Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T04:07:46.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV. The Disintegration of the Kartell and the Politics of Bismarck's Fall from Power, 1887–90

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2010

J. C. G. Röhl
J. C. G. Röhl
Affiliation:
University of Sussex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ever since the First World War, but especially during the Weimar period, Bismarck's dismissal has exercised a strong attraction on German historians, and has probably received more attention than any other event in the history of the Second Reich. In the troubled post-war years, 20 March 1890 seemed to stand out prominently as the fateful turning point of Germany's history. Wilhelm Schvissler, the first to exploit the unprecedented wealth of evidence available in consequence of the monarchy's collapse, did not hesitate to claim that ‘even at that time [1890] the downfall (Untergang) of the German Reich was written in the stars’. ‘Who would doubt’, he asked, ‘that our misfortune began there…and led to the catastrophe of the Imperial Monarchy and the German Reich—exactly 20 years after his [Bismarck's] death!’ This highly emotional approach to the subject was fully shared by Wilhelm Mommsen, whose standard work on the role of the political parties in the crisis appeared in 1924. Bismarck's fall, he wrote, ‘appears to us today as a turning point of German history, and it is only with deep feeling that we can recall the events of March 1890’. It is perhaps partly for this reason that these early writers tended to misinterpret the nature of Bismarck's relations with the parties in the crucial months before his fall. There was, for one thing, an inclination to idealize the bygone age in which ‘the State’ was thought to have stood incorruptibly ‘above the parties’, and as a result the party struggles of 1889 and 1890 were relegated to a self-contained compartment whence, it was held, they were able to influence the course of events only in the negative sense of providing no obstacle to the chancellor's dismissal. The influential work of Hans Rothfels probably typified this attitude, but even Mommsen warned his readers that his study of the parties could throw at best an oblique light on the crisis ‘since the parties had no direct and at any rate no significant effect on the course of those events’. According to Hans Herzfeld's summary of the present state of knowledge on the subject, this view is still widely accepted today.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , 1966 , pp. 60 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Schüssler, W., Bismarcks Sturz (Leipzig, 1922), p. 254.Google Scholar

2 Ibid. Foreword.

3 Mommsen, W., Bismarcks Sturz und die Parteien (Berlin and Leipzig, 1924), p. 7.Google Scholar

4 Ibid. p. 140.

5 See especially his articles ‘Zur Bismarck-Krise von 1890’, H[istorische] Z[eitschrifi], cxxin (1921)Google Scholar , and ‘Bismarcks Sturz als Forschungsproblem’, Preussische Jahrbiicher, cxci (1923)Google Scholar

6 , Mommsen, op. cit. p. 8.Google Scholar

7 Herzfeld, H., Die Moderne Welt. I. Teil, Die Epoche der Bürgerlichen Nationalstaaten (Braunschweig, 1964), pp. 249 ff.Google Scholar

8 , Mommsen, op. cit. p. 18.Google Scholar

9 See, for example, the contribution of Schieder, T. to the New Cambridge Modern History, xi, 258Google Scholar.

10 Delbriick, Hans, ‘Die Hohenlohe-Memoiren und Bismarcks Entlassung’, Preussische Jahrbücher, CXXVI (1906)Google Scholar , and'Bismarcks letzte politische Idee’, ibid, CXLVII (1912) ; Zechlin, E., Staatsstreichpldne Bismarcks und Wilhelms II., 1890, 1894 (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1929)Google Scholar.

11 Pöls, W., Sozialistenfrage und Revolutionsfurcht in ihrem Zusammenhang mit den angeb-lichen Staatsstreichpldnen Bismarcks (Lübeck and Hamburg, 1960)Google Scholar . See also the more recent version of this argument (but again without documentary support) in Huber, E. R, Nationalstoat und Verfassungsstaat (Stuttgart, 1965), pp. 213–23Google Scholar.

