A shorter version of this article was read as a paper at the Duquesne History Forum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Nov. 1, 1972.

1. The best of a poor lot of biographies of William II is probably still von Kürenberg, Joachim, The Kaiser (New York, 1955),Google Scholar which benefits greatly from the critical use of a number of personal interviews between the author and the ex-Kaiser. Among the better recent offerings are Balfour, Michael, The Kaiser and His Times (Boston, 1964),Google Scholar and Cowles, Virginia, The Kaiser (New York, 1963).Google Scholar The latter, however, inclines to gossip. Eyck, Erich, in Das Persönliche Regiment Wilhelms II. (Erlenbach-Zürich, 1948),Google Scholar and Röhl, J. C. G., in Germany without Bismarck: The Crisis of Government in the Second Reich, 1890–1900 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967),Google Scholar tend, in the opinion of this writer, to exaggerate somewhat William's practical influence on German policy. A good example of how not to write a biography is Kracke, Friedrich, Prinz und Kaiser: Wilhelm II. im Urteil seiner Zeit (Munich, 1960),Google Scholar which is full, not only of facile judgements, but also of misquotations and incorrect citations. The Kaiser's memoirs are wholly apologetic, but, even by virtue of that fact, do give some insight into his personality: William II, Aus Meinem Leben, 1859–1888, 6th ed. (Berlin, 1927);Google ScholarEreignisse und Gestalten aus den Jahren 1878–1918 (Leipzig and Berlin, 1922)Google Scholar trans. Ybarra, Thomas R. as The Kaiser's Memoirs (New York and London, 1922).Google Scholar

2. On the Kaiser's intelligence and work habits, cf. von Zedlitz-Trützschler, Robert, Zwölf Jahre am deutschen Kaiserhof (Stuttgart, 1923), pp. 7–9;Google Scholarvon Monts, Anton, Erinnerungen und Gedanken (Berlin, 1932), pp. 137, 140;Google Scholarvon Tirpitz, Alfred, Erinnerungen, 5th ed. (Berlin and Leipzig, 1919), p. 135;Google Scholarzu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, Alexander, Aus Meinem Leben (Frankfurt, 1925), p. 359;Google Scholarvon Bülow, Bernhard, Denkwürdigkeiten (Berlin, 1930–1931), I, 5, 148, 268;Google Scholarvon Waldersee, Alfred, Denkwürdigkeiten, ed. Meisner, H. O. (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1925), II, 370, 442–43;Google ScholarNichols, J. Alden, Germany after Bismarck: The Caprivi Era, 1890–1894 (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), p. 314;CrossRefGoogle Scholarvon Spitzemberg, Hildegard, Das Tagebuch der Baronin Spitzemberg, ed. Vierhaus, Rudolf (Göttingen, 1960), pp. 398–99.Google Scholar Cf. also the Empress Frederick's comments about her son, made shortly after Prince Hohenlohe's appointment to the chancellorship: “When things have once been misrepresented to W[illiam] and he has formed an opinion, which he does in two minutes,… it is, of course, no use to remonstrate. He takes criticism very much amiss, and unfortunately it does not make an impression or have the desired effect of enlightening or convincing him … so that whatever shadow of influence one might have on this or that occasion or question would of a certainty be destroyed. There is nothing for it but to shut one's mouth and only seize whatever good opportunity chance may offer one, however rare this may be, to say what one thinks. Poor Prince Hohenlohe has no easy task.” Empress Frederick to her mother, Queen Victoria of England, Dec. 18, 1894, in Victoria, Frederick, Empress, Letters of the Empress Frederick, ed. Ponsonby, Sir Frederick (London, 1928), p. 449.Google Scholar

3. Quoted in Empress Frederick to Queen Victoria, Nov. 10, 1888, Letters of the Empress Frederick, p. 363.

4. Nichols, Germany after Bismarck, pp. 41–42, 314.

5. Haller, Johannes, Aus dem Leben des Fürsten Philipp zu Eulenburg-Hertefeld (Berlin, 1924), p. 260.Google Scholar These comments come from a memorandum written by Eulenburg in 1920, long after his fall from the Kaiser's favor because of alleged homosexuality.

6. William complained that Caprivi was obstinate and that “he is not congenial to me.” Nichols, Germany after Bismarck, pp. 329, 355–56. On the governmental crisis of October 1894, cf. also Geis, Robert, Der Sturz des Reichskanzlers Caprivi (Berlin, 1930);Google Scholar Röhl, Germany without Bismarck, pp. 110–22.

