70. On Wilhelm’s friendship with Eulenburg, see I. V. Hull, The Entourage of Kaiser Wilhelm II 1888–1918 (Cambridge, 1982), especially p. 45.
71. Wilhelm II to Eulenburg, Salzburg, 11 August 1886, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 1, pp. 191–2.
72. Eulenburg to Wilhelm II, Munich, 16 November 1893, ibid., vol. 2, p. 1142.
73. Eulenburg to Wilhelm II, Munich, 6 February 1894, ibid., vol. 2, pp. 1211–14.
74. Eulenburg to H. von Bismarck, Munich, 5 August 1886, in ibid., vol. 1, pp. 190–91.
75. Röhl, Germany Without Bismarck, especially pp. 273–4.
76. C. Schmitt, Gespräch über die Macht und den Zugang zum Machthaber (Pfullingen, 1954), pp. 14–15; B. P. Simms, Impact of Napoleon: Prussian High Politics, Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Executive, 1797–1806 (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 15–16.
77. On this function of the advisory circle, see V. R. Berghahn, Imperial Germany 1871–1914. Economy, Society and Politics (Providence, RI, and Oxford, 1994), p. 242; Mommsen, War der Kaiser an allem Schuld?, p. 65.
78. Remarks of 26 October 1894 by Wilhelm to envoys of Bavaria, Baden, Saxony and Württemberg, reported in Jagemann to Reck, Berlin, 26 October 1894, in Fuchs (ed.), Grossherzog Friedrich I. von Baden, vol. 3, p. 345.
79. Röhl, Germany Without Bismarck, pp. 121–2; Mommsen, War der Kaiser an allem Schuld?, pp. 75–6.
80. Wilhelm II to Eulenburg, 21 February 1895, cited in Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 1, p. 215.
81. See Jagemann to Brauer, Berlin, 7 March 1895, in Fuchs (ed.), Grossherzog Friedrich I. von Baden, vol. 3, p. 399.
82. Report of a conversation with Bronsart, Marschall to Eulenburg, 17 February 1895, cited in Röhl, Germany Without Bismarck, p. 136.
83. For good discussions of this issue, see G. Craig, Politics of the Prussian Army (Oxford, 1955), pp. 246–51; Röhl, Germany Without Bismarck, pp. 139–46; Hull, The Entourage, pp. 215–25; Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 1, pp. 228–32.
84. Hull, The Entourage, pp. 215–25.
85. Grand Duke of Baden to Eulenburg, 26 October 1895, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 3, p. 1578.
86. Cited in Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 1, p. 230.
87. Wilhelm II to Lucanus, Breslau, 2 December 1895, in H. O. Meisner, ‘Der Reichskanzler Hohenlohe und die Mächte seiner Zeit’, Preussische Jahrbücher, 230 (1932), pp. 35–50; here p. 46.
88. Cited in Röhl, Germany Without Bismarck, p. 229.
89. The memorandum is cited at length ibid., pp. 196–8.
90. K. A. von Müller, Der dritte deutsche Reichskanzler. Bemerkungen zu den ‘Denkwürdigkeiten der Reichskanzlerzeit des Fürsten Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst’ (Munich, 1932), p. 28; C. zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, Denkwürdigkeiten der Reichskanzlerzeit, ed. K. A. von Müller (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1931), p. 582.
91. Hohenlohe, Denkwürdigkeiten, p. 428.
92. B. von Bülow, Memoirs, 4 vols. (London and New York, 1931), vol. 1 (1897–1903), trans. F. A. Voigt, pp. 233–4, 291.
93. V. Ullrich, Die nervöse Grossmacht. Aufstieg und Untergang des deutschen Kaiserreichs (Frankfurt, 1997), p. 81.
94. Röhl, Germany Without Bismarck, pp. 259, 273, 277–8; cf. Mommsen, War der Kaiser an allem Schuld?, pp. 92–124.
95. See Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 1, pp. 260–61.
96. Bülow, Memoirs, vol. 1, p. 291.
97. Ibid., pp. 260–61.
98. The citation is from Craig, Politics of the Prussian Army, pp. 250–51; see also Hull, The Entourage, p. 223.
99. Röhl, Germany Without Bismarck, p. 263.
100. H. Horn, Der Kampf um den Bau des Mittellandkanals. Eine politologische Untersuchung über die Rolle eines wirtschaftlichen Interessenverbandes im Preussen Wilhelms II (Cologne and Opladen, 1964), pp. 40–43.
