Five years ago, in consultation with Max u, it was decided every December there should be a post in Observation of the Birth Anniversary of our father, born on December 2, 1918 in a small then very undeveloped tiny town in south Georgia, Cairo.
Our Father served four years in the United States Army during World War Two. He was a junior officer serving under General Douglas MacArthur. He was stationed in New Guinea and shortly after the war in the Philippines. For the initial observation in December of 2018 I posted on a wonderful book, Rampage MacArthur, Yamashita and The Battle of Manila by James M. Scott . Shortly after I posted, the author, a great speaker, did a book tour in Manila. My wife and I attended one of his talks. Afterwards we had a lovely conversation with Mr. Scott.
In 2019, I came upon a perfect book for the second annual birthday observation, War at the End of the World: Douglas MacArthur and the Forgotten Fight For New Guinea, 1942-1945 Book by James P Duffy.
Two books on Georgia history have also been featured.
This year I decided to go in another direction, exploring the history of Germany. Our last name comes from a very ancient pre-Roman City Ulm Germany. (The City has a very famous cathedral and is the birthplace of Albert Einstein). Because our last name is relatively uncommon we have been able ascertain when and where our first American ancestor bearing our Last named arrived in tbe colonies, Savanah Georgia in 1755.
Katja Hoyer is a German historian, and her book explains German politics between 1871 and 1900. Modern Germany came into existence in 1871 after its victory over France, but it suffered defeat and humiliation in 1918. Hoyer provides a clear narrative of what happened in between. When Wilhelm II became Kaiser, Germany began to antagonize its neighbors and this would eventually lead to a major war. Its generals wanted a preemptive war with Russia, but they declared war on Russia, France, and Belgium in 1914. They also ended up fighting Britain, United States, and Italy. Hoyer does not really explain what Germany was thinking or trying to achieve. It seemed on a suicide mission. Everybody else in 1914 wanted peace.
Bismarck was a Prussian aristocrat who was chancellor of Germany from 1871-1890, he died in 1898. Until 1871 Germany consisted of 39 separate states. It would have been better for Europe had it remained that way. Bismarck had two objectives: to unite Germany and bring Germany under Prussian control. Between 1864 and 1871 Bismarck organized three successful wars against Denmark, Austria, and France. These wars helped create a German national identity. Hoyer claims that the new Germany’s “only binding experience was conflict against external enemies.” Bismarck later found new internal enemies and targeted Catholics, socialists, and ethnic minorities.
Bismarck wrote the 1871 German constitution. The constitution made Wilhelm I, Prussia’s king, the Kaiser of Germany. The Kaiser determined foreign policy, approved legislation, and was the supreme commander of the military. The Chancellor was similar to a prime minister and was appointed by the Kaiser. Wilhelm, I became Bismarck’s puppet. Bismarck was the real Kaiser. Wilhelm I had little interest in governing the country and was easily bullied and manipulated by Bismarck. The problem with the constitution was that it contained no checks and balances on the Kaiser’s power in foreign and military matters. In 1888 Wilhelm II became Kaiser, and Germany became more aggressive and militaristic. Wilhelm was a dangerous idiot. He delegated too much power to his generals who eventually sidelined him.
Most Germans were socially conservative and valued order, prosperity, and the national union that Bismarck had built. Germany was the largest state in Europe in 1871 with a population of 41 million. France had a population of 36 million, Austria 36 million, and Britain and Ireland 31.5 million. By 1913, Germany had a population of 65 million. The Second Reich had universal suffrage, but Parliament could not initiate legislation. Parliament would hold the purse-strings to the governmental budget, including military spending. Germany did have strong progressive elements and developed a welfare state. It also had a growing economy with rising real wages, and a literacy rate of 99 percent.
Hoyer claims that after he united Germany, Bismarck tried to convince other European powers that Germany was peaceful and not a threat. He claimed it had no more territorial ambitions in Europe, although Germany did pick up colonies in Africa and the Pacific in the 1880s. Bismarck worked hard to prevent a coalition from emerging against Germany by keeping on friendly terms with Russia. During his term as chancellor, Germany avoided a major war.
Bismarck was removed by Wilhelm II in 1890. Wilhelm did not want a chancellor, parliament, or ministers to mitigate his power. Wilhelm was initially popular and had big ambitions for Germany. As one of his chancellors put it, Germany wanted “its place in the sun.” Under Wilhelm II, Germany became increasingly assertive on the world stage. Hoyer claims Wilhelm wanted a “unified nation with a strong central monarchy that was world-leading in terms of technological, military and naval power.” He talked about a world empire and seemed unconcerned if a major war came along. Germany’s militarism began to frighten its neighbors. Wilhelm wanted an empire on a par with those of Britain and France. This was a popular ambition within Germany, but his policies divided Europe into two armed camps: The Central Powers of Germany and Austria on the one hand; and the Entente powers of France, Russia, and Great Britain on the other.
Hoyer tries to exonerate Bismarck for the disasters that came later, but he wrote the constitution. It allowed the Kaiser to have too much power and Germany succumbed to war and military dictatorship. By 1916 the German people had had enough of war, but there was no way for them to stop it, even after Russia surrendered in 1917. The German army kept going until its troops started to surrender in droves in 1918.
Wilhelm II is depicted as out of his depth. He believed in the divine right of kings and that he was chosen by God. He believed he could run Germany with a small group of conservative sycophants. Hoyer admits that he was also was a bad choice of character. He did not believe that Germany needed democracy when it had him. Wilhelm was often undiplomatic and upset foreign governments. Professor Margaret Macmillan at Oxford University claims that the British king Edward VII (Wilhelm’s uncle) believed that Wilhelm II was mad. Lord Salisbury, Britain’s long-time prime minister, agreed with him. Due to his poor diplomatic skills, Wilhelm alienated Britain, France, Russia, and Italy. Bismarck had always been cautious about upsetting rival powers, unnecessarily. Austria became Germany’s only ally.
Hoyer acknowledges that the Bismarckian system was “inherently flawed but argues that it did not set Germany upon an inevitable path to war and genocide.” That is debatable. None of Germany’s leaders seem wise or prescient and several were mentally unstable. Wilhelm II, Moltke, and Ludendorf all suffered nervous breakdowns at crucial times. Hoyer claims that Bismarck was a great statesman, but the lack of democratic accountability in the constitution counts against him. The constitution required a competent Kaiser/chancellor. However, Hoyer believes that the German people preferred a strong leader to democracy.
Hoyer’s account of the crisis in July 1914 shows that the Kaiser never expected to be sucked into a serious conflict, which does not excuse him of blame. The buck stopped with him and he appointed the generals. Moltke, who was head of the army was really running Germany in 1914. He was obsessed with Russia, which shared a border with
Mel Ulm
