Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.history.what-if > #4751 > unrolled thread

Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940

Back to article view | Back to alt.history.what-if

Contents

  Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 17:05 -0700
    Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 Louis Epstein <le@top.put.com> - 2020-05-04 05:03 +0000
    Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 David Tenner <dtenner@ameritech.net> - 2020-05-04 11:32 +0000
      Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 13:06 -0700
        Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2020-05-04 18:42 -0700
          Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2020-05-05 15:25 +1000
          Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 graham.truesdale@gmail.com - 2020-05-05 11:37 -0700
            Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 Rich Rostrom <rrostrom@comcast.net> - 2020-05-05 14:55 -0500
              Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> - 2020-05-05 15:55 -0700
              Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2020-05-05 19:26 -0700
                Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 Rich Rostrom <rrostrom@comcast.net> - 2020-05-06 15:54 -0500
                  Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> - 2020-05-06 18:55 -0700
                    Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 Louis Epstein <le@top.put.com> - 2020-05-09 16:09 +0000
                Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 graham.truesdale@gmail.com - 2020-05-06 14:21 -0700
                  Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2020-05-06 17:25 -0700
          Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> - 2020-05-05 15:57 -0700
          Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> - 2020-05-05 15:58 -0700
    Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 graham.truesdale@gmail.com - 2020-05-04 12:37 -0700
    Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 Ingo Siekmann <ingo-siekmann@web.de> - 2020-05-05 11:58 +0200
    Re: Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940 mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) - 2020-05-08 00:40 -0500

#4751 — Adolf Hitler crowns himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940

What if Adolf Hitler would have crowned himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940, similar to what Napoleon did over a century earlier, back in 1804?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4752

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> What if Adolf Hitler would have crowned himself the German Kaiser after the 
> Fall of France in 1940, similar to what Napoleon did over a century earlier, 
> back in 1804?

Was he ever inclined toward such an ideology?...he doesn't seem inclined
to swap Volk for Kron as head of the Reich.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4753

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9ac0d1e3-b196-4395-a477-e1e3f620d72e@googlegroups.com: 

> What if Adolf Hitler would have crowned himself the German Kaiser after
> the Fall of France in 1940, similar to what Napoleon did over a century
> earlier, back in 1804? 


As John Lukacs noted in *The Hitler of History*, Hitler was just not that 
into monarchy:

"Shocked and stunned as he was in 1918 by witnessing and living through the 
collapse of the German empire, Hitler was not a  monarchist--even though 
before 1918 we have no evidence of his hostility to the Hohenzollerns (as 
contrasted with his consistent hostility to the Habsburgs). Because of his 
need for conservative support there were few--if any--antimonarchical 
statements by Hitler during the period 1929-33, or until well after his 
assumption of the chancellorship. There were German (especially North German) 
conservatives who as late as 1934 hoped that Hitler would consent to a 
restoration of the monarchy in Germany. But after Hindenburg’s death, with 
his consolidation of the chancellorship and the presidency, his dismissals of 
the--for him long-antiquated--hereditary idea and the monarchical principle 
(and not only in Germany) began to accumulate. A significant--and, for him, 
revelatory--event was his state visit to Italy in May 1938. He was repelled 
by what he saw as the creaking ceremonials of the Italian royal house, the 
precedences of court society, the corruptions of the Roman aristocracy, the 
personal weaknesses of the Italian king. By having allowed its continued 
existence, by sharing his rule of Italy with the monarchy, his friend 
Mussolini had made a grave mistake. That is what Hitler saw, and thought, and 
found it now proper to express to many of his confidants. Then he decided to 
raise the pension payments of the surviving Social Democratic ministers of 
the Weimar period; it had, after all, been their great merit, he said, to 
have freed Germany from the Hohenzollerns in 1918....

