The Relationship Between Czar Nicholas And Kaiser Wilhelm

1. The relationship between Czar Nicholas and Kaiser Wilhelm was tense, but friendly. Through their letters, you can tell that these two men had a friendship that neither wished to end. They talked about being saddened that their friendship may come to an end due to this was. 2. The tone taken in these letters are friendly, but urgent. Both leaders required an immediate response due to possibility of a war being so immediate. Towards the end of the document, Kaiser Wilhelm without much resistance told Czar Nicholas not to pass his border, or his troops will die. Even though his response is forthright, there is an underlying tone of sadness. 3. Kaiser Wilhelm is referring to the fact Russia had to protect Serbia even though Serbia was in the wrong. This leads people to highly criticize Russia, because they have to protect Serbia even if what they did was wrong. 4. Kaiser Wilhelm suggests for Czar Nicholas to be a spectator in the war. He should take no action, and let Austria have its way with Serbia. This way, Russia remains safe from any conflict. 5. The Kaiser finds Russia’s mobilization of troop again Austria and Hungary to be troublesome. This lead Kaiser Wilhelm to mobilize his own troops and prepare for a defense. 6. The Czar advises the Kaiser to mobilize his troop, but not take any action against Russia. Both sides would seem as if they are helping their allies, but they would still remain neutral. 7. Kaiser Wilhelm says this because he has withheld uponShow MoreRelatedOne Significant Change That Has Occurred in the World Between 1900 and 2005. Explain the Impact This Change Has Made on Our Lives and Why It Is an Important Change.163893 Words   |  656 Pagesof the world’s human population for the first time in history. He gives considerable attention to changes in city planning, patterns of urban growth, and important differences between industrialized Europe and North America and the developing world, as well as the contrasts in urban design and living conditions between different sorts of political regimes— communist, capitalist, colonial, and fascist. Particularly revealing are Spodek’s discussions of the influence of prominent urban planners