zurück
zur Hauptseite
History 400
Modern European Imperialism
Fall 1999
Term Paper
Wilhelm II – The Kaiser and Imperialism
by Matthias Fuchs
I. Introduction
When assessing the way in which the press
portrayed a figure like Wilhelm II, who stood in the center of the political
life of
II. In November 1897 four German battleships left to
But
in the following months the tone towards
“The
German Emperor [...] standing at Jerusalem surrounded by the representatives of
other protestant peoples [...] dedicating in the cradle of Christianity a new
Church [...] a spectacle such as this [...] is little less than an epitome of
the whole history of Christendom.”[iii] The journey was, apart from being a
touristical visit and “PR”-tour for Wilhelm, intended to secure German
influence in the
The
Times decides to ignore the fact that Wilhelm declared himself the protector of
all Muslims – an affront against England, French and Russia, as most Muslims
lived within their colonies.
The
New York times covered the events in the Turkish Empire in a relatively neutral
way, but did not fail to remark Wilhelm’s exaggerated rhetoric. He stated that
there would be a “black and white German shield over the Catholics in the Far
East [...] and to protect them, my brother is now in the Far East with the
mailed power of the imperial navy.”[v]
But The New York Times also publishes on the next day a satirical poem by
Arthur E. Hyde titled “William in the East.” It shows Wilhelm as a Germanic War
Lord who seeks to take control of the Bosporus:
“The War Lord of the North goes down / to the thought embalming East /
He has seen the Island Kingdom frown / And heard the curse of the priest. / “I
will humble the Cossack yet,” he cries / “And laugh at his fine love feast!” /
So he lifts his hammering arm of Thor / For his father Odin’s lance: / “We will
knock at the Sultan’s reeking door, / and lead out his wifes in the dance. /
Then on Judea’s holy hills! / ‘T’will my Christian fame enhance [...] I hold
the key to the Bosporus now, / And the coveted Golden Horn. / I am the Lord of
the East and the West;”[vi]
The
reaction in the German press to the visit ranges from strong support to utter
disapproval. The nationalistic “Alldeutsche Zeitung” sees the visit as the
first step to the creation of a colonial Empire in the Middle East: “Full speed
ahead now to the Euphrates and Tigris and to the Persian Sea so that the land
way to India once again gets into the hands in which it belongs, into the
pugnacious and industrious German hands!”[vii]
Other, moderate papers avoided to refer to political and economic reasons and
concentrated instead on covering the colorful “touristic” aspects of the
journey. The Frankfurter Zeitung hints to the political implications of the visit
only in a tiny remark citing an English source that said that the Russian ships
were not flying their flags when the Kaiser arrived in Constantinople.[viii]
Only the anti-colonial social-democratic “Vorwaerts” sees the German
capitalists as the driving force behind the visit. It compares Wilhelm’s
“crusade” to the crusades of the Middle Ages and points out that economic, not
religious reasons had to be taken into account in both cases: “the occidental
gold is craving for being invested into the properties that the sick man on the
Bosporus still calls his own.”[ix]
And really, the most important thing achieved by the visit was the permission
to build the “Baghdad Railway”. The satirical magazine “Simplicissimus”
publishes a caricature hinting at the obvious pointlessness of the whole visit.[x]
III. In June 1900 an uprising of native Chinese forces against foreign
influence that came to be known as the Boxer Rebellion was answered by the
European powers by sending troops to China. Wilhelm held a speech on July 27 in
Bremerhaven in front of German troops embarking to China. This speech contained
the following paragraph that aroused much attention:
“When you come upon the enemy, smite him. Pardon will not be given.
Prisoners will not be taken. Whoever falls into your hands is forfeit. Once, a
thousand years ago, the Huns under their King Attila made a name for
themselves, one still potent in legend and tradition. May you in this way make
the name German remembered in China for a thousand years so that no Chinaman
will ever again dare to even squint at a German!”[xi]
This
was by far the most chauvinistic speech ever delivered by Wilhelm. Once again
megalomania had swept away all rational thinking that existed in Williams mind.