"Irving cites Hitler on 23 November 1937: 'Monarchies are at most capable of 
hanging on to what has been conquered. World empires are won only by 
revolutionary movements.'" 

https://archive.org/details/JohnLukacsTheHitlerOfHistoryVintage1998/page/n111
https://archive.org/details/JohnLukacsTheHitlerOfHistoryVintage1998/page/n113

-- 
David Tenner
dtenner@ameritech.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4755

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 4:32:07 AM UTC-7, David Tenner wrote:
> WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:9ac0d1e3-b196-4395-a477-e1e3f620d72e@googlegroups.com: 
> 
> > What if Adolf Hitler would have crowned himself the German Kaiser after
> > the Fall of France in 1940, similar to what Napoleon did over a century
> > earlier, back in 1804? 
> 
> 
> As John Lukacs noted in *The Hitler of History*, Hitler was just not that 
> into monarchy:
> 
> "Shocked and stunned as he was in 1918 by witnessing and living through the 
> collapse of the German empire, Hitler was not a  monarchist--even though 
> before 1918 we have no evidence of his hostility to the Hohenzollerns (as 
> contrasted with his consistent hostility to the Habsburgs). Because of his 
> need for conservative support there were few--if any--antimonarchical 
> statements by Hitler during the period 1929-33, or until well after his 
> assumption of the chancellorship. There were German (especially North German) 
> conservatives who as late as 1934 hoped that Hitler would consent to a 
> restoration of the monarchy in Germany. But after Hindenburg’s death, with 
> his consolidation of the chancellorship and the presidency, his dismissals of 
> the--for him long-antiquated--hereditary idea and the monarchical principle 
> (and not only in Germany) began to accumulate. A significant--and, for him, 
> revelatory--event was his state visit to Italy in May 1938. He was repelled 
> by what he saw as the creaking ceremonials of the Italian royal house, the 
> precedences of court society, the corruptions of the Roman aristocracy, the 
> personal weaknesses of the Italian king. By having allowed its continued 
> existence, by sharing his rule of Italy with the monarchy, his friend 
> Mussolini had made a grave mistake. That is what Hitler saw, and thought, and 
> found it now proper to express to many of his confidants. Then he decided to 
> raise the pension payments of the surviving Social Democratic ministers of 
> the Weimar period; it had, after all, been their great merit, he said, to 
> have freed Germany from the Hohenzollerns in 1918....
> 
> "Irving cites Hitler on 23 November 1937: 'Monarchies are at most capable of 
> hanging on to what has been conquered. World empires are won only by 
> revolutionary movements.'" 
> 
> https://archive.org/details/JohnLukacsTheHitlerOfHistoryVintage1998/page/n111
> https://archive.org/details/JohnLukacsTheHitlerOfHistoryVintage1998/page/n113
> 
> -- 
> David Tenner
> dtenner@ameritech.net

Bless Hitler for doing one thing right (among many, many wrong things!) by acknowledging that the German Social Democrats did a good thing in getting rid of Germany's Hohenzollern monarchy back in 1918.

Anyway, do we know what Hitler thought of Napoleon's coronation of himself as French Emperor in 1804? Did Hitler ever comment and/or write about this? Obviously it makes sense for Hitler to view both existing and former monarchies as decadent, but here I am talking about Hitler starting a new dynasty of his own.

By the way, just how was a monarchical restoration in Germany in the 1930s actually supposed to work? As in, were all of Germany's sub-national monarchies such as Bavaria likewise expected to have their monarchies be restored along with the Hohenzollern monarchy?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4756

On Mon, 4 May 2020 13:06:35 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Bless Hitler for doing one thing right (among many, many wrong things!) by acknowledging that the German Social Democrats did a good thing in getting rid of Germany's Hohenzollern monarchy back in 1918.
>
>Anyway, do we know what Hitler thought of Napoleon's coronation of himself as French Emperor in 1804? Did Hitler ever comment and/or write about this? Obviously it makes sense for Hitler to view both existing and former monarchies as decadent, but here I am talking about Hitler starting a new dynasty of his own.
>
>By the way, just how was a monarchical restoration in Germany in the 1930s actually supposed to work? As in, were all of Germany's sub-national monarchies such as Bavaria likewise expected to have their monarchies be restored along with the Hohenzollern monarchy?

Why would Hitler take the crown while Kaiser Wilhelm II and his entire
family (several of whom served in the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe in WW2)
were still alive?

France surrendered in June 1940 - the Kaiser died in June 1941.