12 Mommsen's answer (op. cit. pp. 16 f. and 26) is that Bismarck was preoccupied with his quarrel with the Kaiser.

13 Ibid. pp. 20 ff. and 35, n. 2. See also , Schüssler, op. cit. pp. 38 f.Google Scholar , 57, 126 ff. ; Gradenwitz, O., Bismarcki letzter Kampf, 1888–98 (Berlin, 1924), pp. 76–90Google Scholar ; Heffter, H., Die Kreuzzeitungspartei und die Kartellpolitik Bismarcks (Leipzig, 1927), p. 177 and n. 55Google Scholar.

14 , Mommsen (op. cit. pp. 26Google Scholar with note and 29) merely declares their fears to have been ‘undoubtedly mistaken’.

15 , Rothfels, H.Z. CXXIIIGoogle Scholar ; , Mommsen, op. cit. p. 33Google Scholar.

16 Ibid. pp. 29 with note and 31 ; , Waldersee, Denkwürdigkeiten, ed. Meisner, H. O. (3 vols., Stuttgart and Berlin, 1922–1923), 11, 115, n. 1Google Scholar.

17 It is perhaps not without interest that Ernst Gagliardi, the one historian of the period to have suspected the extent of Bismarck's rupture with the Kartell, was not German but Swiss. See his Bismarcks Entlassung (2 vols., Tubingen, 1927, 1941)Google Scholar . Krausnick, H., in his Holsteins Geheimpolitik in der Ara Bismarck, 1886-1890 (Hamburg, 1942)Google Scholar , comes close to the truth, but even he declares the widespread fears of Bismarck's hostility towards the Kartell to have been ‘almost certainly wholly unfounded’ (p. 249).

18 See Lange, K., Bismarcks Sturz und die offentliche Meinung in Deutschland und im Auslande (Stuttgart, Berlin and Leipzig, 1927)Google Scholar . Also the revealing reports of the Austrian ambassador, Szechenyi, printed in Schussler, op. cit. pp. 270 f. and 276 ff.

19 Deutsches Zentralarchiv (DZA) Merseburg, minutes of Prussian ministry of State meeting of 29 September 1890. In the 1893 elections, Bismarck allowed his name to be submitted as a National Liberal candidate in several constituencies; he was elected but never took up his seat in the Reichstag.

20 See especially Helldorff's defence in ‘Der Fall des Sozialistengesetzes’, Deutsche Revue, xxv (1900)Google Scholar . Also Eulenburg, Philipp, Aus 50 Jahren (Berlin, 1925), pp. 218 ffGoogle Scholar.

21 Staatssekretar Graf Herbert von Bismarck, Aus seiner politischen Privatkorrespondenz, ed. Bussmann, W. (Gottingen, 1964), esp. pp. 538Google Scholar , 539 ff., 543, 554 and 559.

22 Müller, K. A. von, ‘Die Entlassung: Nach den bayrischen Gesandtschaftsberichten’, Siiddeutsche Monatshefte, XIX, 1 (12 1921).Google Scholar

23 The Holstein Papers, ed. Rich, Norman and Fisher, M. H. (4 vols., Cambridge, 1955-1963).Google Scholar

24 For a brief description, see Röhl, J. C. G., ‘A Document of 1892 on Germany, Prussia and Poland’, The Historical Journal, VII, 1 (1964), 143 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar . I am much indebted to Graf Wend zu Eulenburg-Hertefeld for permission to make use of the papers of his grandfather.

25 The Eulenburg-Holstein correspondence, but not the other letters in this collection, have been used by Norman Rich in his recent biography of Friedrich von Holstein (2 vols., Cambridge, 1965)Google Scholar . His account is consequently far in advance of anything written so far.

26 For a recent elaboration of the older view, see Hallgarten, G. W. F., Imperialisms vor 1914 (2 vols., Munich, 1964), n, 278Google Scholar ff. See also Bussmann, W., Das Zeitalter Bismarcks, (Konstanz, 1956), pp. 236 ffGoogle Scholar.