101. Mommsen, Bürgerstolz, p. 204.
102. Empress Victoria to Bülow, 18 August 1899, transcribed in Bülow, Memoirs, vol. 1, p. 293.
103. Ibid., p. 295.
104. Horn, Der Kampf, p. 78.
105. Ibid., pp. 104, 118, 119.
106. Wehler, Von der deutschen ‘Doppelrevolution’, pp. 1000–1001.
107. Bülow to Eulenburg, Semmering, 20 July 1898, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 3, p. 1912.
108. I. V. Hull, ‘Der kaiserliche Hof als Herrschaftsinstrument’, in H. Wilderotter and K.-D. Pohl (eds.), Der letzte Kaiser. Wilhelm II. im Exil (Berlin, 1991), pp. 19–30, here p. 25.
109. Waldersee diary, 13 November 1889, in Meisner (ed.), Denkwürdigkeiten, vol. 2, p. 76.
110. Holstein to Eulenburg, Berlin, 7 August 1893, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 2, p. 1094.
111. Wilhelm II to Eulenburg, Hubertusstock, 12 February 1895, ibid., p. 1083.
112. Cited in D. C. B. Lieven, Nicholas II. Emperor of All the Russias (London, 1993), p. 99.
113. Mommsen, Bürgerstolz, pp. 176, 179.
114. Bülow, Memoirs, vol. 1, p. 348.
4. DOMESTIC POLITICS FROM BÜLOW TO BETHMANN
1. Bülow to Eulenburg, Wildbad, 28 August 1890, in J. C. G. Röhl (ed.), Philipp Eulenburgs Politische Korrespondenz, 3 vols. (Boppard, 1976–83), vol. 1, p. 561.
2. Bülow to Eulenburg, 28 May 1891, cited in I. V. Hull, The Entourage of Kaiser Wilhelm II 1888–1918 (Cambridge, 1982), p. 88.
3. J. C. G. Röhl, Germany Without Bismarck. The Crisis of Government in the Second Reich, 1890–1900 (London, 1967), pp. 103, 235.
4. Bülow to Eulenburg, Rome, 23 July 1896, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 2, p. 1714.
5. Thus Bülow’s reputation among Foreign Office personnel according to the ambassador Count Monts; see K. F. Nowak and F. Thimme (eds.), Erinnerungen und Gedanken des Botschafters Graf Monts (Berlin, 1932), p. 156.
6. J. C. G. Röhl, ‘The “Kingship Mechanism” in the Kaiserreich’, in idem, The Kaiser and His Court. Wilhelm II and the Government of Germany, trans. T. F. Cole (Cambridge, 1994), p. 116.
7. Bülow to Eulenburg, Rome, 26 December 1895, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 3, p. 1622.
8. Bülow to Eulenburg, Rome, 27 December 1895, ibid., p. 1625.
9. Cited in K. Lerman, The Chancellor as Courtier. Bernhard von Bülow and the Governance of Germany (Cambridge, 1990), p. 27.
10. Bülow to Eulenburg, Berlin, 22 August 1897, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 3, p. 1857.
11. Nowak and Thimme (eds.), Erinnerungen, p. 156.
12. Lerman, Chancellor, p. 95.
13. Ibid., p. 49; W. J. Mommsen, Bürgerstolz und Weltmachtstreben Deutschland unter Wilhelm II. 1890 bis 1918 (Berlin, 1995), p. 201.
14. On press policy throughout the reign, see P. Jungblut, ‘Unter Vier Reichskanzlern. Otto Hammann und die Pressepolitik der deutschen Reichsleitung 1890 bis 1916’, in U. Daniel and W. Siemann (eds.), Propaganda und Meinungskampf. Verführung und politische Sinnstiftung (1789–1989), (Frankfurt/Main, 1994), pp. 101–16, here p. 113; Lerman, Chancellor, pp. 95–6, 115–26.
15. G. A. Craig, Germany 1866–1945 (Oxford, 1978), pp. 276–7; Lerman, Chancellor, p. 52.
16. Lerman, Chancellor, p. 56.
17. Jagemann (Baden envoy in Berlin) to Brauer, Berlin, 15 July 1901; both in W. P. Fuchs (ed.), Grossherzog Friedrich I. von Baden und die Reichspolitik 1871–1907, 4 vols. (Stuttgart, 1968–70), vol. 4, pp. 337–8, 385; H. Bantzer, Diäten und Freifahrt im Deutschen Reichstag. Der Weg zum Entschädigungsgesetz von 1906 und die Nachwirkung dieser Regelung bis in die Zeit des Grundgesetzes (Düsseldorf, 1999), pp. 219, 246, 450.