7. From Eulenburg's diary of Oct. 24, 1894, in Haller, Eulenburg, p. 154.

8. Empress Frederick to Queen Victoria, Jan. 4, 1895, Letters of the Empress Frederick, pp. 449–50.

9. The best source for Hohenlohe's early career is his memoirs: zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, Chlodwig, Denkwürdigkeiten, ed. Curtius, Friedrich, 2 vols. (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1906).Google Scholar Hohenlohe referred to himself as a “moderate liberal” in 1871 and again in 1894: zu Hohenlohe, Chlodwig, Rechenschaftsbericht des Reichstagabgeordneten…Fürsten Chlodwig von Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst über die erste Reichstagssession… am 10. September 1871 (Forchheim, 1871), p. 5;Google Scholarzu Hohenlohe, Chlodwig, Denkwürdigekeiten der Reichskanzlerzeit, ed. von Müller, K. A. (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1931), p. 10Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit).

10. Holstein to Hohenlohe, Berlin, Nov. 17, 1894, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, p. 15.

11. Cf. Hohenlohe's, diary, Dec. 31, 1894, ibid., p. 27; Hohenlohe, Alexander, Aus Meinem Leben, pp. 282–83, 352;Google Scholarvon Reischach, Hugo, Under Three Emperors (London, 1927), pp. 170–71.Google Scholar

12. The Kaiser to Caprivi, Sept. 9, 1894, in Zechlin, Egmont, Staatsstreichpläne Bismarcks und Wilhelms II., 1890–1894 (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1929), pp. 191–92.Google Scholar On the Kaiser's political mood in 1894–1895, cf. also ibid., pp. 186–88; Nichols, Germany after Bismarck, pp. 333–34, 338–39, 340, 341–42; Wippermann, Karl, ed., Deutscher Geschichtskalender (Leipzig, 1885–1934), X (II), 3–5;Google ScholarSchulthess' Europäischer Geschichtskalender (Munich, 1860–1938), 1894, p. 140.Google Scholar

13. Memo by Hohenlohe for a conversation with the Kaiser, no date [Feb. 1895], cf. also memoranda by Hohenlohe, Berlin, Oct. 31, 1894, May 17, 1895, and Sept. 19, 1895, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 7, 44–45, 65–67, 98–99; von Hutten-Czapski, Bogdan, Sechzig Jahre Politik und Gesellschaft (Berlin, 1936), I, 266;Google Scholar minutes of the meeting of the Prussian ministry, Oct. 31, 1894, Hauptarchiv (Berlin-Dahlem), III. Hpt. Abt. A. A., no. 1180.

14. Hohenlohe to Köller (Prussian Minister of the Interior), Berlin, Sept. 20, 1895, Hohenlohe Papers (Bundesarchiv, Koblenz), Rep. 100, XXII A 5 (hereinafter cited as HP). Cf. Hohenlohe to Grand Duke Friedrich of Baden, Mar. 5, 1895, memo by Hohenlohe, Berlin, Sept. 19, 1895, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 47–48, 98–99. On Dec. 6, 1894, Alexander Hohenlohe, the chancellor's son, wrote to Philipp Eulenburg: “Here, too, my father's principle of se presser lentement would probably be the right one. The moment will come when we can strike with a real chance of success.” Eulenburg Papers (Bundesarchiv, Koblenz), XXXIII, 954–55 (hereinafter cited as EP).

15. Hohenlohe to the Kaiser, no date (late Aug. 1895), memo by Hohenlohe, Sept. 19, 1895, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 93, 98–99; Hohenlohe to Köller, Aug. 31 and Sept. 20, 1895, HP, Rep. 100, XXII A 5; Hohenlohe to P. Eulenburg, Alt-Aussee, Sept. 25, 1895, EP, XXXVII, A bill to increase the penalties against subversion and other forms of revolutionary activity (the so-called Umsturzvorlage or “Revolution Bill”) had already failed to pass the Reichstag in May 1895. Stenographische Berichte über die Verhandlungen des Deutschen Reichstags (1894–1895), I, 206ff., III, 2137–244, Anlage, I, 224–32 (hereinafter cited as Reichstag).

16. Memo by Wilmowski (chief of the Reich Chancellery Office), Oct. 10, 1895, HP, Rep. 100, XXII A 6; cf. Herzfeld, Hans, Johannes von Miquel (Detmold, 1938), II, 459–60.Google Scholar

17. Cf. P. Eulenburg to Holstein, Stettin, Sept. 9, 1895, EP, XXXVII, 594: “The Kaiser has so often expressed his desire not to part from the chancellor under any circumstances… that I cannot doubt his earnestness.” Italics are Eulenburg's. Also P. Eulenburg to Hohenlohe, Rominten, Sept. 21, 1895, EP, XXXVII, 613–16; Bülow to Monts, Milan, Oct. 13, 1895, Monts, Erinnerungen, p. 339. Apparently, William did not even mention the subject of antisocialist action at Hohenlohe's audience on October 31: Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, Oct. 31, 1895, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 114–16.

