It can however, be argued that ‘Personal Rule’ was only a myth created by historians within the years following; If it were true for example, the Kaiser would have had to have spent vast amounts of time in Berlin carefully considering every new bill coming through the Reichstag, when in reality he spent very little time at all on routine matters. Instead he favoured parading his military forces, dressing up in military uniform, attending parties and going on hunting expeditions. Another good example that proves the Kaiser did not have the last say on everything is the fact that he hated paperwork and routine tasks; often he would look at new legislatory bills for only a couple of minutes each day, leaving the rest to his chancellors and ministers to sort out. Therefore, even if they weren’t important issues, it is clear that his officials did have some responsibility after all. Nether the less it remains apparent that even if the Kaiser wasn’t involved in everything, he still had an immense level of power and liked to be frequently involved in the thick of things.
The Structuralist argument however challenges the fact that the Kaiser had the most power within the nation; instead it states that a number of economic and social forces ruled over Germany, moulding foreign/domestic policy and dealing with most legislation. Wilhelm on the other hand was seen as a figurehead dominated by these institutions and committees, saying he did have power, however stating that this was very limited and confined to smaller, domestic areas. This idea of a structural system can be further subdivided into two further sections; firstly the traditionalist ‘Top-Down’ theory pioneered by the historians Fischer and Wehler. This suggests that long-established, elitist groups such as the Prussian Junkers, Diplomatic Corps, Civil Service and the Army were the real driving force behind most of the workings within the Reich. The theory argues that these groups joined together to pressure the Kaiser into making decisions, pushing him further and further towards the traditional and conservative ideals that they stood for. There is evidence to suggest this is true as the Kaiser did share many old-fashioned colonial views that fell in accordance with these groups. There is also the instant rapport between Wilhelm and the Army, which became apparent through the Kaisers love of all things militarial. He surrounded himself with Army and Naval Generals and loved parading his fleets in parades whilst wearing Officers Uniform himself. In fact the relationship grew so strong that many believed that expanding the German forces was his number one aim; he wanted to see his fleets rival the greatness of the British someday. It was clear also that he would stand by his Generals over Government advisors and other officials no matter what, this became painfully clear after the ‘Zabern Affair’ of 1913.
Secondly there is the ‘Bottom Up’ theory, which suggests that instead of the elitist groups making decisions, the lower working classes were responsible for most policy change after 1890. The theory proposed that the Working classes, Catholics, Nationalists, Socialists and Trade Unions joined together to put immense pressure on the Kaiser when it came to making policy decisions. This massive change in public opinion would help to change the Kaiser’s mind from time to time proving that ‘grass root’ movements can be effective. These popular movements were often made up of radicalists who had been outcast by Bismarck in the years previous, they felt very strongly about domestic and foreign policy issues and therefore wanted to see reform in the nation. The Kaiser did not approve of these liberal, left wing views and was much more happy with taking the traditionalist ideals that he shared with the elitist groups; it is clear though that these large movements could pressure the government a huge amount if need be.
Most historians have combined these views together as one Structuralist argument, suggesting that the manipulation of the Kaiser from the Top-Down coupled alongside the immense pressure placed upon the government from the Bottom-Up led to much policy change. This would prove that the Kaiser did have people to answer to, and could not have everything his own way.
Lastly there is the ‘International Relations’ argument; this suggests that although the Kaiser for the most part had his own way in domestic policy, foreign policy was dictated by the way that other nations reacted to Germany. It is well known that the Kaiser did enact some very strange policies within his reign; they were often contradictory and highly unusual, which in theory matched his personality as a whole. This theory suggests that many European nations including France, Britain, Austro-Hungary, Russia and Italy did at times segregate into groups that pressured the Kaiser into making rash decisions over his foreign policy. The Kaiser felt threatened by this and therefore did not have the leisure of making a choice, instead he was forced into reacting quickly to try and calm the situation. This scenario happened a lot within late nineteenth/early twentieth century Europe and suggests that the Kaiser was not all-powerful in the ability to make his decisions, instead he had to act on the pressured of neighbouring nations.
In conclusion, by examining all the arguments it seems apparent that the Individualist approach remains the most logical. Although, there were a number of Structuralist and International factors which did influence his decisions on a lot of policy, it is clear that the Kaiser had immense power; often he did not maximise it and made half-witted ignorant decisions, however never the less it is clear for all to see. His power was boundless; neither the Chancellor nor Reichstag would challenge his authority as he could sack or dissolve either at the click of his fingers, therefore to an extent he actually controlled the parameters of possibility. The constitution that many believed would democratise Germany in reality didn’t even dent his supremacy, leaving him still in a world of his own where he could see only what he wanted to see, hear only what he wanted to hear. He was not just a figurehead; instead he reigned at the top of every social, political and military hierarchy. It is clear that much small legislation was put in the hands of his officials due to his complete ignorance and hatred of paperwork, this was a huge downfall for him as it did contradict his policy of ‘Personal Rule’ and undermine his own self-demanded high standards of authority. However he did make sure that his opinion on major issues, especially if related to foreign policy or the military was taken in as the word of god. Lastly it is also obvious that what he wanted, he made sure he got; a clear example of this is the military expansion that he demanded from the beginning of the twentieth century onwards. Within a few years of this, Germany was rivalling Britain for naval supremacy within the continent.
Therefore, it is apparent that the initial statement that Germany had become an autocratic state, personally influenced by Kaiser Wilhelm II is true.
