Now, what makes you think I claimed they didn't happened? Where did I claim that lizardmen from outer space rewrote history books?Call it BS if you want, but it happened.
It happened. But it was BS. One does not exclude the other.
Now, what makes you think I claimed they didn't happened? Where did I claim that lizardmen from outer space rewrote history books?Call it BS if you want, but it happened.
I am sorry, but this is total BS reasoning.
Constitution says king of Prussia is emperor. We don't want him to be the emperor, so he has to abdicate. No, we forbid him from stopping to be emperor while he's still king of Prussia, because constitution says he must be emperor. Constitution also says that kaiser appoints chancellor, but whatever, we just let incumbent chancellor appoint new chancellor without even asking kaiser. Oh, and we declare republic and overturn regime completely. We guess technically united Germany is dissolved now that empire is dissolved, but we don't want to dissolve Germany as united state, so we keep parts of constitution we want. Even though we just brazenly broken constitution.
The only reason Kaiser had to abdicate both crown, was because people in power wanted him to do so.
summary of 1918:
"I abdicate as Kaiser!"
"This doesn't count! u still king of Prussia, so you still kaiser! constitution says so"
"If im still kaiser, that means you have to listen to me! constitution says so"
"lol no"
Now, what makes you think I claimed they didn't happened? Where did I claim that lizardmen from outer space rewrote history books?
It happened. But it was BS. One does not exclude the other.
Nobody specific.First who are this "we" you are talking about?
That is perfectly correct. Also, irrelevant.Second are no two crowns the constitution clearly states about the presidency of the alliance/confederation or how ever you translate "Bund" into english.
The presidency it tied to the crown of Prussia it was not personal union.
It was a bit of this and a bit of that. Wilson merely implied that kaiser had to abdicate. Not that monarchy had to be completely removed, even as purely symbolic institution. It was Philipp Scheidemann who declared republic. Ebert protested, but accepted the republic, and it stuck. By the time Allies got around to issuing detailed demands, German revolution already overthrew entire monarchy. Kaisers own chancellor dethroned him. Why wasn't prince Eitel made a regent for purely constitutional monarchy? If Wallied then demanded to end monarchy, all would be clear, Wallied would be responsible, but Germans responded to demands to dethrone just one kaiser by overthrowing entire institution on their own.I also disagree with your premise that it was people within Germany that took the crown from Wilhelm. The WAllies knew full well what they were doing when they demanded he abdicate.
Why? Do you mean a war between Prussia and the other part of Germany(probably Bavaria)?Revolution in Germany followed by Anglo French occupation of the entire country to try to stop it spreading.
Nobody specific.
That is perfectly correct. Also, irrelevant.
Chancellor Max Baden was acting outside of constitution when he announced abdication that didn't took place. Revolution was acting outside of constitution, Ebert was not a legal chancellor, since he wasn't appointed by kaiser. Throwing quote from constitution at Wilhelm when constitution was already overturned a joke, a blatant and brazen one. Constitution made Germany monarchy. Somehow parts that made it monarchy are ignored, but parts that tie two titles (of king and kaiser) into one are inviolable? That's just trolling.
No I mean a Communist revolution starting in Prussia against Wilhelm before turning on the new German government as well and then spreading throughout Germany and becoming a threat to neighbouring countries, particularly France.Why? Do you mean a war between Prussia and the other part of Germany(probably Bavaria)?
There was a revolution IOTL in 1918 but I don't think they will win(they will hate him more because he is a monarch and because the treaty of Versailles happened under his reign).The Imperial army(or the Prussian army)was more organized.No I mean a Communist revolution starting in Prussia against Wilhelm before turning on the new German government as well and then spreading throughout Germany and becoming a threat to neighbouring countries, particularly France.
Not you. Whomever back in the 1918 argued that constitution is reason why kaiser cannot abdicate just German throne but keep Prussian. The argument was a blatant farce, since everyone's lying eyes were telling them that constitution was rendered moot.Excuse why are you accuse me of trolling?
Anything after that does not adress point I am making, so I can ignore it.Yes the revolution overturned the constitution(...)
look at the map I posted.. Now poland too the Russians to task. I'm certain if things were different they would take Prussia ..quickThey were part of Russia,so I don't think anything would change,apart from the fact that they won't have Memel,Danzig and Posen.Except if the treaty of Brest-Litovsk remains,but I don't think that's realistic
Same as OTL, although the added chaos in Germany might lead to Poland getting more of Upper Silesia.well this leaves Prussia in a better position. so it wouldn't be an easy target against Poland or the Baltics, however I would see Wilhelm being asked to step down in favor of someone else.
what would be the status of Poland? Lithuania? Baltics?
Not you. Whomever back in the 1918 argued that constitution is reason why kaiser cannot abdicate just German throne but keep Prussian. The argument was a blatant farce, since everyone's lying eyes were telling them that constitution was rendered moot.
Anything after that does not adress point I am making, so I can ignore it.
Your argument is that revolution rendered constitution moot, and could be ignored.
I am making point that it made no sense to make appeal to constitution as criteria for any governmental arrangements, since it was already being ignored by highest government officials.
You literally aren't disagreeing with me.