18. On William's general attitude toward the navy, cf. especially Steinberg, Jonathan, Yesterday's Deterrent: Tirpitz and the Birth of the German Battle Fleet (New York, 1965), pp. 26, 64–65, 72–74, 85–87;Google ScholarHallmann, Hans, Der Weg zum deutschen Schlachtflottenbau (Stuttgart, 1933), pp. 49, 56–62, 101;Google ScholarKehr, Eckart, Schlachtflottenbau und Parteipolitik, 1894–1901 (Berlin, 1930), p. 177;Google Scholar Kürenberg, The Kaiser, pp. 15–18, 126.

19. Langer, William L., The Diplomacy of Imperialism, 1890–1902, 2nd ed. (New York, 1956), pp. 213–54:Google ScholarWüd, Johannes Andreas, “Die Rolle der Burenrepubliken in der Auswärtigen und Kolonialen Politik des Deutschen Reiches in den Jahren 1883–1900” (unpub. diss., Munich, 1926), p. 76;Google ScholarPenner, C. D., “Germany and the Transvaal before 1896,” Journal of Modern History, XII (1940), 31–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The German ambassador in London was instructed to break relations with the British government unless the latter disavowed Jameson. Marschall to Hatzfeldt, Dec. 31, 1895, Die Grosse Politik der Europäischen Kabinette, 1871–1914: Sammlung der Diplomatischen Akten des Auswärtigen Amtes (Berlin, 1922–1927), XI, 19Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as GP).

20. Memo by Alexander Hohenlohe on the origins of the Krüger telegram, Feb. 1914, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, p. 613; Lehmann, Konrad, “Zu Kaiser Wilhelms II. England-Politik,” Historische Zeitschrift, CXLVII (1933), 554–55.Google Scholar

21. Memo by Alexander Hohenlohe, Feb. 1914, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, p. 613; Waldersee's diary, Jan. 5, 1896, Waldersee, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 363.Google Scholar The Kaiser apparently read his proposed telegram to Radolin on the evening of January 1: Meyer, Arnold Oskar, “Fürst Hohenlohe und die Krügerdepesche,” Archiv für Politik und Geschichte, II (1924), 592–93.Google Scholar Meyer quotes an affidavit from Johann von Mesmer-Saldern, a close friend of Radolin, who was with the latter in Berlin on Jan. 1, 1896. Cf. also Haake, Paul, “Das Krügertelegramm,” Velhagen und Klasings Monatshefte, XXXIX (1925), 510;Google ScholarLehmann, , “Zu Kaiser Wilhelms II. England-Politik,” Historische Zeitschrift, CXLVII, 554–55.Google Scholar

22. From Marschall's diary, in Thimme, Friedrich, “Die Krüger-Depesche: Genesis und historische Bedeutung,” Europäische Gespräche, II (1924), 212–13.Google Scholar

23. The three admirals present were Friedrich von Hollmann, Reich secretary of the navy; Wilhelm von Knorr, the navy's commanding admiral; and Gustav von Senden und Bibran, chief of the Naval Cabinet (the Kaiser's personal secretariat for naval matters). The latter two had recently been agitating for large increases in the size and strength of the German navy. Cf. ibid.; Hohenlohe's diary, Jan. 3, 1896, Holstein to Hohenlohe, no date, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 151, 327–28; Hutten-Czapski, , 60 Jahre, I, 276. Holstein's account was written in 1909Google Scholar: von Holstein, Friedrich, The Holstein Papers, ed. Rich, Norman and Fisher, M. H. (Cambridge, 1955–1963), I, 162.Google Scholar Also Bülow, , Denkwürdigkeiten, I, 473–74.Google Scholar Bülow, German ambassador in Rome, got his information mostly from Marschall.

24. Cf. memo by Alexander Hohenlohe, Feb. 1914, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 612–14; Holstein to Hatzfeldt, Apr. 12, 1897, Holstein, , Papers, IV, 22;Google Scholar Marschall's diary in Thimme, , “Krüger-Depesche,” Europäische Gespräche, II, 212–13.Google Scholar

25. The telegram from William II to Krüger read: “I express to you my sincere congratulations that you have succeeded, without appealing for the assistance of friendly powers and with the strength of your own people, in restoring peace and the independence of the country against attacks from without by armed bands which broke into your country as disturbers of the peace.” GP, XI, 31–32. The telegram was drafted, on Marschall's instructions, by Paul Kayser. Cf. a letter from Kayser's widow to Thimme, , “Krüger-Depesche”, Europäische Gespräche, II, 224.Google ScholarHutten-Czapski, , 60 Jahre, I, 276–77.Google Scholar

26. Hohenlohe's diary, Jan. 3, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, p. 151; Admiral Senden's diary in Thimme, , “Krüger-Depesche,” Europäische Gespräche, II, 218, 220, also pp. 241–43Google Scholar: Hohenlohe to the Kaiser, Jan. 4, 1896; Holstein, , Papers, I, 162;Google Scholar Hohenlohe to the Kaiser, Jan. 7, 1896, GP, XI, 37–39 (cf. esp. William's marginal note); Holstein to Hatzfeldt, Jan. 8, 1896, GP, XI, 41.