18. Jagemann to Brauer, Berlin, 15 March 1899, in Fuchs (ed.), Grossherzog Friedrich I, vol. 4, p. 128; on the party leadership, see Wilhelm II, My Early Life (London, 1926), p. 207.
19. Lerman, Chancellor, p. 59.
20. Jagemann to Minister of the Grand Ducal House, Berlin, 4 February 1903, GLA Karlsruhe 233/34809.
21. See Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 3, p. 2018, n. 2.
22. Lerman, Chancellor, p. 71.
<
br /> 23. T. Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte 1866–1918, 3 vols. (Munich, 1992), vol. 2, Machtstaat vor der Demokratie, p. 724.
24. See Jagemann to Brauer, 23 November 1904, in Fuchs (ed.), Grossherzog Friedrich I, vol. 4, p. 569.
25. Lerman, Chancellor, p. 88.
26. Eulenburg to Bülow, Molde, 24 July 1901, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 3, doc.1450, p. 2025.
27. Lerman, Chancellor, p. 83.
28. Eulenburg to Bülow, aboard the royal yacht Hohenzollern, Odde, 9 August 1903, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 3, p. 2097.
29. Cited in Lerman, Chancellor, p. 131.
30. Mommsen, Bürgerstolz, pp. 221–2; on the treatment of Catholic candidates and missionaries, see p. 233.
31. Tschirschky to Monts, 25 September 1906, in Nowak and Thimme (eds.), Erinnerungen, p. 445.
32. L. Cecil, Wilhelm II, 2 vols. (Chapel Hill, NC, and London, 1989), vol. 2, Emperor and Exile 1900–1941, p. 112.
33. Lerman, Chancellor, pp. 163–4.
34. Ibid., pp. 155–60.
35. P. C. Witt, Die Finanzpolitik des deutschen Reiches von 1903–1913 (Lübeck and Hamburg, 1970), p. 154.
36. For a cogent analysis of the colonial crisis in this light, see the forthcoming Cambridge doctoral dissertation by M. Clausius, ‘A Social and Cultural History of German Colonial Politics 1904–1910’.
37. See the leader article ‘Leutweins Nachfolger’ in Berliner Tageblatt, 4 May 1904. I am grateful to Marcus Clausius for drawing this article to my attention.
38. D. C. Umbach, Parlamentsauflösung in Deutschland. Verfassungsgeschichte und Verfassungsprozess (Berlin and New York, 1989), p. 245.
39. Figures from Craig, Germany 1866–1945, pp. 280–81.
40. Report of a conversation between Wilhelm and Szögyényi, 5 February 1907, cited in Lerman, Chancellor, p. 171.
41. T. F. Cole, ‘Kaiser Versus Chancellor: the Crisis of Bülow’s Chancellorship 1905–6’, in R. J. Evans (ed.), Society, Government and Politics in Wilhelmine Germany (London, 1978), pp. 40–70, here p. 67; see also T. F. Cole, ‘The Daily Telegraph Affair and Its Aftermath: the Kaiser, Bülow and the Reichstag, 1908–1909’, in J. C. G. Röhl and N. Sombart (eds.), Wilhelm II. New Interpretations (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 249–68, especially pp. 250–51.
42. Lerman, Chancellor, pp. 7–8, 183–4, passim; K. Lerman, ‘The Decisive Relationship: Kaiser Wilhelm II and Chancellor Bernhard von Bülow, 1900–1905’, in Röhl and Sombart (eds.), Kaiser Wilhelm II, pp. 221–48; see also Witt, Finanzpolitik, p. 304; I. V. Hull, ‘Persönliches Regiment’, in J. C. G. Röhl (ed.), Der Ort Kaiser Wilhelms II. in der deutschen Geschichte (Munich, 1991).
43. See Berckheim to Marschall, Berlin, 26 June 1907, in Fuchs (ed.), Grossherzog Friedrich I, vol. 4, pp. 719–20.
44. Diary entry of 21 April 1907 in R. Vierhaus (ed.), Das Tagebuch der Baronin Spitzemberg. Aufzeichnungen aus der Hofgesellschaft des Hohenzollernreiches (Göttingen, 1961), p. 472.
45. On Tschirschky’s independence in office, see Bodman to Marschall, Munich, 15 November 1906, in Fuchs (ed.), Grossherzog Friedrich I, vol. 4, p. 662.
