21. Cited in Rosenbach, Transvaal, p. 70.
22. P. Winzen, Bülows Weltmachtkonzept. Untersuchungen zur Frühphase seiner Aussenpolitik 1897–1901 (Boppard, 1977), pp. 167–8.
23. K. Lerman, The Chancellor as Courtier. Bernhard von Bülow and the Governance of Germany (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 87–91.
24. Rosenbach, Transvaal, p. 258.
25. On Wilhelm and the German navy, see especially J. Steinberg, Yesterday’s Deterrent (London, 1965); V. Berghahn, Der Tirpitzplan. Genesis und Verfall einer innenpolitischen Krisenstrategie (Düsseldorf, 1971); I. Lambi, The Navy and German Power Politics, 1862–1914 (Boston and London, 1984), especially pp. 31–9; Kennedy, Antagonism, p. 407.
26. L. Cecil, Wilhelm II, 2 vols. (Chapel Hill, NC, and London, 1989), vol. 1, Prince and Emperor, 1859–1900, pp. 291–3.
27. P. Winzen, ‘Zur Genesis von Weltmachtkonzept und Weltpolitik’, in J. C. G. Röhl (ed.), Der Ort Kaiser Wilhelms II. in der deutschen Geschichte (Munich, 1991), pp. 189–222, here pp. 192–3.
28. P. Kennedy, ‘The Kaiser and German Weltpolitik: Reflexions on Wilhelm II’s Place in the Making of German Foreign Policy’, in J. C. G. Röhl and N. Sombart (eds.), Kaiser Wilhelm II. New Interpretations (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 143–68, here p. 161.
29. Craig, Germany, pp. 242–3.
30. Canis, Von Bismarck zur Weltpolitik, pp. 142–3.
31. Cited in Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 1, p. 285.
32. Full text of the Kruger telegram is in J. Lepsius, A. Mendelssohn Bartholdy and F. Thimme (eds.), Die grosse Politik der europäischen Kabinette, 1871–1914. Sammlung der diplomatischen Akten des Auswärtigen Amtes, 40 vols. (Berlin, 1922–7), vol. 11, doc. 2610, pp. 31–2.
33. See especially Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 1, pp. 287–9; L. Cecil, ‘History as Family Chronicle’, in Röhl and Sombart (eds.), Wilhelm II, pp. 91–119, here p. 110.
34. Canis, Von Bismarck zur Weltpolitik, p. 181; W. Gutsche, Wilhelm II. Der letzte Kaiser des deutschen Reiches (Berlin, 1991), pp. 86–8; cf. J. C. G. Röhl, Germany Without Bismarck. The Crisis of Government in the Second Reich, 1890–1900 (London, 1967), p. 165; W. Mommsen, War der Kaiser an allem Schuld? Wilhelm II. und die preussisch-deutschen Machteliten (Munich, 2002), p. 87.
35. Cf. W. L. Langer, The Diplomacy of Imperialism (New York, 1951), p. 242; Craig, Germany, pp. 246–7.
36. Rosenbach, Transvaal, pp. 36–7; Canis, Von Bismarck zur Weltpolitik, p. 181; cf. Winzen, ‘Zur Genesis’, p. 194, who suggests that the telegram itself may have been intended to stimulate public support for naval expansion.
37. Cited in Rosenbach, Transvaal, p. 163.
38. Cited in Winzen, ‘Zur Genesis’, p. 193.
39. Cited in Schöllgen, Imperialismus und Gleichgewicht, p. 76.
40. N. Rich, Friedrich von Holstein. Politics and Diplomacy in the Era of Bismarck and Wilhelm II, 4 vols. (Cambridge, 1965), vol. 2, p. 560; Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 1, p. 296; Lambi, Navy, pp. 35–6.
41. Steinberg, Yesterday’s Deterrent, pp. 71, 101–2, 109; Lambi, Navy, pp. 68–86.
42. Steinberg, Yesterday’s Deterrent, p. 201; also pp. 125–48.
43. Telegram, Wilhelm II to Hohenlohe, transcribed in V. Berghahn and W. Deist (eds.), Rüstung im Zeichen der wilhelminischen Weltpolitik. Grundlegende Dokumente, 1890–1914 (Düsseldorf, 1988), doc. III/8, pp. 164–5.
44. V. Berghahn, ‘Des Kaisers Flotte und die Revolutionierung des Mächtesystems vor 1914’, in Röhl (ed.), Der Ort, pp. 173–88, here p. 187.
