- Oct 2, 2018
Since you continue your tone deaf obtuse policy of ignoring your own references sources and links I have highlighted the evidence above already provided by yourself that you keep shouting and screaming for.I detect a weaselling of words.
Let me be explicit: President Wilson's note of 23 October 1918 (over the signature of the Secreary of State) is well-known, and — if not — can be read here.
At no point in it do I see any stated demand for the Kaiser's abdication. As I said in my earlier post, the demand is (and this is the longer extract):
It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the Empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the Empire is unimpaired; that the determinating initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany.Clouding the issue with Article 227 of the Treaty of Versailles is an irrelevance. It was a futile gesture (aimed, I'd imagine, at the French and Belgians, in the hope of ameliorating their excessive demands) to put William II of Hohenzollern, formerly German Emperor on trial. Note the post-eventum acceptance of the abdication. The Dutch weren't going to accede to the Allied request, and that was generally expected and understood.
Any parallels with the Instrument of Japanese Surrender (2 September 1945) is bizarre.
It is quite clear that these words to the German representatives mean :Get rid of the Kaiser or we won’t talk to you..
From your post again “the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany.“
There is little point in maintaining any discussion with a poster like you until you learn to understand the meaning of plain English