Wilhelm II-king of Prussia

Call it BS if you want, but it happened.
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.
 

Anderman

Donor
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"

First who are this "we" you are talking about?
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.
 

Deleted member 94680

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.

I understand you know it happened, but to label it as BS implies disagreement with the thinking. I was merely pointing out that, disagree or not, it happened so cannot be totally BS or it would have failed.

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.
 
First who are this "we" you are talking about?
Nobody specific.

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.
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.

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.
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.
 

Anderman

Donor
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.

Excuse why are you accuse me of trolling?

Yes the revolution overturned the constitution. That is what revolutions do change the status quo. The revolution changed Germany from a monarchy to a republic and in republics there are no emperors or kings. You seem to think that the Germany Empire became a republic but the Kingdom of Prussia stays a monarchy. The revolution was not only in the German Empire but at the same time there was revolution in its largest member state and they have the same capital.
 
Why? Do you mean a war between Prussia and the other part of Germany(probably Bavaria)?
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Excuse why are you accuse me of trolling?
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.

Yes the revolution overturned the constitution(...)
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.
 
okay step back so what..
king of Prussia is not king of Germany since there is no Germany with out Prussia as it is whole. Since well it's most of Germany.

so fine It's possible

germany is split

a new born poland is caught between, Baltics, a crumbling a-H empire, a Prussia on the brink.

russia in civil war..
 
the allie
They 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
look at the map I posted.. Now poland too the Russians to task. I'm certain if things were different they would take Prussia ..quick
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
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?
Same as OTL, although the added chaos in Germany might lead to Poland getting more of Upper Silesia.
 

Anderman

Donor
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.

I am not sure if mean the same thing or not.

For Wilhelm to reounce the imperial crown (we can reject the pod already at this point there was no crown or in your words a german throne but only the presidency) he has to be german emperor )aka have the crown). He was german emperor because the constitution gives the presidency with the name germen emperor to the king of Prussia. As long there is a german empire the king of prussia has the presidency with the name german emperor. This can not be changed by Wilhelm simply renouncing it only with a change in the constitution. And without a german empire there is no office of the chancellor or a Reichstag with members.

Without the constitution on german empire and no german emperor. You can not have your cake and eat it to.

It is not possible to have a revolution to render the consitution moot without having a revolution in the Kingdom of Prussia too. The Kingdom of Prussia had the size of about 2/3 of the area of the empire and nearly 2/3 of its population and they have same capital. So this revolution was also against the king of Prussia.

So without a revolution the constitution stays with a revolution the kingdom of prussia becomes a republic and then there is no king of prussia and no german emperor.
 
Top