Chancellor Buelow and other members of the government usually censored the
Kaiser’s public utterances before they were given to the press, but in this
case, a local reporter had taken down a shorthand version of the speech
unnoticed by von Buelow. This version was printed by some papers while others printed
the “official” versions in which the quoted paragraph was either omitted or
altered.
In
the German papers the speech caused an outcry. The vast majority of the papers
uttered harsh criticism for the contents of the speech. The social-democratic
Vorwaerts devotes its whole first page to present under the headline “Three
Versions!” the three different versions of the speech next to each other to
clearly present to its readers the censoring measures of the government.[xii]
It continues by citing historical facts about the Huns, characterizing them as
a barbaric, primitive race that brought devastation and unbelievable suffering
over Europe. Thereby they implicitly attack Wilhelm’s reverence for the Huns
and their actions. The paper also gives a lengthy account of the status of
“giving pardon” in the international laws, claiming that it is one of the most
sacred elements of modern warfare. It also quotes university professors who say
that giving no pardon would be incompatible with modern attitudes.[xiii]
Again, a hardly concealed criticism of Wilhelm. Two days later the paper
reminds its readers, that this was not the only faux pas of Wilhelm and quotes
speeches from the past 10 years in which Wilhelm also demands bitter vengeance,
fierce punishment, eradication and suppression on all sorts of occasions,
coming to the conclusion that his “no pardon” speech perfectly fits into that
pattern.[xiv]
The
satirical socialist journal “Der wahre Jakob” publishes a cartoon envisaging
German pastimes in China as being “A.M.: Disembowelling, P.M.: Ceremonial
Parade.”[xv]
Even
the more moderate German papers do not restrain their criticism. The
Frankfurter Zeitung points out that all papers, liberal or conservative, have
reacted with “the gravest misgiving” to the speech. It states that they all
agree that a barbaric kind of warfare by the German troops is not desired. The
paper quotes the “Nationalzeitung” which concedes that the Chinese atrocities
could have led to a “natural explosion of the anxiety” of the Kaiser.[xvi]
But they also say that “that does not release us from the duty that is not only
the duty of a civilized man, but also the duty of a Christian.” Thereby they
also criticize the Kaiser, who usually seeks to portray himself as the defender
of Christendom in the world. In contrast to that, the conservative
“Kreuzzeitung”, also quoted by the Frankfurter Zeitung, struggles to construct a different
explanation for the outrageous utterances of Wilhelm. It states that these
utterances had been misinterpreted and that the Kaiser had intended them as a
warning to the troops that the Chinese would give no pardon and take no
prisoners.[xvii]
This interpretation could be justified from the first official version of the
speech, but the second official version (which was still censored) makes it
clear that this interpretation is incorrect.
On
the next day, the Frankfurter Zeitung tries to explain the chauvinistic
outburst by referring to the fact that Wilhelm speaks without any notes and
only prepares his speeches on his own “Because of that, and because of the
general nature of the Kaiser, who is said to be his own Chancellor, any
advisory or warning influence is impossible.”[xviii]
It also expresses its worries about the perception of the speech in foreign
countries.
But that perception was not so bad as might have been assumed. The New
York and the London Times both publish the speech of the Kaiser in their
editions of July 28, without further comment. But two days later The Times
quotes the German press comments and the confusion about the different versions
of the speech. It also sardonically describes the futile attempts of German
papers to explain the utterances away.[xix]
The New York Times also lets the German opinion speak for itself: “It is no
exaggeration to say that nine-tenths of the nation disapproved of the Emperor’s
“no pardon” speech, which Count Buelow vainly endeavored to ‘correct’, i.e.
nullify.”[xx] But
there are also other opinions in the anglophone press. The Daily Telegraph said
that the order to give no pardon was perhaps the only formula which Asiatics
understood and one to which the British had had recourse during the Indian
Mutiny.[xxi]
Much later, in the propaganda of the First World War, the “hun” speech will be
frequently used against the Germans.