46. Lerman, Chancellor, pp. 188–9.
47. Diary entry of 9 October 1907, in Vierhaus (ed.), Spitzemberg, p. 475; Lerman, Chancellor, pp. 193–4.
48. K. Hecht, Die Harden-Prozesse. Strafverfahren, Öffentlichkeit und Politik im Kaiserreich (Munich, 1997), pp. 260ff.
49. M. Harden, ‘Die Feinde des Kaisers’, Die Zukunft, 39 (1902), p. 243, cited in M. Kohlrausch, Der Monarch im Skandal. Die Logik der Massenmedien und die Transformation der wilhelminischen Monarchie (Berlin, 2005), p. 212.
50. See Berckheim to Marschall, Berlin, 8 November 1906, in Fuchs (ed.), Grossherzog Friedrich I, vol. 4, p. 661.
51. Cole, ‘Kaiser Versus Chancellor’, p. 41.
52. Cole, ‘Daily Telegraph Affair’, p. 251; Lerman, Chancellor, pp. 160–62, 195–202; Mommsen, Bürgerstolz, p. 257.
53. H. A. Winkler, Der lange Weg nach Westen, 2 vols. (Munich, 2000), vol. 1, pp. 296–301.
54. Lerman, Chancellor, pp. 208–9.
55. Cited in Cole, ‘Daily Telegraph Affair’, p. 265.
56. Nowak and Thimme (eds.), Erinnerungen, pp. 146–7; K. Jarausch, The Enigmatic Chancellor. Bethmann-Hollweg and the Hubris of Imperial Germany (New Haven, CT, and London, 1973), p. 66; Witt, Finanzpolitik, pp. 300–301.
57. Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 2, p. 146; H.-G. Zmarzlik, Bethmann Hollweg als Reichskanzler 1908–1914. Studien zu Möglichkeiten und Grenzen seiner innerpolitischen Machtstellung (Düsseldorf, 1957), pp. 27–8.
58. Jarausch, Enigmatic Chancellor, p. 35; Wilhelm II, Ereignisse und Gestalten aus den Jahren 1878–1918 (Berlin, 1922), p. 105.
59. A. Wermuth, Ein Beamtenleben. Erinnerungen (Berlin, 1922), p. 287.
60. Zmarzlik, Bethmann, p. 42.
61. See e.g. Bethmann to Valentini, 25 December 1911, cited ibid., pp. 25–6.
62. Jarausch, Enigmatic Chancellor, p. 71.
63. Bethmann to Wilhelm II, 15 April 1910, cited in Zmarzlik, Bethmann, pp. 26–7.
64. Bethmann to Wilhelm II, 20 March 1913, cited in E. Jäckh, Kiderlen-Wächter der Staatsmann und Mensch. Briefwechsel und Nachlass, 2 vols. (Berlin and Leipzig, 1925), vol. 1, pp. 159–61.
65. Wilhelm II to Bethmann, 7 March 1912, cited in Zmarzlik, Bethmann, p. 32.
66. Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 2, p. 191.
67. V. Berghahn, Imperial Germany 1871–1914. Economy, Society, Culture and Politics (Providence, RI, and Oxford, 1994), pp. 274–6.
68. On the Mühlhausen affair, see Zmarzlik, Bethmann, pp. 103–13; also D. Schoenbaum, Zabern 1913. Consensus Politics in Imperial Germany (London, 1982), pp. 87, 105.
69. Schoenbaum, Zabern 1913, pp. 118–19.
70. This observation occurs in a subsequently deleted section of a draft telegram from the Under-Secretary of State Reich Chancellery [signed Wahnschaffe?] to Bethmann, Berlin, 5 December 1913, Bundesarchiv Berlin, R43/170, Bl. 248–50.
71. Zmarzlik, Bethmann, pp. 114–29; Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 2, pp. 189–92; Schoenbaum, Zabern 1913, pp. 148–9.
72. Bethmann to Wilhelm II, 3 and 4 December 1913, cited in Jarausch, Enigmatic Chancellor, p. 101.
73. Crown Prince Wilhelm to Wilhelm II, 5 November 1911, cited in Zmarzlik, Bethmann, p. 36.
74. Wilhelm II to Crown Prince Wilhelm, 22 November 1913, cited ibid., p. 40.
75. Röhl, ‘The “Kingship Mechanism” ’, passim.
76. Winkler, Der lange Weg, vol. 1, p. 301.
5. WILHELM II AND FOREIGN POLICY
(1888–1911)
1. L. Cecil, ‘Der diplomatische Dienst im kaiserlichen Deutschland’, in K. Schwabe (ed.), Das diplomatische Korps 1871–1945 (Boppard, 1985), pp. 15–39, here p. 39.