27 I have here followed closely the latest, most penetrating account of these complex events by Bohme, Helmut, ‘Deutsche Handelspolitik, 1848–1881’ (unpublished dissertation, Hamburg University, 1964)Google Scholar.

28 The Kaiser was simultaneously the king of Prussia; the Reich chancellor was simultaneously the president of the Prussian ministry of State, the Prussian foreign minister, and from 1880–90 the Prussian minister of Trade. The Reich secretaries sat in the Bundesrat as members of the Prussian delegation which was led by the Prussian foreign minister, i.e. the chancellor, and some of the secretaries also had seats in the Prussian ministry of State. Those who had not were frequently asked to attend its meetings in an advisory capacity.

29 Printed in Haller, J., Aus dem Leben des Fiirsten Philipp zu Eulenburg-Hertefeld (Berlin, 1924), p. 18Google Scholar ; see also pp. 22 f.

30 Ibid. pp. 18 f.

31 Eulenburg, who had been appointed to the Munich embassy in 1881, prided himself on having wormed his way into the confidences of the Bavarian aristocracy in so short a time, and regarded himself as being in a unique position to judge their political ambitions (, Haller, op. cit. p. 19Google Scholar and again p. 22). For Bismarck's devastating opinion, see below, p. 71, n. 54.

32 Eulenburg's letters to Wilhelm are to be found in the Deutsches Zentralarchiv (DZA) Merseburg, Rep. 53 J, Lit. E., Nr. 2. Wilhelm's replies of this period are in the Brandenburgisches Landeshauptarchiv (BLHA) in Potsdam. See , Haller, op. cit. pp. 20 f.Google Scholar , and The Holstein Papers, in, 168 f.

33 , Haller, op. cit. p. 21Google Scholar . See Bismarck, Herbert, Privatkorrespondenz, p 373Google Scholar ; , Rich, op. cit. 1, 229 fGoogle Scholar.

34 , Haller, op. cit. p. 21.Google Scholar

35 Ibid. Also the entry of 13 June 1886 (et passim) in the Diary of Marschall von Bieberstein, now in the Politisches Archiv (PA) des Auswartigen Amtes, Bonn.

36 , Haller, op. cit. p. 19Google Scholar . Also Holstein to Eulenburg, 23 June 1886, BLHA Potsdam, Eulenburg Papers, Folder 974.

37 Ibid.

38 On Eulenburg's aspirations to the Munich post, see Holstein Papers, III, 163 f., and below, p. 71, n. 54. On Rantzau's intentions, see , Rich, op. cit. 1, 231 f.Google Scholar , , Haller, op. cit. pp. 22 fGoogle Scholar . and Holstein to Eulenburg, 3 July, 18 July and 21 July 1886, all in BLHA Potsdam, Eulenburg Papers, Folder 974.

39 Holstein to Eulenburg, 3 July 1886, loc. cit . , Rich, op. cit. p. 231Google Scholar.

40 Prince Wilhelm to Eulenburg, 8 Jan. 1887, BLHA Potsdam, Eulenburg Papers, Folder 297.

41 , Haller, op. cit. pp. 26 f.Google Scholar

42 , Heffter, op. cit. p. 96.Google Scholar

43 Bismarck, Herbert, Privatkorrespondenz, 411Google Scholar , 425, 430.

44 Ibid. pp. 410 and 431, n. 2.

45 Holstein Papers, 11, 330 ; , Rich, op. cit. 1, 232Google Scholar . See also below, pp. 70 f.

46 , Mommsen, op. cit. p. 15.Google Scholar

47 , Schüssler, op. cit. p. 6.Google Scholar

48 See the detailed account of these early dissensions in Herzfeld, H., Johannes von Miquel (2 vols., Detmold, 1938), II, 102 ffGoogle Scholar.

