HABSBURG EMPIRE, LAST ARMY VETERAN ….. A REBUTTAL
Well, I guess I’ve gotten an education of sorts here, for which I am thankful. But ...
Having read Alan Palmer’s “The Twilight of the Habsburgs,” I confess I’m torn somewhat with regard to okay, why should I accept one side as opposed to a contrary viewpoint.
Karl I came to Hungary in 1921 with the STATED INTENT of recreating some vestige of A Habsburg Empire , and the fact remains that he was more than willing to do so.
I can’t possibly argue that point because I don’t know. I have read the subject but was not aware of this. Or at least it wasn’t mentioned in anything I did read.
The reason for my posting of this story, was the age and era this fellow belonged to. And of course the fact that he was the last of his line. I found it fascinating.
military breakthroughs that allowed the Western Allies to total the Central Powers
None of which would have occurred without the industrial capacity and the fresh manpower of the USA. And if it hadn’t been for heavy handed three stooges type foreign policy as practised by The Zimmerman Telegram, America might not have entered that war.
The French were close to mutiny, the Brits bled dry or close to it. At the least Germany could have had a stalemate and an end with no real winner. Instead, they had to surrender an army in the field while the home front was being starved by blockade. Which btw continued long after the armistice.
the victory was over a group of militaristic and authoritarian nations that had never shied away from heinous crimes.
I would appreciate being enlightened (no sarcasm intended whatever) as to just what “heinous crimes” are being referred to here. These were ppl who belonged to another century with all that implies.
Kaiserreich was not and had never been a beacon of Enlightenment.
How right you are there. He was also a very sad and benighted out of his depth individual. However, as pointed out in my email reply, I also believe he was much maligned
and often unfairly so. If the other monarchs belonged to the 19th century, his might have been the 17th.
This article is something that smells of Hapsburg Royalist bias
I hadn’t given that any thought when I first read the story. Going back over it again I suppose you are right. It could be read that way. But after all, they are all gone now.
Nothing remains. What real harm has been done? Is anything bad going to happen to the world at large due to some Habsburg bias in an article about an old soldier who loyally served his country and king?
There are far worse threats to world peace and stabilization to be concerned with, that are ongoing. And show every sign of continuing so.
on 06/06/2008 at 08:48 AM
Ok, I wrote up a huge gigantic response to this, and clicked submit. However, the @!&#^ thing apparently got lost in translation. I do not have the energy to rewrite the entire thing, so I will responding to what I did not cover in my e-mail.
First thing’s first: you seem to treat “Kaiserreich” as a synonym for “the Kaiser.” However, the two have two distinct (if interrelated) meanings. The word “Kaiser” is a German corruption of Caesar (like Czar is a Russian corruption of the same word), and means “Emperor.” As such, it was the title occupied by Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert von Preussen of the House of Hohenzollern when he ascended the German throne as Wilhelm II, and was the title held by his wartime ally, Franz Joseph. The “Kaiserreich”, on the other hand, translates (more or less) to “Emperor’s Realms” in German. By this word, I am referring to Imperial Germany as a whole, from Bismarck’s founding of it in 1871 to its collapse in 1918. Hence, Kaiser Wilhelm II ruled over the German Kaiserreich.
Are we clear on that?Ok. Now, in regards to Wilhelm II, I can scarcely identify your description of the man. The first guy who comes to mind when reading your description is the ill-fated Emil Hacha of Czechoslovakia. However, I do know that he was taken from his parents at a young age by the “Iron Chancellor” (the Absolutist SOB who probably has the the single greatest amount of responsibility for paving the road that would eventually lead to WWI, and indirectly WWII from there on out), and that he suffered greatly from the effects Bismarck had on him. I have heard several sources say that the Authoritarian Militarism Wilhelm took with him to the throne was partially due to the climate that the Prussian/German elite had frequently was subjected to since the days of the “Great Elector”, and would not end until 1945. However, those same sources also say that it was also due in no small part to the Otto von Pikehat’s incessant force-feeding of it to him. This , coupled with a less-than stellar record for mental stability on both sides of the family tree, and the auguries did not look good. So I will not say that I can’t see where you are coming from.