2. Cited in J. C. G. Röhl, ‘Kaiser Wilhelm II: a Suitable Case for Treatment?’, in idem, The Kaiser and His Court. Wilhelm II and the Government of Germany, trans. T. F. Cole (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 2–27, here p. 12.
3. The appointment of Karl Max Prince von Lichnowsky, the last German imperial ambassador in London, was forced through in this way by the Kaiser; J. C. G. Röhl, ‘The Splendour and Impotence of the German Diplomatic Service’, ibid., pp. 150–61, here p. 159.
4. F.-C. Stahl, ‘Preussische Armee und Reichsheer 1871–1914’, in O. Hauser, Zur Problematik Preussen und das Reich (Cologne and Vienna, 1984), pp. 181–245, here p. 202.
5. On this aspect of international diplomacy in nineteenth-century Europe, see J. Paulmann, “Dearest Nicky…”: Monarchical Relations between Prussia, the German Empire and Russia during the Nineteenth Century’, in R. Bartlett and K. Schönwalder, The German Lands and Eastern Europe. Essays on the History of Their Social, Cultural and Political Relations (London, 1999), pp. 157–81.
6. G. Schöllgen, Imperialismus und Gleichgewicht. Deutschland, England und die orientalische Frage 1871–1914 (Munich, 1984), p. 48.
7. O. Pflanze, Bismarck and the Development of Germany, 3 vols. (Princeton,
NJ, 1990), vol. 3, The Period of Fortification 1880–1898, p. 306.
8. K. Hildebrand, Das vergangene Reich. Deutsche Aussenpolitik von Bismarck bis Hitler 1871–1945 (Stuttgart, 1995), pp. 155–6; R. Lahme, Deutsche Aussenpolitik 1890–1894. Von der Gleichgewichtspolitik Bismarcks zur Allianzstrategie Caprivis (Göttingen, 1990), p. 104.
9. Lahme, Deutsche Aussenpolitik, p. 18.
10. N. Rich and M. H. Fisher (eds.), The Holstein Papers, 4 vols. (Cambridge, 1955–63), vol. 1, p. 131.
11. Cited in P. Kennedy, The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism 1860–1914 (London, 1980), p. 206; see also Lahme, Deutsche Aussenpolitik, p. 138; Hildebrand, Vergangene Reich, p. 158.
12. Cited in Lahme, Deutsche Aussenpolitik, p. 374.
13. Van den Hoeven (Dutch envoy in Berlin) to Hartsen, Berlin, 14 February 1891, Algemeen Rijksarchief, 2.05.19, Bestanddeel 14.
14. See e.g. Waldersee, diary entry of 6 March 1891, in H. O. Meisner (ed.) Denkwürdigkeiten des General-Feldmarschall Alfred Graf von Waldersee, 3 vols. (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1922), vol. 2, p. 196; also W. Canis, Von Bismarck zur Weltpolitik. Deutsche Aussenpolitik 1890 bis 1902 (Berlin, 1997), p. 90.
15. Holstein to Eulenburg, Berlin, 20 October 1891, in J. C. G. Röhl (ed.), Philipp Eulenburgs Politische Korrespondenz, 3 vols. (Boppard, 1976–83), vol. 1, p. 716.
16. H. Rosenbach, Das deutsche Reich, Grossbritannien und der Transvaal (1896–1902). Anfänge deutsch-britische Entfremdung (Göttingen, 1993), pp. 58–61. On similar confusions in the emperor’s Far Eastern policy, see G. A. Craig, Germany 1866–1945 (Oxford, 1978), p. 244.
17. Holstein to Eulenburg, Berlin, 3 February 1897, and Eulenburg to Holstein, Vienna, 7 February 1897, in Rich and Fisher (eds.), Holstein Papers, vol. 4, docs. nos. 599 and 601, pp. 9–14; Hohenlohe to Eulenburg, Berlin, 4 February 1897, in C. zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, Denkwürdigkeiten der Reichskanzlerzeit, ed. K. A. von Müller (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1931), p. 297.
18. Lahme, Deutsche Aussenpolitik, pp. 94–100.
19. Ibid., pp. 373–4.
20. Canis, Von Bismarck zur Weltpolitik, pp. 174–5.
Kaiser Wilhelm II Page 34