IV. When Wilhelm paid a visit to Tangier in Morocco on March 31, 1905, the
coverage of that event was rather neutral in the New York Times and the London
Times. Only a week ago, both had reported a speech delivered by Wilhelm in
Bremen, in which he vowed that if Germany were to become a world power, it
would never use military conquest to achieve that aim.[xxii]
So their predisposition was rather positive, although they clearly saw the
visit as a political demonstration, because the Kaiser guaranteed Morocco’s
sovereignty and said he would protect the German economic interests there. This
was a move that was clearly directed against France, which considered Morocco
to be in their sphere of influence. “The Kaiser spent only two hours in
Tangier, but those two hours may prove to have marked an epoch in the history
of Morocco.”[xxiii]
Naturally the reaction in the French newspapers was quite negative, as the New
York Times points out on the next day. The paper also quotes the German
“Vorwaerts” which recalls the Krueger Telegram from 1896[xxiv]
and says “The Moors had better not expect to much of it [Wilhelm’s assurance of
sovereignty].”[xxv] On
April 15, the New York Times publishes an article in which the German Charge
d’Affairs in Morocco, Count v. Tattenbach-Ashold says that Germany had the
right to preserve its interests and would protect Morocco’s sovereignty. The
little question mark in the title of the article, “To Protect Morocco?” hints
at the fact that the New York Times does not fully believe in the selfless
motives of Germany and rather suspects other goals to be dominant here. Also,
the article ends with a quote of Tattenbach, “The watchword of Germany is
‘dauntlessly forward’.[xxvi]”
As it turned out, it was not Wilhelm who wanted this demonstration,
rather Count von Buelow, the German chancellor, tricked him into doing it, in
an attempt to damage the “entente cordiale” between France and England. The
German economic interests in Morocco were also exaggerated by the German
government.[xxvii]
V. To the Silver Wedding of Wilhelm
on February 27, 1906 an article appears in the New York Times which is probably
the sharpest attack on the German sovereign up to that point in this paper.
Here are some quotes to illustrate the position the author takes towards
Wilhelm’s personality and his domestic and foreign policy:
“Prince William became King of Prussia and
German Emperor. What did Germans know of the new ruler? Very little. What did
he know of them? Even less.” “Naturally mistakes were made [in Wilhelm’s
policy]. If experience were the sole criterion of knowledge, the German Emperor
would be the wisest and most learned man alive.” “His naval experiences in
China, the Philippines, and Venezuelan waters have covered his Ministry of
Marine with the ridicule of the world.” The author also quotes a French
biographer of Wilhelm: “’As soon as he shall have disappeared, the fatality of
his work of self-advertising and noise will be revealed, and his people will
detest him just as much as they now admire him.’”[xxviii]
VI. On October 8, 1908 an interview with Wilhelm was published in the London
Daily Telegraph and by accident passed the censors of the German foreign
office. Wilhelm calls the English “mad, mad as March hares,” that they do not
understand that he is their friend. The Germans in turn were hostile against
England. He tries to give examples of his goodwill against England and reveals
the secret proposal of France and Russia to put pressure on England to end the
Boer war, which he declined. He demands that he had made the English victory
possible by refusing to support the Boers. He even says that he had submitted a
campaign plan to Queen Victoria that had then been used by the English army. He
also says that the German naval buildup was not directed against England but
rather against Japan.[xxix]
The New York Times calls the revelations important but doubts the authenticity
of the interview: “Without his [Wilhelm’s] authorization the story must remain
in the crowded limbo of things ‘important if true.’”[xxx]
The London Times devotes a longer article to the interview and criticizes
Wilhelm’s attempt at dissipating the English distrust towards his policy as
“singularly ill-adapted to accomplish this end.” It also questions the truth of
his statement that the purpose of Germany’s navy would be to defend its
interests in the Far East, as the ships of the navy are all concentrated in the
North and the Baltic Sea and most of them lack the coal capacity to make
lengthy cruises. But then again, the Times also has reservations concerning the
authenticity of the interview.[xxxi]
In another article on the next day an interesting excerpt from an anglophobe
German newspaper, the “Westfaelische Zeitung”, is given.