49 , Heffter, op. cit. p. 127Google Scholar ; Bismarck, Herbert, Privatkorrespondenz, pp. 497 f.Google Scholar ; Ballhausen, R. Lucius von, Bismarck-Erinnerungen (Stuttgart, 1921), pp. 356 f.Google Scholar ; and above all the entry in Holstein's Diary, Holstein Papers, n, 363. Holstein, interestingly, approved of Bismarck's stand on this matter (though not, of course, of the methods he employed) on the grounds that ‘the German Kaiser must do nothing to alienate the moderate parties of the centre, because out-side the old Prussian provinces these parties are the only ones we can count on’ (ibid. p. 362).

50 , Bismarck, Gedanken und Erinnerungen, III (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1919), 5 ffGoogle Scholar . On Bismarck's motives, see , Krausnick, op. cit. p. 246Google Scholar.

51 Eulenburg to Prince Wilhelm, 1 June 1888, DZA Merseburg, Rep. 53J, Lit. E, Nr. 2.

52 , Haller, op. cit. p. 35.Google Scholar

53 Ibid. pp. 35 f. Also , Rich, op. cit. I, 232 ffGoogle Scholar.

54 On 19 Feb. 1888, on Holstein's suggestion (see Rich, loc. cit.) Eulenburg virtually told the prince that he himself would make the best ambassador to Munich. ‘I know that I can be useful to Your Royal Highness personally…People are fond of me and know that Your Royal Highness is gracious towards me.’ But since he was still too junior a diplomat, he asked Wilhelm to try to delay the appointment of the next ambassador so that he, Eulenburg, could take over the embassy on a temporary basis, at least (DZA Merseburg, Rep. S3 J, Lit. E, Nr.2. Cf. the extract from this letter printed by , Haller, op. cit. p. 32)Google Scholar . See also Eulenburg's letter of 21 Feb. 1888, in , Haller, op. cit. p. 35Google Scholar , and Holstein's report of the angry meeting between Wilhelm and Herbert Bismarck, ibid. p. 36. Here Wilhelm had made it plain that he would appoint Eulenburg to the Munich embassy ultimately, and that Rantzau would then have to make way for him. In Oct. 1888, Eulenburg told the Kaiser, as he now was, of an interview with Herbert who, ‘knowing Your Majesty's wish about the embassy’, had ‘squirmed like an eel’ and promised to push Rantzau off to Brussels, The Hague or the Vatican. ‘I parted from Herbert in good friendship’, he wrote,’ but it was not easy!’ (Eulenburg to Wilhelm 11, 15 Oct. 1888, DZA Merseburg, Rep. 53 J, Lit. E, Nr. 2). Herbert's own account of this inter-view has recently been published and, together with the Chancellor's comments, makes fascinating reading. Bismarck said he was prepared to appoint Eulenburg to a lesser post like Oldenburg, but not to Munich because ‘he has no political judgement, fails to distinguish between what is important and what is not, Listens to gossip and scandal and can cause a lot of damage that way’ ( Bismarck, Herbert, Privatkorrespondenz, pp. 522Google Scholar ff. and 523 f.). Holstein perceived that Eulenburg aspired to the Munich embassy at a very early stage, but supported him in his ambitions for the political reasons we have noted above (see Holstein Papers, in, 264 f., 271, 274 ff. and 300).

55 Eulenburg to Crown Prince Wilhelm, 1 June 1888, DZA Merseburg, Rep. S3 J, Lit. E, Nr. 2. See also , Rich, op. cit. I, 233 fGoogle Scholar.

56 Ballhausen, Lucius von, op. cit. p. 465.Google Scholar

57 , Heffter, op. cit. pp. 141 f.Google Scholar

58 Bismarck, Herbert, Privatkorrespondenz, p. 519.Google Scholar

59 Ibid. pp. 517 f., and , Heffter, op. cit. p. 130Google Scholar.

60 Ballhausen, Lucius von, op. cit. p. 477.Google Scholar

61 Ibid. pp. 583 f. Lucius had proposed the appointment of both Bennigsen and Miquel, but this had been rejected by Bismarck. However, when the Oberprasidium of East Prussia became vacant at this same time, the Chancellor did agree to the appointment of Leipziger. This move was likewise intended to be seen as a demonstration in favour of the Kartell (Boetticher to Rantzau, 28 Aug. 1888, Deutsches Zentralarchiv (DZA) Potsdam, Reichskanzlei, Nr. 1445).