The situation isn't like the French revolution where the King had
previously remained in France and been guillotined while Wilhelm fled
to Holland in November 1918 and stayed there till his death.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4757

On Mon, 04 May 2020 18:42:29 -0700, The Horny Goat wrote:

> On Mon, 4 May 2020 13:06:35 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>Bless Hitler for doing one thing right (among many, many wrong things!) by acknowledging that the German Social Democrats did a good thing in getting rid of Germany's Hohenzollern monarchy back in 1918.
>>
>>Anyway, do we know what Hitler thought of Napoleon's coronation of himself as French Emperor in 1804? Did Hitler ever comment and/or write about this? Obviously it makes sense for Hitler to view both existing and former monarchies as decadent, but here I am talking about Hitler starting a new dynasty of his own.
>>
>>By the way, just how was a monarchical restoration in Germany in the 1930s actually supposed to work? As in, were all of Germany's sub-national monarchies such as Bavaria likewise expected to have their monarchies be restored along with the Hohenzollern monarchy?
> 
> Why would Hitler take the crown while Kaiser Wilhelm II and his entire
> family (several of whom served in the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe in WW2)
> were still alive?

I was thinking the same point too. He has no legitimacy to being Kaiser.

> 
> France surrendered in June 1940 - the Kaiser died in June 1941.
> 
> The situation isn't like the French revolution where the King had
> previously remained in France and been guillotined while Wilhelm fled
> to Holland in November 1918 and stayed there till his death.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4761

On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 2:42:33 AM UTC+1, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 13:06:35 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Bless Hitler for doing one thing right (among many, many wrong things!) by acknowledging that the German Social Democrats did a good thing in getting rid of Germany's Hohenzollern monarchy back in 1918.
> >
> >Anyway, do we know what Hitler thought of Napoleon's coronation of himself as French Emperor in 1804? Did Hitler ever comment and/or write about this? Obviously it makes sense for Hitler to view both existing and former monarchies as decadent, but here I am talking about Hitler starting a new dynasty of his own.
> >
> >By the way, just how was a monarchical restoration in Germany in the 1930s actually supposed to work? As in, were all of Germany's sub-national monarchies such as Bavaria likewise expected to have their monarchies be restored along with the Hohenzollern monarchy?
> 
> Why would Hitler take the crown while Kaiser Wilhelm II and his entire
> family (several of whom served in the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe in WW2)
> were still alive?
> 
> France surrendered in June 1940 - the Kaiser died in June 1941.
> 
> The situation isn't like the French revolution where the King had
> previously remained in France and been guillotined while Wilhelm fled
> to Holland in November 1918 and stayed there till his death.
>
1. I feel that it would have made no difference if the Kaiser had been dead by 1934.
2. When Napoleon crowned himself emperor in 1804, two of the late king's brothers were still alive (and went on to become kings themselves following the Bourbon restoration).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4762

graham.truesdale@gmail.com wrote:

> 2. When Napoleon crowned himself emperor in 1804, 
> two of the late king's brothers were still alive 
> (and went on to become kings themselves following 
> the Bourbon restoration).

Napoleon represented the forces that overthrew the 
King and abolished the monarchy. He led successful 
military campaigns for the Republic. Thus he had 
separated himself from the monarchy, which was 
completely discredited. He did not crown himself King 
of France, but Emperor, a new title, to which the
Bourbons had no possible claim.

From his start in politics, Hitler was the enemy of
the Weimar state which had overthrown the Kaiser.
This meant he was not separated from the old Kaiser
in the same way as Napoleon was separated from the
Bourbons. His triumph was dependent on a deal with
conservative and reactionary elements which were
still vaguely loyal to the old Kaiser.
-- 
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4767

On Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 12:55:24 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> graham.truesdale@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > 2. When Napoleon crowned himself emperor in 1804, 
> > two of the late king's brothers were still alive 
> > (and went on to become kings themselves following 
> > the Bourbon restoration).
> 
> Napoleon represented the forces that overthrew the 
> King and abolished the monarchy. He led successful 
> military campaigns for the Republic. Thus he had 
> separated himself from the monarchy, which was 
> completely discredited. He did not crown himself King 
> of France, but Emperor, a new title, to which the
> Bourbons had no possible claim.
> 
> From his start in politics, Hitler was the enemy of
> the Weimar state which had overthrown the Kaiser.
> This meant he was not separated from the old Kaiser
> in the same way as Napoleon was separated from the
> Bourbons. His triumph was dependent on a deal with
> conservative and reactionary elements which were
> still vaguely loyal to the old Kaiser.
> -- 
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

The fact that Hitler had to rely on royalist and ex-royalist support in order to come to power is indeed accurate. However, he also aimed to make a sharp break with Wilhelmine Germany by creating a totalitarian superpower the likes of which Wilhelmine Germany could only dream of doing. Wilhelmine Germany was nowhere near as totalitarian as Nazi Germany was and its foreign policy was aimed towards Weltpolitik (colonies, trade, and commerce) as opposed to Lebensraum (in Eastern Europe).