“The soul of the German nation will be most
deeply wounded by the knowledge that its Kaiser worked out a war plan with
which to annihilate the valiant Boers [...] The German emperor as an unbidden
strategist against a Low German people is a spectacle which centuries cannot
erase. [...] If the interview is authentic, we must confess we not only no
longer understand the Emperor but we also must deeply regret and deplore his
conduct.”[xxxii]
The satirical “Simplicissimus takes a more relaxed stand on the issue in
a cartoon in which the ghosts of Queen Victoria and Krueger meet in the
graveyard. “Krueger”, she says, “Now I can tell you: the plan of campaign was
his,” to which Krueger tellingly replies, “Yes, Queen, and now we also know why
you took such a beating.”[xxxiii]
VII. Finally, it is interesting to take a look at the obituaries that were
published in the London Times, the New York Times and the Time Magazine after
Wilhelm’s death in his Dutch exile in 1941. All three texts leave little doubt
how they value Wilhelm’s personality in retrospective, views that have never
been expressed in such clarity in the times of his reign and can be explained
by the greater distance from which they were written. “Few men in history have
cast so great a spell over the world with so small a foundation of personal
merit as William II,” writes the London Times,[xxxiv]
while the Time Magazine says “Throughout his life his brilliance was marred by
mental shallowness and arrogance.”[xxxv]
The New York Times recalls the prophecy of the old chancellor Bismarck: “’The
young Emperor will either destroy the empire or die in a madhouse.”[xxxvi]
The New York Times also relates Wilhelm’s erratic actions throughout his
political career to his innate diseases, saying that symptoms of his ear
disease were nervous irritability and brain trouble. Concerning his imperialist
actions, the London Times now claims that his “hun” speech of 1900 would be
responsible for German atrocities in China (which were not reported so
prominently at that time, as England was also involved in the military
expedition). The paper also refers to the Daily Telegraph affair (the truth of
which it would not believe at that time) and calls it an “extraordinarily
clumsy bid for British good will.” The London Times also shows the dispatch of
the “Panther” to Agadir as a purely imperialistic action, as the German lives
and property that were claimed to be protected there, were “almost imaginary.”
The New York Times fails to mention the “hun” speech, and takes a
slightly different stand in the second Morocco crisis, implying that the German
action was not totally unjustified, because the French had assimilated Morocco
at a pace that appeared to the Germans as unwarranted by the agreements of the
Algeciras Conference. Also, the New York Times takes a different position on
the question whether Wilhelm was guilty of causing the First World War. They
portray his actions to be leading almost directly to the outbreak of
hostilities. The London Times rather blames the Admirals, including Tirpitz,
for forcing Germany into the War, and the Time Magazine states that “Wilhelm
did not want World War I.”
The most striking revelation that is presented in the obituaries is an
Interview that Wilhelm gave to William Hale onboard the yacht Hohenzollern in
1908. Interestingly enough, no account of it can be found in the London Times.
Hale said after the interview that “Germany is expecting to fight England” and
that the Emperor “poured a stream of insult upon the English for two hours.”
This interview shows the real feelings of Wilhelm, who had always portrayed
himself as a friend of England. The New York Times gives itself credit for
preventing a war between England and Germany by not publishing the interview at
the time it was given. Other passages of the interview are highlighted as well,
due to the fact that the obituaries were written in 1941. They show Wilhelm as
a racist, giving a warning against the “yellow peril”. In the words of the New
York Times, “this prophecy has become a leading part of the Nazi philosophy
under Hitler.” This is what Wilhelm said: “The future belongs to the white
race, never fear! [...] There is no other power in any other civilization or any
other religion that can save humanity; and the future – belongs – to – us.”
After quoting that, the Time Magazine remarks: “The echo returned a generation
later.”[xxxvii]
VIII. Conclusion
Having given an outline of the portrayal of Wilhelm II in the anglo-saxon
press it can be said that his imperialist actions were viewed mostly in a
neutral or critical way by his contemporaries. Surprisingly, many German papers
sometimes sharply criticize his behavior as well, even the moderate press that
is generally pro-monarchy.[xxxviii]
In the articles and books published after his death, virtually all authors
agree that his whole political career was marked by ignorance and clumsiness,
that he was often only an instrument in the hands of Count Buelow, Admiral Tirpitz or the German
generals in World War I.. As a person, they characterize him as a tactless
megalomaniac.