62 Bismarck to Kaiser, 12 Aug. 1888, DZA Potsdam, loc. cit. Also Oncken, H., Rudolf von Bennigsen (2 vols., Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1910), 11, 544 ffGoogle Scholar.

63 , Oncken, op. cit. p. 544Google Scholar . The underscoring is Bennigsen's.

64 Ibid. p. 545.

65 Ibid. p. 547.

66 , Waldersee, Aus dem Briefwechsel, ed. Meisner, H. O. (3 vols., Stuttgart, 1928), 1, 302 fGoogle Scholar . Discussed in , Krausnick, op. cit. pp. 246 ff.Google Scholar , and , Rich, op. cit. I, 255 fGoogle Scholar.

67 , Waldersee, op. cit. I, 318.Google Scholar

68 Ibid. 1, 317 f. Also , Rich, op. cit. 1, 255 fGoogle Scholar . Waldersee's reluctance to come out openly in favour of the Kartell may well have been decisive in losing him the chancellorship.

69 , Hallgarten, op. cit. I, 278 ffGoogle Scholar . Hallgarten here says that the Prussian Junkers were hostile to Russia because they feared Russian grain imports into Germany.

70 , Heffter, op. cit. pp. 151Google Scholar and 175. On the Kaiser's opposition to this aspect of Bismarck's policy, see , Waldersee, Denkivurdigkeiten, 11, 48Google Scholar , and , Rich, op. cit. I, 251 ffGoogle Scholar . Interestingly, Bismarck's policy was also opposed by his own son, Herbert, who wrote to Eulenburg on 29 June 1889 of his hatred for ‘those rascals the bankers who want to help Russia to reduce her interest rates’ (Bundesarchiv (BA) Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, vi, 109 f.). On Herbert's policy, see also below, p. 77.

71 Miquel's statement was immediately relayed to Waldersee by Holstein. See , Waldersee, Briefwechsel, I, 303Google Scholar.

72 Ibid. I, 304. Also , Waldersee, Denkumrdigkeiten, II, 85Google Scholar , n. 1; Holstein Papers, HI, 313 ff.; and , Rich, op. cit. I, 250 ffGoogle Scholar.

73 Ibid. p. 251.

74 In this letter of Aug. 1888, Stoecker had argued that direct agitation against Bismarck would only serve to strengthen his position in the Kaiser's eyes; the policy of criticizing the chancellor's moves without mentioning him by name, of lighting ‘funeral pyres’ all round the periphery, stood a far greater chance of persuading Wilhelm to turn against Bismarck. See Rauchhaupt's letter to Hammerstein of this same time, printed in Leuss, H., Wilhelm Freiherr von Hammerstein (Berlin, 1905), pp. 72 fGoogle Scholar . Also , Waldersee, Denkwurdigkeiten, 11, 36, n. 2Google Scholar.

75 The argument of Werner Pöls to the effect that Bismarck could not possibly have fore-seen the Kartell's electoral defeat ignores the fact that the chancellor's actions had a decisive influence on the outcome of the elections (see , Pols, op. cit. p. 11).Google Scholar

76 Deutsche Kolonialzeitung, 6 07 1889Google Scholar . I am indebted to MrHartmut Pogge von Strand-mann of St Antony's College, Oxford, for drawing my attention to this important source.

77 Ibid. 31 Aug. 1889.

78 Versmann to Senator Petersen, 3 Sept. 1889, BA Koblenz, Boetticher Papers. Bismarck is here reported to have said: ‘The Foreign Office must get rid of colonial affairs or it will be rid of me.”