Thus, I guess that you can say that Hitler aimed to significantly improve upon Wilhelmine Germany--perhaps sort of how, say, one Byzantine imperial dynasty previously aimed to improve upon the work of another one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4774

On Tue, 05 May 2020 14:55:22 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:

>graham.truesdale@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> 2. When Napoleon crowned himself emperor in 1804, 
>> two of the late king's brothers were still alive 
>> (and went on to become kings themselves following 
>> the Bourbon restoration).
>
>Napoleon represented the forces that overthrew the 
>King and abolished the monarchy. He led successful 
>military campaigns for the Republic. Thus he had 
>separated himself from the monarchy, which was 
>completely discredited. He did not crown himself King 
>of France, but Emperor, a new title, to which the
>Bourbons had no possible claim.

Whereas Wilhelm was "Konig und Kaiserin" meaning he was King of
Prussia and Emperor of Germany as a whole. Which would make it
difficult for Hitler who preferred the title 'Fuehrer' in any case.

>From his start in politics, Hitler was the enemy of
>the Weimar state which had overthrown the Kaiser.
>This meant he was not separated from the old Kaiser
>in the same way as Napoleon was separated from the
>Bourbons. His triumph was dependent on a deal with
>conservative and reactionary elements which were
>still vaguely loyal to the old Kaiser.

Do you seriously think that the remnants of the monarchist Deutsche
National Volksparti (DNVP) were in any position to do more than
harumph at Hitler by 1940? PARTICULARLY after he had just beaten
France which the Kaiser didn't?

(And also keeping in mind that Britain supported France in both 1914
and 1939 and played a huge role in stopping Germany in 1914 whereas in
1940 they got out of France. (What is commonly forgotten about Dunkirk
is that the Brits evacuated nearly as many French as Brits but most of
them chose internment rather than fighting for de Gaulle)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4775

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> Do you seriously think that the remnants of the 
> monarchist Deutsche National Volksparti (DNVP) were 
> in any position to do more than harumph at Hitler by 
> 1940? PARTICULARLY after he had just beaten France 
> which the Kaiser didn't?

Of course not. In summer 1940, Hitler could have done
anything he wanted, short of proclaiming himself the
younger brother of Jesus (or Thor).

But usurping the Imperial crown would have been deeply
offensive to many German conservatives - including
army officers. It would also offend a lot of Nazis,
believe it or not. Part of the Nazi mythos was that
this was the _Third_ Reich, which would carry forward
into Germany's glorious future, not a revival of the
failed Second Reich, infested by hereditary twits who
strutted about in fancy uniforms.

Hitler had no real use for the title, anyway. It was
not an "ancient" title, redolent of past glories -
it was a recent creation, dressed up in tacky rituals
and costumery.
-- 
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4778

On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 1:54:12 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Do you seriously think that the remnants of the 
> > monarchist Deutsche National Volksparti (DNVP) were 
> > in any position to do more than harumph at Hitler by 
> > 1940? PARTICULARLY after he had just beaten France 
> > which the Kaiser didn't?
> 
> Of course not. In summer 1940, Hitler could have done
> anything he wanted, short of proclaiming himself the
> younger brother of Jesus (or Thor).
> 
> But usurping the Imperial crown would have been deeply
> offensive to many German conservatives - including
> army officers. It would also offend a lot of Nazis,
> believe it or not. Part of the Nazi mythos was that
> this was the _Third_ Reich, which would carry forward
> into Germany's glorious future, not a revival of the
> failed Second Reich, infested by hereditary twits who
> strutted about in fancy uniforms.
> 
> Hitler had no real use for the title, anyway. It was
> not an "ancient" title, redolent of past glories -
> it was a recent creation, dressed up in tacky rituals
> and costumery.
> -- 
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Technically speaking, though, Hitler wouldn't actually be recreating the Second Reich here--any more than the Second Reich was a recreation of the First Reich. Rather, he would still be creating a Third Reich but with a new royal dynasty (the Hitler dynasty) rather than with a continuing Fuhrer regime.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4783