45. The text of this memorandum is given in Steinberg, Yesterday’s Deterrent, pp. 209–21. See also Berghahn and Deist (eds.), Rüstung im Zeichen, especially documents II/11, II/ 12 and VII/1.
46. P. Winzen, ‘Zur Genesis’, in Röhl (ed.), Der Ort, pp. 189–222, here pp. 199–200.
47. Ibid., pp. 203, 216; cf. Steinberg, Yesterday’s Deterrent, pp. 125–48.
48. The relevant section of this speech is given in Winzen, Bülows Weltmachtkonzept, p. 302.
49. Cited ibid., p. 218.
50. Varnbüler to Weizsäcker, 4 March 1913, HSA Stuttgart, E50/03 207.
51. Berghahn, ‘Des Kaisers Flotte’, in Röhl (ed.), Der Ort, pp. 173–88, here p. 186.
52. Cited ibid., p. 187.
53. Cited in Hildebrand, Das vergangene Reich, p. 223.
54. Wilhelm II to Bülow, Syracuse, 19 April 1904, in Lepsius, Mendelssohn Bartholdy and Thimme (eds.), Die grosse Politik, vol. 20/1, doc. no. 6378, pp. 22–3.
55. Wilhelm II to Nicholas II, 11 February 1904, in W. Goetz (ed.), Briefe Kaiser Wilhelms II. an den Zaren, 1894–1914 (Berlin, 1920), pp. 337–8.
56. Wilhelm II to Nicholas II, 6 June and 19 August 1904, ibid., pp. 340–41.
57. R. McLean, ‘Monarchy and Diplomacy in Europe 1900–1910’, D.Phil. thesis, University of Sussex, 1995, p. 224.
58. Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 1, p. 100.
59. Notes by Eulenburg, 25 September 1905, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 3, p. 2118.
60. McLean, ‘Monarchy and Diplomacy’, p. 228.
61. Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 1, p. 101; Lerman, Chancellor, pp. 128–9.
62. McLean, ‘Monarchy and Diplomacy’, pp. 217–18, 227.
63. A. Savinsky, ‘Guillaume II et la Russie. Ses Dépêches à Nicolas II (1903–1905)’, Revue des Deux Mondes, 92 (December 1922), pp. 765–802, here p. 801.
64. McLean, ‘Monarchy and Diplomacy’, pp. 234–7.
65. Metternich to Foreign Office, London, 4 June 1904, Lepsius, Mendelssohn, Bartholdy and Thimme (eds.), Die Grosse Politik, vol. 20/1, doc. no. 6384, pp. 29–30.
66. Hildebrand, Das vergangene Reich, pp. 222–3.
67. Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 2, p. 92.
68. The relevant section of this speech can be found in M. Balfour, The Kaiser and His Times (London, 1964), p. 255.
69. Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 2, p. 94; Kennedy, Antagonism, p. 276.
70. Cited in Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 2, p. 97.
71. Lerman, Chancellor, pp. 147–8.
72. Kennedy, Antagonism, p. 280.
73. Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 2, pp. 162–3; Gutsche, Wilhelm II, p. 139; Hildebrand, Das vergangene Reich, p. 263.
74. Gutsche, Wilhelm II, pp. 137–8.
75. Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 2, p. 162.
76. Ibid.
77. K. Jarausch, The Enigmatic Chancellor. Bethmann-Hollweg and the Hubris of Imperial Germany (New Haven, CT, and London, 1973), p. 111.
78. Cited in H. Afflerbach, Falkenhayn: Politisches Denken und Handeln im Kaiserreich (Munich, 1994), p. 76.
79. Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 2, p. 165.
80. Falkenhayn to Hanneken, 24 August 1911, cited in Affler-bach, Falkenhayn, p. 76.
81. Falkenhayn to Hanneken, 22 March 1912, cited ibid., p. 99.
82. Ibid., p. 58.
83. Eulenburg to Hohenlohe, Vienna, 8 February 1897, in Hohenlohe, Denkwürdigkeiten, p. 298.
84. See especially Röhl, ‘A Suitable Case for Treatment?’, p. 15.
85. McLean, ‘Monarchy and Diplomacy’, p. 91.
86. Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 2, p. 98.
87. Paulmann, ‘Monarchical Relations’, pp. 172–6.
88. See e.g. van den Hoeven to Hartsen, Berlin, 19 June 1888, in which the envoy states that fears regarding Wilhelm’s bellicosity are ‘without foundation’; Gevers (Dutch envoy) to Dutch Foreign Office, Berlin, 20 March 1914, Algemeen Rijksarchief, 2.05.19, Bestanddeelen 13, 21; M. S. Selig-mann, ‘Germany and the Origins of the First World War in the Eyes of the American Diplomatic Establishment’, German History, 15 (1997), pp. 307–32, here pp. 316–17, 330–31.