However, as with the case of who paved the road to war, Bismarck simply cannot take all the blame. The man almost certainly had a heavy-handed and detrimental effect on young Wilhelm’s upbringing, but his star pupil kicked him out of power soon after taking office,. In addition, several people noticed that he was developing early signs of megalomania even before he was taken by Bismarck (and often reported by his trusted friends and aides none-the-less!) , and by the time Bismarck was finished “tutoring” him, the reports increased and became more defined and serious. While some of these are no doubt Allied propaganda, the fact that many of the reports came from before the war, and by some of Wilhelm’s closest allies must indicate that there was something sinister lying underneath the surface of these reports, and that not all were manufactured by the Allies during the war. Furthermore, in the prewar years, no nation was (at least officially) trumpeting the “Der Kaiser has delusions of Grandeur” line, but the reports came in all the same. In fact, a British newspaper whose name I cannot recall was forced to issue an apology for calling him hat in 1899.
As for your point that he was tragically in over his head, that may well be. However, as an old saying goes: “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.” However, a more suitable saying for Wilhelm may have been “Those on wooden ships should not install boiler rooms while chainsmoking.” While he was by no means the only factor leading to WWI, he did not exactly help with such charming belligerence that he showed with his speeches (such as the infamous Daily Telegraph interview) and his diplomatic misadventures. In addition, while he was sidelines by the so-called “Iron Hat Cabinet” during the war, he still did nothing to protest, and in fact supported the machinations of his military command, in spite of their frequently inhumane behavior (which I detailed in my e-mail). The man may have been a figurehead in WWI, but his actions before and during it show that he was no innocent victim.
Also, I find it flattering that you credit the US with all the technological and doctrinal advances the Western Allies made during the war. However, I must say that it is a compliment we do not deserve. Allied technological advances were going on well before the first US ship was torpedoed. The tank was introduced by the British at the Somme, and would be improved throughout the war. The Western Allies began to improve the training and equipment of their infantry, and increased their firepower by giving them modern staples such as light mortars, LMGs, SMGs, and the like while increasing the amount of ammo and grenades each soldier carried in a continuous process that stared late in 1916. Artillery was improved, becoming more accurate and reliable, while techniques and improved info sources meant that the Western Allies could have their Arty fixed on a target before a shell was fired, which was NOT good news for the Germans. In addition, the aerial services of the combatants evolved over time, and by 1917 they filled all the basic roles filled by today’s aircraft (bombing, recon, fighter etc.) Finally, after the defeats the Western Allies suffered during Germany’s Michael offensive in 1917, they began to study and copy the German stormtrooper design, as well as its complementary Infiltrator tactics. In both cases, the Allies improved on the German design, much to the chagrin (and pain) of the German military. These innovations were copied by the US, not started by us. That credit goes to people like Kitchner, Haig, Foch, D’Esprey, and Diaz.
Also, the French Army mutinies you mentioned were probably the ones that started as a result of the failed Nivelle offensive. These laster roughly half a year, but were stamped out by November, and the French army was about as good as it ever was during WWI by December. As for Britain being bled white, you will not get any argument from me that the British suffered terrible losses in WWI. However, they still managed to keep a relatively stable military, and by 1917 it was being reinforced by troops from the colonies and the collapsing Turkish fronts, so it was in fact growing in overall strength during this period. Also, even at the height of American involvement in WWI, the US was still only the fourth largest contributor to the Allied cause, behind Britain, France, and Italy (plus their colonies).
As for Karl I, yes, the man was fascinating, if a bit of a loose cannon. However, I do not follow the “last of his line” point. Last to sit on a throne? Perhaps, but certainly not the last of his bloodline (as I do believe that there are Habsburg claimants even today, and one even sits on the “European Congress” if memory serves). My main issue was that it treats him like he was some poor soul who was kept down by the Allies and by Horthy, while he was far from nice in reality.
Continued
Posted by Turtler
06/07/2008 at 07:59 PM