27. Letter from Knorr's widow to Thimme, , “Krüger-Depesche,” Europäische Gespräche, II, 226–27;Google ScholarHaake, , “Krügertelegramm,” Velhagen und Klasings Monatshefte, XXXIX, 511–12.Google Scholar

28. Cf. William II, Ereignisse und Gestalten, pp. 69–71.

29. The Kaiser's attitude was shared by a considerable segment of the German public: cf. Wippermann, , Geschichtskalender, XII (1), 61–64;Google ScholarSchulthess, 1896, p. 20; Preussische Jahrbücher, LXXXIII, 403–6, 593. On the Kaiser's motives: Thimme, , “Krüger-Depesche,” Europäische Gesprächer, II, 202–22;Google Scholar Langer, Diplomacy of Imperialism, p. 249.

30. Hohenlohe to the Kaiser, Berlin, Jan. 7, 1896, the Kaiser to Hohenlohe, Neues Palais, Jan. 8, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 152–54; Hutten-Czapski, , 60 Jahre, I, 277–78;Google Scholar Hallmann, Schlachtflottenbau, pp. 137–237; Hallmann, Hans, Krügerdepesche und Flottenfrage (Stuttgart, 1927), pp. 9, 38–39, 46, 51–52, 77;Google Scholar Steinberg, Yesterday's Deterrent, pp. 77–81; Kehr, Schlachtflottenbau, p. 51.

31. Hohenlohe eventually supported Tirpitz's programs of naval expansion: cf. Hohenlohe to Völderndorff, Berlin, Oct. 31 and Nov. 7, 1897, Hohenlohe, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 531–32;Google ScholarHutten-Czapski, , 60 Jahre, I, 317,Google Scholar 346. The creation of a strong navy had, at least since 1848, been a common demand of German nationalists.

32. Cf. their statements in the Reichstag: Reichstag (1895–1897), II, 1533–37 (Fritzen, Mar. 18, 1896), 1548–50 (Bennigsen, Mar. 18); Wippermann, , Geschichtskalender, XII(1), 91–92, 97.Google Scholar

33. Hohenlohe to the Kaiser, Berlin, Jan. 14, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 156–58. If Hohenlohe had chosen from the Center Party its de facto leader, Ernst Lieber, he would probably have received a reply more favorable to the naval loan. Cf. Lieber's motion of Feb. 7, 1896, in the Budget Committee of the Reichstag to approve the regular naval budget without reductions: Kehr, Schlachtflottenbau, pp. 58–60; Bachem, Karl, Vorgeschichte, Geschichte und Politik der deutschen Zentrumspartei, 1815–1914 (Cologne, 1927–1932), v, 322, 460–61.Google Scholar

34. Marginal note by Senden, Jan. 14, 1896, in Hallmann, Krügerdepesche und Flottenfrage, pp. 40–41. The consent of both the popularly elected Reichstag and the Bundesrat, in which the twenty-five state governments within the German Empire were represented, was essential to the passage of all legislation.

35. Admiral Senden was pushing Tirpitz for the post of secretary of the navy: Kehr, Schlachtflottenbau, p. 464; Steinberg, Yesterday's Deterrent, pp. 91–92. At this time, Senden was perhaps closer to William than was any other individual at court: cf. Hohenlohe's diary, Dec. 12, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 288–89; Haller, Eulenburg, pp. 249–50.

36. Tirpitz, Erinnerungen, p. 60; Steinberg, Yesterday's Deterrent, p. 90; Hallmann, Schlachtflottenbau, pp. 188–89, 200–201. Tirpitz was appointed secretary of the navy in June 1897.