89. J. Cockfield, ‘Germany and the Fashoda Crisis 1898–99’, Central European History, 16 (1983), p. 273; Kennedy, Antagonism, p. 237.
90. C. M. Andrew, ‘German World Policy and the Reshaping of the Dual Alliance’, Journal of Contemporary History, 1 (1966), pp. 137–51, here pp. 143, 150–51.
91. G. P. Gooch, ‘Holstein’, in idem, Studies in German History (London, 1948), pp. 39
1–511, here p. 511.
92. Cf. Kennedy, ‘The Kaiser and German Weltpolitik’, in Röhl and Sombart (eds.), Kaiser Wilhelm II, pp. 143–68, here p. 161.
93. N. Ferguson, The Pity of War (London, 1998), p. 70.
94. Cf. Berghahn, Germany and the Coming of War, pp. 120–22 and I. Geiss, ‘The German Version of Imperialism: Weltpolitik’, in G. Schöllgen, Escape into War? The Foreign Policy of Imperial Germany (Oxford, New York and Munich, 1990), pp. 105–20, here p. 118.
95. Thus Bethmann’s ‘Sketch of a Conceivable Formula’ for the Anglo-German negotiations, cited in R. Langhorne, ‘Great Britain and Germany, 1911–1914’, in F. Hinsley (ed.), British Foreign Policy under Sir Edward Grey (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 288–314, here pp. 293–4.
96. Ferguson, Pity of War, p. 72; Langhorne, ‘Great Britain and Germany’, pp. 294–5.
97. See R. Langhorne, ‘The Naval Question in Anglo-German Relations, 1912–1914’, Historical Journal, 14 (1971), pp. 359–70, here p. 369.
98. See L. Sondhaus, Preparing for Weltpolitik. German Sea Power before the Tirpitz Era (Annapolis, MD, 1997); H. Wilderotter, ‘ “Unsere Zukunft liegt auf dem Wasser.” Das Schiff als Metapher und die Flotte als Symbol des wilhelminischen Kaiserreichs’, in H. Wilderotter and K.-D. Pohl (eds.), Der letzte Kaiser. Wilhelm II. im Exil (Berlin, 1991), pp. 55–78, especially pp. 70–71.
99. Craig, Germany, p. 249; Geiss, ‘The German Version of Imperialism’, p. 111.
100. Cf. Kennedy, ‘The Kaiser and German Weltpolitik’, pp. 158–9.
101. Cited in J. Steinberg, ‘The Copenhagen Complex’, Journal of Contemporary History, 1 (1966), pp. 23–46, here p. 27.
102. Canis, Von Bismarck zur Weltpolitik, p. 266.
6. POWER AND PUBLICITY
1. Wilhelm II, My Early Life (London, 1926), p. 292.
2. See e.g. Eulenburg to Wilhelm II, Oldenburg, 1 January 1890, in J. C. G. Röhl (ed.), Philipp Eulenburgs Politische Korrespondenz, 3 vols. (Boppard, 1976–83), vol. 1, p. 402.
3. T. Kohut, Wilhelm II and the Germans. A Study in Leadership (New York and Oxford, 1991), p. 137.
4. Ibid., p. 133. On the Kaiser’s attitude to press reportage on his person, see also J. C. G. Röhl, Wilhelm II. Der aufbau der persönlichen Monarchie (Munich, 2001), pp. 141, 436; G. Stöber, Pressepolitik als Notwendigkeit. Zum Verhältnis von Staat und Öffentlichkeit im wilhelminischen Deutschland, 1890–1914 (Stuttgart, 2000), p. 189.
5. J. Peers, ‘White Roses and Eating Disorders: A Feminist Re-Reading of Auguste Viktoria of Germany, 1858–1921’, unpublished manuscript of a paper delivered at the twelfth biennial conference of the Australasian Association of European Historians, 1999. I am grateful to Dr Peers for letting me see a copy of this manuscript.
6. Bülow to Eulenburg, Bucarest, 9 January 1893, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 2, pp. 1000–1001.
7. R. Engelsing, Massenpublikum und Journalistentum im 19. Jahrhundert in Nordwestdeutschland (Berlin, 1966), p. 26.
8. M. Kohlrausch, Der Monarch im Skandal. Die Logik der Massenmedien und die Transformation der wilhelminischen Monarchie (Berlin, 2005), pp. 48–66.