79 , Gradenwitz, op. cit. p. 82Google Scholar ; , Mommsen, op. cit. p. 22Google Scholar.

80 , Herzfeld, Miquel, 11, 139 and 150.Google Scholar

81 Ibid. pp. 156 ff. ; Bismarck, Herbert, Privatkorrespondenz, pp. 537 and 542 fGoogle Scholar.

82 , Herzfeld, op. cit. II, 159 ff.Google Scholar

83 , Mommsen, op. cit. pp. 22 f.Google Scholar

84 Ibid. pp. 23 and 25.

85 , Herzfeld, op. cit. II, 159 ff.Google Scholar

86 Eppstein, G. von, Fiirst Bismarcks Entlassung (Berlin, 1920), p. 35Google Scholar , n. 14. Cf . , Rich, op. cit. 1, 264 and 280 fGoogle Scholar.

87 Holstein to Waldersee, 2 July 1889; see above, p. 73.

88 Bismarck, Herbert, Privatkorrespondenz, p. 538Google Scholar . On 21 Nov. 1889, Holstein wrote that Herbert ‘does not share his father's view’ ( , Rich, op. cit. 1, 261Google Scholar ; see also ibid. pp. 251, 255 et passim). This is confirmed by Bussmann's edition of Herbert's letters (see Privatkorrespondenz, PP. 538-59).

89 Lutz to Bismarck, 28 June 1889, DZA Potsdam, Reichskanzlei, Nr. 863. Lutz may simply have been forced into approaching the chancellor by growing pressure from the Bavarian Parliament, but cf. Eulenburg's view, below, pp. 79 f.

90 Bismarck to Lutz, 6 Aug. 1889, ibid. Printed in Bismarck , Die gesammelten Werke (15 vols., Berlin, 1923-1935)Google Scholar , vie, 416. Bismarck's seemingly cautious reply in fact implied a complete reversal of policy, for the Bundesrat had rejected a formal Bavarian request a year and a half earlier, and the Prussian ministry of State had decided repeatedly against the Redemptorists’ return.

91 Bismarck to Gossler, 16 July 1889, DZA Potsdam, Reichskanzlei, Nr. 863. Gossler had submitted his resignation a few months earlier because of differences with Bismarck in the educational field (DZA Merseburg, Zivilkabinett, Rep. 89 H, u, Gen. I, vol. VII).

92 Gossler's reply, DZA Potsdam, loc. cit.

93 Holstein to Eulenburg, 20(?) June 1889, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, v, 102.

94 Eulenburg to Holstein, 21 Sept. 1889, ibid. VI, 134 ff. Eulenburg repeated his view here that all attempts to placate the Catholics were futile because they specifically wanted ‘someone like Franckenstein, Preysing or Lerchenfeld–of blue blood and with the German cockade pinned on a black heart’.

95 Holstein to Eulenburg, 28 Sept. 1889, ibid, vi, 140 f. See also , Raschdau, Unter Bismarck und Caprivi (Berlin, 1939), pp. 93 ffGoogle Scholar.

96 DZA Merseburg, minutes of ministry of State meeting of 5 Oct. 1889.

97 Gossler to Bismarck, 5 Nov. 1889. I am indebted to Dr R. Morsey of the Kommission fur Geschichte des Parlamentarismus und der politischen Parteien in Bonn for a copy of this letter. See also Poschinger, H. v., Bismarck und die Parlamentarier (Breslau, 1894), in, 218Google Scholar . Bismarck pushed this measure through against considerable opposition from the Prussian ministers (DZA Merseburg, minutes of ministry of State meeting of 26 Jan. 1890).

98 Holstein to Eulenburg, 28 Sept. 1889, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, vi, 140 f.

99 The statement appeared on 2 Oct. 1889. Marschall von Bieberstein, in his report of 7 Oct. 1889, eagerly explained to the Baden Government that it had been made entirely on the Kaiser's initiative (Gradenwitz, op. cit. p. 76). Lucius von Ballhausen, however, found it impossible to believe that Wilhelm should have acted without the Chancellor's consent (Lucius, op. cit. pp. 502 f.). German historians have almost invariably come down on the side of Lucius (see, for example , , Schiissler, op. cit. pp. 39Google Scholar , 57, and 127 ; , Mommsen, op. cit. pp. 18 f.)Google Scholar.