37. Hollmann to Hohenlohe, Jan. 25, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, p. 162; cf. Holstein to Hatzfeldt, Jan. 16, 1896, Holstein, , Papers, III, 586;Google Scholar Holstein to P. Eulenburg, Berlin, Jan. 27, 1896, EP, XL, 29; Haller, Eulenburg, p. 191–92; Waldersee's diary, Jan. 21, 1896, Waldersee, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 365–66.Google Scholar

38. Cf. Reischach, Under Three Emperors, pp. 170–71; von Hertling, Georg, “Fürst Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst und seine Denkwürdigkeiten,” Hochland, IV (1907), 681, 689.Google Scholar

39. Cf. P. Eulenburg to the Kaiser, Vienna, Feb. 27, 1896, EP, XL, 106; Waldersee's diary, Altona, Feb. 9, 1896, Waldersee, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 367.Google Scholar Eulenburg denied, however, that a dismissal of the chancellor was imminent: P. Eulenburg, to Holstein, Vienna, Jan. 31, 1896, Holstein, , Papers, III, 589;Google Scholar cf. Alexander Hohenlohe to Völderndorff, Berlin, Feb. 10, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 170–71.

40. On Holstein's views in the winter and spring of 1895–1896, Holstein to P. Eulenburg, Berlin, Dec. 25, 1895, EP, XXXIX, 944; Dec. 21, 1895, Feb. 9 and 17, 1896, Holstein, , Papers, III, 576–78, 592–94;Google Scholar Dec. 23, and 26, 1895, Haller, Eulenburg, pp. 183–85; Hohenlohe's diary, Vienna, Dec. 29, 1895, Berlin, Mar. 2 and 7, 1896, memos by Hohenlohe, Jan. 18 and Feb. 28, 1896, Hutten-Czapski to Hohenlohe, Berlin, Mar. 6, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 146, 161, 181–82, 185, 187–88; Hutten-Czapski, , 60 Jahre, I, 241;Google ScholarRich, Norman, Friedrich von Holstein: Politics and Diplomacy in the Era of Bismarck and Wilhelm II (New York, 1965), II, 484, 505–8, 842;Google ScholarHohenlohe, Alexander, Aus Meinem Leben, pp. 318–19.Google Scholar

41. Hohenlohe's diary, Feb. 28, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 181–82.

42. Hohenlohe to Holstein, Berlin, Mar. 8, 1896, ibid., pp. 192–93.

43. Hohenlohe to Baron Otto von Völderndorff, Berlin, Jan. 26, 1896, ibid., pp. 162–63. The phrase “my friends at the Foreign Office” refers to Holstein and Marschall.

44. Craig, Gordon A., The Politics of the Prussian Army (Oxford, 1955), p. 246;Google Scholar Eyck, Wilhelm II, p. 146.

45. Cf. Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, Oct. 31, 1895, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 114–16; Craig, Politics of the Prussian Army, p. 246.

46. Craig, Politics of the Prussian Army, p. 246; Hutten-Czapski, , 60 Jahre, I, 280–81.Google Scholar

47. Reichstag (1894–1995), Anlage, I, 100, no. 34; ibid. (1895–1997), Anlage, I, 79, no. 21. Both resolutions were introduced by members of the National Liberal Party. Neither was formally acted upon by the Reichstag.

48. Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, Nov. 2, 1895, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 116–17. Hahnke was chief of the Military Cabinet. Cf. Hutten-Czapski, , 60 Jahre, I, 280–82;Google ScholarSchmidt-Bückeburg, Rudolf, Das Militär-Kabinett der preussischen Könige und deutschen Kaiser, 1787–1918 (Berlin, 1933), p. 208.Google Scholar

49. On Bronsart's attitude, cf. Hutten-Czapski, , 60 Jahre, I, 281.Google Scholar

50. On May 23, 1896, William complained tearfully to Eulenburg: “I would think myself a sorry fellow, if I yielded on a point which my predecessors regarded as essential, as right! How could I face them in Heaven…?” Quoted in Haller, Eulenburg, p. 202.

51. Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, Oct. 31, 1895, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 114–16.

52. The Kaiser to Hohenlohe and Hohenlohe to the Kaiser, Oct. 31, 1895, Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, Nov. 2, 1895, ibid., pp. 116–17.

53. Memo by Hohenlohe, Berlin, May 31, 1895, ibid., p. 74. Cf. also Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, Mar. 2, 1896, ibid., p. 186; P. Eulenburg to Hohenlohe, Liebenberg, Oct. 29, 1895, EP, XXXVIII, 764; Hutten-Czapski, , 60 Jahre, I, 282–83;Google Scholar Waldersee's diary, Oct. 10, 1895, Waldersee, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 360.Google Scholar

54. Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, Mar. 7, 1896, the Kaiser to Hohenlohe, Berlin, Mar. 14, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 191, 198–99; Haller, Eulenburg, pp. 197–98.