Annotated Bibliography
a)
Biographies of Wilhelm II
Balfour, Michael. The Kaiser and his Times,
London: The Cresset Press, 1964
Balfour
expresses the view generally held about Wilhelm: a man far removed from the real world, overly
self confident and with little political skill. The author also makes the point
that Wilhelm is not alone guilty of the outbreak of the first World War, but
that the generals and certain forces in the German public were also to be held
responsible in part.
Cecil, Lamar. Wilhelm II - Prince and
Emperor 1859-1900, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press,
1989
Cecil uses a wide range of original sources to demonstrate convincingly that at an early age Wilhelm II developed the disturbing character traits and habits that remained constant throughout his life. The general emphasis is clearly on politics, and much of the narrative analyzes the innumerable difficulties German leaders encountered in trying to govern under such a volatile sovereign. Cecil's well-balanced and lively account substantiates the commonly accepted assessment of the Kaiser.
Liman, Paul. Der Kaiser, 1888-1909. Ein
Charakterbild Kaiser Wilhelms II. Leipzig: T. Thomas, 1909 (The
Kaiser, 1888-1909. An analysis of the character of Kaiser Wilhelm II)
Liman
utters severe critcism against Wilhelm and sees his foreign policy as a total
failure. His view is surprising, as the book was published in 1909, when the Kaiser
was still in power. But of course, the author is not anti-colonial, the reason
for his critique is that the “mailed fist” of the Emperor is merely rhetorical
in its character and that Wilhelm failed to secure for Germany the portion of
the world that it, in Liman’s view, rightly deserves.
Roehl, John C. G. (ed.). Der Ort Kaiser
Wilhelms II in der deutschen Geschichte. Munich: R. Oldenburg, 1991 (Kaiser
Wilhelm’s place in German history)
A
collection of essays in German and English covering a wide range of research
topics concerning Wilhelm. His way of governing, the emergence of the
“Weltpolitik”, his naval policy and the question whether he facilitated the
rise of Nazism are, among others, addressed.
b)
German imperial politics in general
Fesser, Gerd. Der Traum vom Platz an der
Sonne: deutsche Weltpolitik 1897-1914. Bremen: Donat, 1996 (The
dream of the “place in the sun”: German “Weltpolitik” 1897-1914)
A well
written analysis of the “Weltpolitik”. The author portrays Wilhelm as a
ridiculous figure among the European kings and also stresses the leading role
of Chancellor Buelow in Wilhelm’s imperialist “adventures”.
Nowak, Karl Friedrich. Germany’s Road to
Ruin. The Middle Years in the Reign of the Emperor William II. New York:
The MacMillan Company, 1932
Another
German source, clearly in the spirit of the time in which it was written, it
blames the advisers of the Kaiser, like Buelow and Holstein, for the failure of
the German foreign policy rather than Wilhelm himself. Nowak claims that
Wilhelm II had always adhered to the constitution and was the only one who had
seen the right course for Germany, but personal flaws and incompetent advisers
had prevented him from following it.
Stoecker, Helmut (ed.). German Imperialism
in Africa. From the Beginnings until the Second World War. London: C.
Hurst&Co., 1986
A good
source for every aspect of German colonialism on the African continent. Various
authors focus on the developments of the German colonies in Togo, Cameroon,
South-West and East Africa, on the economic and military strategies that were
employed, but also on questions of racism and education in the colonies. Other
attempts for colonial expansion, for example in Morocco or South Africa are
also dealt with, as well as the colonial aims in the Nazi-Era.
c) British press’ reactions on German politics
Herkenberg, Karl Otto. The Times und das
deutsch-englische Verhaltnis im Jahre 1898. Berlin, Deutsche
Verlagsgesellschaft fur Politik und Geschichte m.b.H., 1925
(The
Times and the German-English relations in 1898)
A book
that deals with the reflection of the German politics in 1898 in The Times
(London). It is useful only as a primary source, because the conclusions the
author draws are mostly anti-British and aim on showing The Times as a paper with
a generally hostile stand towards Germany that is obviously controlled by the
British government.
d) Other Sources
Coupe, W.A., Kaiser Wilhelm II and the Cartoonists, in: History Today
(Great Britain) 1980, 30 (Nov): 16-22
Frankfurter Zeitung (Germany)
The New York Times
The Times (London)
TIME Magazine
Vorwaerts (Germany)