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 1:54:12 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> > Do you seriously think that the remnants of the 
>> > monarchist Deutsche National Volksparti (DNVP) were 
>> > in any position to do more than harumph at Hitler by 
>> > 1940? PARTICULARLY after he had just beaten France 
>> > which the Kaiser didn't?
>> 
>> Of course not. In summer 1940, Hitler could have done
>> anything he wanted, short of proclaiming himself the
>> younger brother of Jesus (or Thor).
>> 
>> But usurping the Imperial crown would have been deeply
>> offensive to many German conservatives - including
>> army officers. It would also offend a lot of Nazis,
>> believe it or not. Part of the Nazi mythos was that
>> this was the _Third_ Reich, which would carry forward
>> into Germany's glorious future, not a revival of the
>> failed Second Reich, infested by hereditary twits who
>> strutted about in fancy uniforms.
>> 
>> Hitler had no real use for the title, anyway. It was
>> not an "ancient" title, redolent of past glories -
>> it was a recent creation, dressed up in tacky rituals
>> and costumery.
> 
> Technically speaking, though, Hitler wouldn't actually be recreating the 
> Second Reich here--any more than the Second Reich was a recreation of the First 
> Reich. Rather, he would still be creating a Third Reich but with a new royal 
> dynasty (the Hitler dynasty) rather than with a continuing Fuhrer regime.

So perhaps he might have had a motive once he had a child,if he could.

But as it was his ideology was not that of the monarchists he saw
as "useful idiots" (to use the phrase attributed to Lenin).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4776

On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 3:26:31 AM UTC+1, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 05 May 2020 14:55:22 -0500, Rich Rostrom
> <rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> >graham.truesdaleATgmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> 2. When Napoleon crowned himself emperor in 1804, 
> >> two of the late king's brothers were still alive 
> >> (and went on to become kings themselves following 
> >> the Bourbon restoration).
> >
> >Napoleon represented the forces that overthrew the 
> >King and abolished the monarchy. He led successful 
> >military campaigns for the Republic. Thus he had 
> >separated himself from the monarchy, which was 
> >completely discredited. He did not crown himself King 
> >of France, but Emperor, a new title, to which the
> >Bourbons had no possible claim.
> 
> Whereas Wilhelm was "Konig und Kaiserin" meaning he was King of
> Prussia and Emperor of Germany as a whole. Which would make it
> difficult for Hitler who preferred the title 'Fuehrer' in any case.
> 
The Kaiserin was his Missus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4777

On Wed, 6 May 2020 14:21:51 -0700 (PDT), graham.truesdale@gmail.com
wrote:

>> Whereas Wilhelm was "Konig und Kaiserin" meaning he was King of
>> Prussia and Emperor of Germany as a whole. Which would make it
>> difficult for Hitler who preferred the title 'Fuehrer' in any case.
>> 
>The Kaiserin was his Missus.

OOPS! Could be worse I could have said the crown princess Victoria who
was his mum.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4768

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 6:42:33 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 13:06:35 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Bless Hitler for doing one thing right (among many, many wrong things!) by acknowledging that the German Social Democrats did a good thing in getting rid of Germany's Hohenzollern monarchy back in 1918.
> >
> >Anyway, do we know what Hitler thought of Napoleon's coronation of himself as French Emperor in 1804? Did Hitler ever comment and/or write about this? Obviously it makes sense for Hitler to view both existing and former monarchies as decadent, but here I am talking about Hitler starting a new dynasty of his own.
> >
> >By the way, just how was a monarchical restoration in Germany in the 1930s actually supposed to work? As in, were all of Germany's sub-national monarchies such as Bavaria likewise expected to have their monarchies be restored along with the Hohenzollern monarchy?
> 
> Why would Hitler take the crown while Kaiser Wilhelm II and his entire
> family (several of whom served in the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe in WW2)
> were still alive?
> 
> France surrendered in June 1940 - the Kaiser died in June 1941.
> 
> The situation isn't like the French revolution where the King had
> previously remained in France and been guillotined while Wilhelm fled
> to Holland in November 1918 and stayed there till his death.