9. H.-U. Wehler, Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte, 5 vols. (Munich, 1995), vol. 3, Von der ‘deutschen Doppelrevolution’ bis zum Beginn des Ersten Weltkrieges 1849–1914, p. 1249.
10. Andreas Schulz, ‘Der Aufstieg der “vierten Gewalt”. Medien, Politik und Öffentlichkeit im Zeitalter der Massenkommunikation’, Historische Zeitschrift, 270 (2000), pp. 65–97.
11. Kohut, Wilhelm II, pp. 235–8.
12. See Eisenhardt to Valentini, 11 August 1910, pencilled comment, GStA Berlin (Dahlem), HA I, Rep. 89, Nr 678.
13. Empress Friedrich to Queen Victoria, (?) September 1891, in F. E. G. Ponsonby (ed.), Letters of the Empress Friedrich (London, 1928), pp. 427ff.
14. Anon., ‘Kaiser Wilhelm als Redner’, Trierische Landeszeitung, 30 May 1913 (cutting), in GStA Berlin (Dahlem) HA I, Rep. 89, Nr 679.
15. K. Lamprecht, Der Kaiser (Berlin, 1913), p. 75.
16. This speech is reported by an eyewitness in a diary entry of 20 November 1890 in E. von Wedel (ed.), Zwischen Kaiser und Kanzler. Aufzeichnungen des Generaladjutanten Grafen Carl von Wedel aus den Jahren 1890–1894 (Leipzig, 1943), p. 131. A milder version of the same address appears in J. Penzler (ed.), Die Reden Kaiser Wilhelms II. in den Jahren 1888–1895 (Leipzig, n.d.), p. 197.
17. See especially B. Sösemann, ‘ “Pardon wird nicht gegeben; Gefangene nicht gemacht”. Zeugnisse und Wirkungen einer rhetorischen Mobilmachung’, in H. Wilderotter and K.-D. Pohl (eds.), Der letzte Kaiser. Wilhelm II. im Exil (Berlin, 1991), pp. 79–94.
18. Van Tets van Goudriaan to Beaufort, Berlin, 25 March 1901, Algemeen Rijksarchief Den Haag, 2.05.19, Bestanddeel 18.
19 19, Bestanddeel 18. 19. V. Berghahn, Germany and the Coming of War in 1914 (Basing-stoke, 1993), pp. 28–30; N. Stargardt, The German Idea of Militarism (Cambridge, 1994), p. 96.
20. Waldersee, diary entry of 21 November 1890, in H. O. Meissner (ed.), Denkwürdigkeiten des General-Feldmarschall Alfred Graf von Waldersee, 3 vols. (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1922), vol. 2, p. 162.
21. Wedel, diary entry of 20 November 1890, in idem (ed.), Zwischen Kaiser und Kanzler, p. 131.
22. O. Pflanze, Bismarck and the Development of Germany, 3 vols. (Princeton, NJ, 1990), vol. 3, The Period of Fortification, p. 394; Waldersee, diary entry of 21 April 1891, in Meisner (ed.), Denkwürdigkeiten, vol. 2, p. 206; on particularist responses, see Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 1, p. 679, n. 2.
23. See e.g. Wilhelm’s speeches to the Diet, 24 February 1892 and 24 February 1894, in L. Elkind (ed. and trans.), The German Emperor’s Speeches. Being a Selection from the Speeches, Edicts, Letters and Telegrams of the Emperor William II (London, 1904), pp. 292, 295.
24. Eulenburg to Wilhelm, Munich, 10 March 1892, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 2, p. 798; emphases in original.
25. Brauer to Turban, Berlin, 25 February 1891, in W. P. Fuchs (ed.), Grossherzog Friedrich I. von Baden und die Reichspolitik 1871–1907, 4 vols. (Stuttgart, 1968–80), vol. 3, pp. 48–9; cf. Eulenburg to Bülow, Vöslau, 8 June 1896, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 3, p. 1693.
26. O. von Helldorf-Bedra to Philipp Eulenburg, Berlin, 7 March 1892, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 2, p. 788.
27. Caprivi to Eulenburg, Berlin, 28 February 1892, ibid., p. 782.
28. Wilhelm II, speech to the Brandenburg Diet, 26 February 1897, in Elkind (ed.), The German Emperor’s Speeches, p. 300; see also Kohut, Wilhelm II, p. 138. On ‘charismatization’, see I. V. Hull, ‘Der Kaiserliche Hof als Herrschaftsinstrument’, in Wilderotter and Pohl (eds.), Der letzte Kaiser, pp. 26–7.