55. Holstein to P. Eulenburg, Berlin, May 1 and 3, 1896, Marschall to P. Eulenburg, Berlin, May 1, 1896, EP, XLI, 251–53, 264–66; Alexander Hohenlohe to P. Eulenburg, Berlin, no date [early May 1896] and May 11, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 218–19, 220; Hammann, Otto, Der Neue Kurs (Berlin, 1918), pp. 81–82;Google Scholar cf. Röhl, Germany without Bismarck, pp. 182–83; Rich, , Holstein, II, 510–11.Google Scholar

56. The Kaiser to Hohenlohe, Prökelwitz, May 16, 1896, P. Eulenburg to Hohenlohe, Prökelwitz, May 17, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 225–26, 227; P. Eulenburg to Bülow, on the train, May 16, 1896, P. Eulenburg to Lucanus, Prökelwitz, May 16, 1896, EP, XLI, 304.

57. Alexander Hohenlohe to P. Eulenburg (who was hunting with the Kaiser at Prökelwitz), Berlin, May 11, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 220–23; cf. a telegram, apparently not sent, from Hohenlohe to the Kaiser, Berlin, May 17, 1896, HP, Rep. 100, XXII A 8, no. 88.

58. Reichstag (1895–1897), III, 2331–32.

59. P. Eulenburg to Hohenlohe, Prökelwitz, May 18, 1896, telegram sent at 8:25 P.M. and subsequent letter, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 229–30; memo by Eulenburg, written in 1902, EP, XLII, 371.

60. Hohenlohe to P. Eulenburg, Berlin, May 19, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, p. 231.

61. Memo by Eulenburg, written in 1902, EP, XLII, 371; Haller, Eulenburg, pp. 200–201.

62. Cf. Holstein to P. Eulenburg, Berlin, May 20, 1896, EP, XLI, 326; Hohenlohe to P. Eulenburg, July 16, 1896, EP, XLII, 495; Chlodwig Hohenlohe to Alexander Hohenlohe, Alt-Aussee, July 18, 1896, memo by Hohenlohe, no date [Aug. 1896], Hohenlohe's diary, Breslau, Sept. 6, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 243, 248, 260–61; P. Eulenburg to the Kaiser, Aug. 4, 1896, reprinted from the files of the Civil Cabinet in Meisner, H. O., “Der Kanzler Hohenlohe und die Mächte seiner Zeit,” Preussische Jahrbücher, CCXXX (1932), 38, n. 1.Google Scholar

63. P. Eulenburg to Holstein, Mariefjaerd, July 12, 1896, EP, XLII, 487–88. Cf. Holstein to Bülow, Berlin, June 6, 1896, Bülow Papers (Bundesarchiv, Koblenz), XC, 150–52 (hereinafter cited as BP); P. Eulenburg to Bülow, on the train to Vienna, May 24, 1896, EP, XLI, 333, and Vöslau, June 8, 1896, EP, XLII, 411; Hohenlohe to P. Eulenburg, Alt-Aussee, July 16, 1896, EP, XLII, 495; Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, July 1, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, p. 240; Röhl, Germany without Bismarck, p. 190.

64. Cf. Eulenburg's veiled warning of the consequences that would follow Hohenlohe's refusal to compromise on military court reform: P. Eulenburg to Hohenlohe, Vienna, Aug. 24, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 254–56.

65. Note by Hohenlohe, no date, ibid., p. 248.

66. Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, June 15, 1896, ibid., p. 235; Holstein to P. Eulenburg, July 10, 14, and 18, 1896, Holstein to Kiderlen-Wächter, Berlin, July 10, 1896, Holstein to Karl von Lindenau, July 27 and Aug. 1, 1896, Holstein, , Papers, III, 622–23, 622, n. 1, 624–26, 628–29, 636, 640–42;Google ScholarRich, , Holstein, II, 513–14.Google Scholar

67. Hohenlohe to Holstein, Alt-Aussee, Aug. 5, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 250–51.

68. Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, June 15, 1896, ibid., p. 235.

69. This sentiment on the chancellor's part was apparent as early as May 6, 1896, in a letter that Alexander Hohenlohe, at his father's request, wrote to Philipp Eulenburg: EP, XLI, 283.

70. Cf. Holstein to Alexander Hohenlohe, Berlin, July 29, 1896, HP, Rep. 100, XXII A 8, no. 131. Another reason for the Kaiser's early return was an ear infection he had contracted in the North Sea.