Even though Louis XVI was guillotined, he still has two surviving brothers who were in exile--one of whom had two surviving sons of his own. Plus, this is not to mention there being a couple of men from the Orleans branch of the House of Bourbon who survived the French Revolution and subsequently fled into exile. They too were in the French royal line of succession under the Ancien regime.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4769

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 6:42:33 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 13:06:35 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Bless Hitler for doing one thing right (among many, many wrong things!) by acknowledging that the German Social Democrats did a good thing in getting rid of Germany's Hohenzollern monarchy back in 1918.
> >
> >Anyway, do we know what Hitler thought of Napoleon's coronation of himself as French Emperor in 1804? Did Hitler ever comment and/or write about this? Obviously it makes sense for Hitler to view both existing and former monarchies as decadent, but here I am talking about Hitler starting a new dynasty of his own.
> >
> >By the way, just how was a monarchical restoration in Germany in the 1930s actually supposed to work? As in, were all of Germany's sub-national monarchies such as Bavaria likewise expected to have their monarchies be restored along with the Hohenzollern monarchy?
> 
> Why would Hitler take the crown while Kaiser Wilhelm II and his entire
> family (several of whom served in the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe in WW2)
> were still alive?
> 
> France surrendered in June 1940 - the Kaiser died in June 1941.
> 
> The situation isn't like the French revolution where the King had
> previously remained in France and been guillotined while Wilhelm fled
> to Holland in November 1918 and stayed there till his death.

Also, there was the Prince of Conde and his son the Duke of Enghien--with Napoleon actually ordering Enghien's (but not Conde's) execution in 1804 by kidnapping him abroad--thus making Napoleon a target of great criticism among European royals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4754

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 1:05:54 AM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> What if Adolf Hitler would have crowned himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940, similar to what Napoleon did over a century earlier, back in 1804?
>
Here is a 1934 cartoonist's idea of him doing so - https://www.granger.com/results.asp?inline=true&image=0032641&wwwflag=7&itemx=1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4759

Am 04.05.20 um 02:05 schrieb WolfBear:
> What if Adolf Hitler would have crowned himself the German Kaiser after the Fall of France in 1940, similar to what Napoleon did over a century earlier, back in 1804?
> 

Germany would have never laughed so much.

Bye
Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4780

 > > > On Mon, 04 May 2020 18:42:29 -0700, The Horny Goat wrote:
 > > > 
 > > > On Mon, 4 May 2020 13:06:35 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear
<m4josh@gmail.com
 > > > wrote:
 > > > 
 > > > Bless Hitler for doing one thing right (among many, many wrong
things!) by acknowledging that the German Social Democrats did a good
thing in getting rid of Germany's Hohenzollern monarchy back in 1918.
 > > > 
 > > > Anyway, do we know what Hitler thought of Napoleon's coronation
of himself as French Emperor in 1804? Did Hitler ever comment and/or
write about this? Obviously it makes sense for Hitler to view both
existing and former monarchies as decadent, but here I am talking
about Hitler starting a new dynasty of his own.
 > > > 
 > > > By the way, just how was a monarchical restoration in Germany
in the 1930s actually supposed to work? As in, were all of Germany's
sub-national monarchies such as Bavaria likewise expected to have
their monarchies be restored along with the Hohenzollern monarchy?
 > > > 
 > > > Why would Hitler take the crown while Kaiser Wilhelm II and his
entire
 > > > family (several of whom served in the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe
in WW2)
 > > > were still alive?
 > > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > I was thinking the same point too. He has no legitimacy to being
Kaiser.
 > > 
 > > 
 > > France surrendered in June 1940 - the Kaiser died in June 1941.
 > > 
 > > The situation isn't like the French revolution where the King
had
 > > previously remained in France and been guillotined while Wilhelm
fled
 > > to Holland in November 1918 and stayed there till his death.fa1]


I imagine if Hitler had wanted to "create" legitimacy - he
would have......
 

This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=542624699#542624699

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.history.what-if

csiph-web