29. See e.g. speech given at a gala dinner in Münster, 31 August 1907, based on notes written by Wilhelm himself, GStA Berlin (Dahlem), HA I, Rep. 89, Nr 673, fo. 28.
30. Stenogram of a speech given at Memel, 23 September 1907, GStA Berlin (Dahlem), HA I, Rep. 89, Nr 673, fo. 30.
31. Holstein to Eulenburg, 27 February 1892, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 2, p. 780.
32. On satirical depictions of Wilhelm II, see A. T. Allen, Satire and Society in Wilhelmine Germany. Kladderadatsch & Simplicissimus 1890–1914 (Lexington, 1984), pp. 53–63; E. A. Coupe, ‘Kaiser Wilhelm II and the Cartoonists’, History Today, 30 (November 1980), pp. 16–23.
33. F. Wedekind, ‘In the Holy Land’, cited from the translation in Kohut, Wilhelm II, p. 146.
34. The image is reproduced in Allen, Satire and Society, p. 50.
35. J. Rebentisch, Die vielen Gesichter des Kaisers. Wilhelm II. in der deutschen und britischen Karikatur (Berlin, 2000), pp. 60ff.
36. H. Abret and A. Keel, Die Majestätsbeleidigungsaffäre des ‘Simplicissimus’-Verlegers Albert Langen. Briefe und Dokumente zu Exil und Begnadigung 1898–1903 (Frankfurt am Main, 1985), especially pp. 40–41.
37. Empress Friedrich to Queen Victoria, 27 February 1892, in Ponsonby (ed.), Letters of the
Empress Friedrich, p. 434.
38. See Eulenburg to Wilhelm, Munich, 29 December 1892, Holstein to Eulenburg, Berlin, 27 February 1893 and Holstein to Eulenburg, Berlin, 7 April 1895, in Röhl (ed.), Politische Korrespondenz, vol. 2, pp. 1000–1001, 1031, 1488.
39. Marschall to Eulenburg, Berlin, 6 May 1891, ibid., vol. 1, p. 679.
40. Eulenburg to Wilhelm II, Berlin, 28 November 1891, ibid., vol. 1, p. 730.
41. O. von Helldorf-Bedra to Eulenburg, Berlin, 24 March 1892, ibid., vol. 2, p. 825.
42. Princess Marie Radziwill, diary entry of 27 November 1890, in P. Wiegler, Briefe vom deutschen Kaiserhof 1889–1915 (Berlin, 1936), p. 34.
43. Consistorial Councillor Blau to Lucanus (chief of Civil Cabinet), Wernigerode, 4 April 1906, GStA Berlin (Dahlem), HA I, Rep. 89, Nr 672, fo. 17.
44. Wedel, diary entries of 20 and 22 April 1891, in idem, Zwischen Kaiser und Kanzler, pp. 176, 177.
45. See Dr Lier to Lucanus, Dresden, 24 October 1905, and Lucanus to Dr Lier (telegram), Berlin, 25 October 1905, GStA Berlin (Dahlem), HA I, Rep. 89, Nr 671, fo. 11.
46. B. Reuter (editor, Kölnische Volkszeitung) to Lucanus, Cologne, 6 September 1907, GStA Berlin (Dahlem), HA I, Rep. 89, Nr 673, fo. 29.
47. See e.g. Wedel, diary entry of 22 April 1891, in idem, Zwischen Kaiser und Kanzler, p. 177.
48. The original speech has been painstakingly reconstructed and analysed in B. Sösemann, ‘Die sogenannte Hunnenrede Wilhelms II. Textkritische und interpretatorische Bemerkungen zur Ansprache des Kaisers vom 27 Juli 1900 in Bremerhaven’, Historische Zeitschrift, 222 (1976), pp. 342–58.
49. Ibid., pp. 345–6.
50. P. A. Cohen, History in Three Keys. The Boxers as Event, Experience and Myth (New York, 1997), pp. 161–2.
51. D. Junker, ‘Das Deutsche Reich im Urteil der USA 1871–1945’, in K. Hildebrand (ed.), Das Deutsche Reich im Urteil der Grossen Mächte und europäischen Nachbarn (1871–1945), (Munich, 1995), pp. 141–58, here p. 147.
52. Sösemann, ‘Hunnenrede’, pp. 353–5.
53. Cited in Kohlrausch, Monarch im Skandal, p. 74.
54. Speech by August Bebel, in Stenographische Berichte über die Verhandlungen des Reichstages (hereafter: StB Reichstag), 19 November 1900, especially pp. 29–31.
Kaiser Wilhelm II Page 35