kiel, Hamburg, Bremen and Lubeck and by army disaffection in Frankfurt, Cologne, Stuttgart and Leipzig. There was undeniably a popular momentum which proved irresistible and which swept away the constitutional compromise implicit in the government of Prince Max. ... Scheidemann’s proclamation of the Republic on 9 November [took Ebert by surprise] ... Despite the chaos of November 1917 and the undeniable potential for revolution, there is again strong evidence that the transfer of power was evolutionary. When Prince Max handed over to Ebert on 9 November 1918 he said, ‘1 commend the German Reich to your care.’ It was never Ebert’s intention to bring any fundamental political changes. He hoped instead to reconstruct an administration on the basis of the October reforms and to form a caretaker government which would include the SPD, the USPD, the Centre and the Progressives, until a national assembly could be called to decide upon a future constitution. To an extent his hand was forced [by Scheidemann]. Ebert found Scheidemann’s proclamation of the Republic on 9 November profoundly irritating; he said on the occasion: ‘You have no right to proclaim the Republic. What becomes of Germany —whether she becomes a republic or something else — must be decided by a constituent assembly.’

The other point about the Kaiser not being the operational head of the Germany Army is important. Hindenburg and Ludendorff, effectively a military dictatorhip, were the men in actual charge for the last two years of the war. In that respect the Kaiser's position was probably akin to that of the Japanese emperor.

Regards

Carninyj

[spike10764]

I think, given the choice, sections of the British Government would have preferred the Hohenzollerns(well a puppet Hohenzollern at least) to remain in charge. Unfortunately Lloyd George's desire to win the post war election via the populist vote put a stop to this.

It is hard to say whether this stance hastened the collapse of Imperial Germany and the rise of the Nationalists, but I do not think the Hohenzollerns could have held the nation together in the long run, anyhow. I do think the Americans had these events in mind: re the Emperor of Japan

[andigger]

So how did it happen that the other royals in Germany abdicated or lost their thrones? When the Kaiser abdicated was it automatic that they did as well? Or did each of them have to make thier own decisions and just followed Wilhelm's lead?

I am assuming it is individual decisions (made of free will or over come by events). In 1918 War and Peace (p 136-7) Dallas writes "Prince [Max] followed up the conversation [with the Kaiser] with a telegram that listed the German kings and dukes who had lost their seats in the last two days..."

Andy

[lassuy]

At least some stayed on, I had lunch several years ago with Prince Freidrich Wilhelm zu Weid and his wife, Princess Sophie. They still lived in the ancestral castle in Weid, so obviously their ancestors didn't run off anywhere. The prince, now desceased, and his wife (and retinue) were traveling in the US, retracing the route of the prince's great (several times removed) uncle, Prince Maximillian zu Weid, who toured the American west in the 1830's.

[PhilB]

If the monarchy ends, don`t all the minor titles go with it? Being a German prince is a bit like being managing director of a no longer existant firm. How can you be a prince in a non-monarchy? Phil B

[Tom Morgan]

All being well, This Link should take you to an article discussing the relative ranks of the German nobility. I think it provides some answers.

Tom

[andigger]

If the monarchy ends, don`t all the minor titles go with it? Being a German prince is a bit like being managing director of a no longer existant firm. How can you be a prince in a non-monarchy? Phil B

Phil - Actually this is possibly the route of my mis-understanding. I think the monarchies were tied together only under the Germany umbrella. Meaning whereas they fell under the hegemony of Whilem as Kaiser of the German Empire they were also his peers in his role as King of Prussia. He was a first among equals, and thier local royal house did not depend on the survival of the Prussian royal house.

Perhaps this is a bad example, but I picture it like Nixon resigning in 1974. Just because he resigned didn't mean the state governors (or even the republican ones) gave up their respective offices.

It seems like the piece missing from the puzzle (in my mind) is what caused all the royal houses in Germany to fall.... were they domino to the Hohenzollern abdication, were they all victims of the upheaval in Germany at the time, or were they all forced from their thrones by the allies? Or, of course, is there something else all together.

Andy

[Robert Dunlop]

Crown Prince Wilhelm touches on the collapse of the other monarchies in his memoirs. He has a whole chapter devoted to 'Scenes at Spa', which is where the Kaiser's abdication took place. Wilhelm identifies three crucial issues: the change in military leadership with the replacement of Ludendorff by General Groener, the growing unrest and impending revolution in Germany, and the critically important (in Wilhelm's mind) issue that the army could not guarantee to protect the Kaiser. Wilhelm believed that Groener concocted this concern by getting feedback from army officers of lesser repute. The Crown Prince felt that his and other Army Groups were basically holding up well, with cadres of experienced, determined soldiers remaining loyal and committed. In any event, it was the prospect of German fighting German that finally pursuaded the Kaiser to offer his resignation as Supreme Commander and Kaiser, but he steadfastly refused to resign as King of Prussia.

The concerns about the Kaiser's safety were rapidly escalating. Finally, he agreed to abdicate, writing the following letter to Wilhelm, with whom he had rarely communicated in the past:

'My Dear Boy

As the Field-Marshal [von Hindenburg] cannot guarantee my safety here and will not pledge himself for the reliability of the troops, I have decided after a severe inward struggle, to leave the disorganized army. Berlin is totally lost; it is in the hands of the Socialists, and two governments have been formed there - one with Ebert as Chancellor and one by the Independents. Till the troops start their march home, I recommend your continuing at your post and keeping the troops together! God willing, I trust we shall meet again. General von Marschall will give you further information.

Your sorely stricken father,

(Signed) WILHELM'.

Crown Prince Wilhelm concluded: 'The revolution had been an astonishingly easy game to play. A few hours sufficed to sweep away the hereditary princes and their governments. Without fighting and without bloodshed, the revolution was accomplished...'

Robert

[AndyHollinger]

My understanding, frankly, (though I can't seem to find the bibliography)is that Wilson privately said he would not deal with a German Monarch. Wilson was Germany's best hope for a "just" peace ... and the matter was dropped.

Remember Nicholas abdicated in favor of his "popular" cousin ... but the idea was absurd.

Now Germans are not Russians ... but the state of the country and the armed services would have negated a minor person coming to "power".

Wilson did it.