71. P. Eulenburg to Hohenlohe, Moldefjord, July 23, 1896, EP, XLII, 512–13. Cf. P. Eulenburg to Holstein, July 19 and 23, 1896, Holstein, , Papers, III, 630;Google ScholarKing, David B., “Marschall von Bieberstein and the New Course, 1890–97” (unpub. diss., Cornell University, 1962), p. 197 and n. 88.Google Scholar

72. The Military Courts Bill provided for oral, public trial proceedings, insofar as military interests and public order and morals permitted. The details of this provision were to be regulated, according to Section 270 II, by imperial decree. In addition, the courts were to be independent, with the functions of judge, prosecution, and defense clearly separated. Every defendant was granted the right to defense counsel and the right to appeal. At the apex of the proposed judicial hierarchy stood the Supreme Military Tribunal, charged with ensuring uniform application of the law. The text of the Bill appears in Reichstag (1897–1898), Anlage, I, 90–206. The final proposal for a compromise came from Gossler: the Kaiser to P. Eulenburg, Wilhelmshöhe, Aug. 13, 1896, in Meisner, , “Hohenlohe,” Preussische Jahrbücher, CCXXX, 142.Google Scholar On Hohenlohe's stance toward a compromise, cf. Hohenlohe's diary, Aug. 4, 1896, Hohenlohe to Holstein, Alt-Aussee, Aug. 5, 1896, Hohenlohe's diary, Schloss Wilhelmshöhe, Aug. 8, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 249–52; Hohenlohe's diary, Wilhelmshöhe, Aug. 9, 1896, HP, Rep. 100, XXII A 8, no. 138. On the Kaiser's motivation for avoiding a crisis, cf. Monts to P. Eulenburg, Munich, Aug. 7, 1896, August Eulenburg to Philipp Eulenburg, Wilhelmshöhe, Aug. 11, 1896, EP, XLIII, 563, 571; Hutten-Czapski to Hohenlohe, Cronberg, Aug. 7, 1896, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, p. 251.

73. Cf. the summary statement of the Bavarian position by the chief Bavarian delegate to the Bundesrat, Count Lerchenfeld, on Nov. 4, 1897, Hauptarchiv, III, Hpt. Abt. A. A., no. 1444 (St. M. 1235); Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, Dec. 21, 1896, HP, Rep. 100, XXII A 9; Völderndorff to Hohenlohe, Munich, Jan. 25, 1897, HP, Rep. 100, XB V 9; Monts to Holstein, Munich, Nov. 20, 1896, BP, XC, 194–96; Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, Mar. 24 and May 22, 1897, the Kaiser to Hohenlohe, Berlin, Apr. 17, 1897, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 321–22, 329, 342; von Hertling, Georg, Erinnerungen aus meinem Leben (Kempten and Munich, 1919–1920), II, 192–93Google Scholar (Count Hertling was a Reichstag deputy of the Center Party from Bavaria).

74. The Kaiser to Hohenlohe, Berlin, Apr. 17, 1897, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, p. 329; protocol of the meeting of the Prussian ministry, May 20, 1897, Hauptarchiv, III, Hpt. Abt. A. A., no. 1444 (St. M. 744); Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, May 20, 1897, HP, Rep. 100, XXII A 11, no. 108.

75. Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, Dec. 21, 1896, and May 20, 1897, HP, Rep. 100, XXII A 9 and XXII A 11, no. 108; Hohenlohe's diary, Homburg, Sept. 11, 1897, HP, Rep. 100, XXII A 12, no. 52; Hohenlohe to the Kaiser, no date, HP, Rep. 100, XXII D 1; Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, May 22, 1897, Podiebrad, June 5, 1897, Berlin, June 22, 1897, Homburg, Sept. 6, 1897, and Oct. 17, 1897, Hohenlohe to the Kaiser, Berlin, June 23, 1897, and no date, C. Hohenlohe to Alexander Hohenlohe, Berlin, Oct. 7, 1897, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 342–43, 351–52, 359, 360–61, 381–83, 388, 392–93.

76. Hohenlohe's diary, Oct. 17, 1897, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, p. 392.

77. Cf. copy of the protocol of the meeting of the Prussian ministry, Berlin, July 29, 1897, in HP, Rep. 100, XXII G 2 (St. M. 3506); Bülow to P. Eulenburg, Berlin, Aug. 22, 1897, EP, XLVIII, 463; C. Hohenlohe to Alexander Hohenlohe, Werki, Aug. 29, 1897, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 379–80; Hutten-Czapski, , 60 Jahre, I, 336, 343;Google ScholarHerzfeld, , Miquel, II, 529.Google Scholar

78. Wilmowski to Hohenlohe, Berlin, Aug. 24, 1897, Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, Oct. 12, 1897, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 370–80, 390; Hutten-Czapski, , 60 Jahre, I, 336;Google Scholar Hallmann, Schlachtflottenbau, pp. 284, 296. The military court reform would, of course, apply to naval as well as army courts-martial.

79. Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, Oct. 17, 1897, HP, Rep. 100, XXII A 12, no. 66, this passage omitted in Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, p. 392. Cf. also Hohenlohe's diary, Homburg, Sept. 6, 1897, HP, Rep. 100, XXII A 12, no. 52, this section omitted in Kanzlerzeit, p. 382.

80. Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, Oct. 29, 1897, C. Hohenlohe to Alexander Hohenlohe, Berlin, Oct. 31, 1897, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 397–98; Hohenlohe to Völderndorff, Berlin, Oct. 31, 1897, HP, Rep. 100, XXII A 12, no. 77.

81. Hohenlohe's diary, Jan. 26, 1898, HP, Rep. 100, XXII A 13; Monts to Bülow, Munich, Apr. 3, 1898, BP, CVI, 282; memo by Hohenlohe for the Kaiser, Jan. 28, 1898, Hohenlohe's diary, Berlin, Feb. 15, 1898, C. Hohenlohe to A. Hohenlohe, Alt-Aussee, Sept. 9, 1898, Berlin, Oct. 11, 1898, and Nov. 26, 1898, Hohenlohe to Völderndorff, Alt-Aussee, Sept. 21, 1898, and Baden-Baden, Sept. 30, 1898, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 427, 428, 458, 460, 462, 463–64, 471; Monts to Holstein, Nov. 24, 1898, and Feb. 5, 1899, Monts, Erinnerungen, pp. 377–78, 384–86, also p. 316; Bülow, , Denkwürdigkeiten, I, 268;Google Scholarvon Lerchenfeld-Koefering, Hugo, Erinnerungen und Denkwürdigkeiten (Berlin, 1935), pp. 167–75.Google Scholar

82. Reichstag (1897–1898), III, 2184–85. The bulk of the bill's support came from the “middle” parties: the National Liberals, the Catholic Center, and the Free Conservatives, along with the two left-liberal parties. The two extreme groups of left and right—the Conservatives and the Social Democrats—and some Bavarian members from various parties remained in opposition.

83. The Kaiser's decree of July 24, 1900, in Schulthess, 1900, pp. 106–7.

84. Glas, Edward H., “The Struggle for the Reform of the Court-Martial Procedure under Chancellor Hohenlohe, 1894–1898” (unpub. diss., Rutgers University, 1970), p. 494;Google ScholarHutten-Czapski, , 60 Jahre, I, 291–92.Google Scholar

85. The prominent German historian Herzfeld, Hans, in Miquel, II, 531,Google Scholar characterizes Hohenlohe's championship of military court reform as “stubborn.” Edward H. Glas comes to a similar conclusion in “The Struggle for the Reform of the Court-Martial Procedure,” p. 473. Hohenlohe himself spoke of his “patience and tenacity” in pushing the reform: Hohenlohe to Völderndorff, Berlin, Nov. 26, 1898, Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, p. 471.

86. Hohenlohe was seventy-nine years old in 1898, four years older than Bismarck had been at the time of his retirement in 1890. On the prince's health, cf. especially Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 384, 444; Hohenlohe, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 533;Google ScholarWaldersee, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 423–24;Google ScholarHutten-Czapski, , 60 Jahre, I, 367;Google Scholarvon Heyking, Elisabeth, Tagebücher aus vier Weltteilen, 1886–1904 4th ed. (Leipzig, 1926), p. 306;Google ScholarKraus, Franz Xaver, Tagebücher, ed. Schiel, Hubert (Cologne, 1957), p. 727.Google Scholar

87. The Kaiser to P. Eulenburg, Neues Palais, Jan. 5, 1897, EP, XLV, 41.

88. Cf. memo by Hohenlohe “for a personal audience” with the Kaiser, no date, HP, Rep. 100, XXII A 10.

89. Quoted in Reischach, Under Three Emperors, pp. 170–71. Reischach was Lord Chamberlain to the Kaiser's mother, the Empress Frederick, and a nephew by marriage of Prince Hohenlohe.

90. Cf. especially Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, pp. 475, 578–79, 582, 583; Holstein, , Papers, IV, 195, 201;Google ScholarHutten-Czapski, , 60 Jahre, I, 379–81;Google ScholarBülow, , Denkwürdigkeiten, I, 359–60;Google ScholarWaldersee, , Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 425.Google Scholar

91. On the rise of Bülow's influence between 1897 and 1900, cf. especially P. Eulenburg to Bülow, Vienna, Jan. 5, 1898, EP, L, 2–3; Hohenlohe, Kanzlerzeit, p. 462; Haller, Eulenburg, pp. 239–40; Rich, , Holstein, II, 547–52, 565–66;Google Scholar Spitzemberg, Tagebuch, p. 365; Röhl, Germany without Bismarck, pp. 245–46.

92. Cf. Röhl, Germany without Bismarck, ch. 6, esp. pp. 223–40.