100 Bismarck, Herbert, Privatkorrespondenz, p. 549.Google Scholar

101 Holstein had concluded his letter of 28 Sept. 1889 to Eulenburg with the following words: ‘I wish at present to know only if you agree with me about the need for an imperial statement. We could talk about the mode of the imperial declaration later on’ (BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, VI, 140 f.).

102 Holstein to Eulenburg, 8 Oct. 1889, summarizing the points on which the three men had reached agreement (ibid. 144 ff.). Holstein had again discussed the Redemptorist question with Marschall on the previous day (PA Bonn, Marschall Diary, entry of 7 Oct. 1889, see also entries of 30 Oct. and 10 Nov. 1889).

103 Eulenburg to Kaiser Wilhelm II, 25 Oct. 1889, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, vi, 164 f. Eulenburg asked Wilhelm to destroy the letter at once.

104 Eulenburg to Grand Duke Friedrich of Baden, 27 Oct. 1889, BLHA Potsdam, Eulenburg Papers, Folder 792.

105 Eulenburg to Kaiser Wilhelm II, 28 Oct. 1889, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, vi, 169 ff. The Kaiser was again asked to destroy the letter.

106 Holstein to Eulenburg, 30 Oct. 1889, ibid. 171 f.

107 Brauer to Boetticher, 27 Oct. 1889, DZA , Potsdam, Reichskanzlei, Nr. 863.Google Scholar

108 To Eulenburg, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, vn, 175 ff.

109 Holstein to Eulenburg, 5 Nov. 1889, ibid. 177a f. Quoted in , Rich, op. cit. I, 257.Google Scholar

110 Holstein to Boetticher, 6 Nov. 1889, DZA , Potsdam, Reichskanzlei, Nr. 863Google Scholar ; Holstein to Eulenburg, 9 Nov. 1889, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, vn, 179 f. ; , Raschdau, op. cit. p. 94Google Scholar.

111 Holstein to Eulenburg, 6 Nov. 1889, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, vn, 178. Bismarck in fact told Holstein (!) to tell Boetticher to say nothing in the Bundesrat for the moment (Holstein to Boetticher, 7 Nov. 1889, DZA , Potsdam, Reichskanzlei, Nr. 863)Google Scholar . This would seem to indicate that Bismarck was not aware of Holstein's activity. In his letter of 25 Oct. Eulenburg had told the Kaiser to avoid the impression of an intrigue by referring to some recent newspaper articles which had mentioned the possibility of the return of the Redemptorists. Herbert Bismarck had accordingly telegraphed to his father on 6 Nov. that the Kaiser had heard about the business through articles in the Nationalzeitung and the Kolnische Zeitung, the leading National Liberal papers. Not even the Kaiser knew, however, that the former article had been written by Dr Paul Kayser, Holstein's colleague in the Foreign Office (Eulenburg to Holstein, 10 Nov. 1889, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, vii, 182 ff.). The other article was in all probability the work of the Kolnische Zeitung's correspondent in Berlin, Dr Franz Fischer, another very close associate of Holstein.

112 The Bavarian request (Bundesrat Drucksache, Nr. 59) did not reach the Bundesrat until 12 June 1891, again after confidential correspondence with the Chancellor (DZA , Potsdam, Reichskanzlei, Nr. 864)Google Scholar . In his report of 4 May 1891 the new Baden ambassador, von Brauer (a staunch Bismarckian), referred to the ‘categorical will of the Kaiser’ in vetoing the Redemptorists’ recall in 1889, and said Bismarck's failure to comply immediately with this command provided the first cause of their estrangement (Badisches Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe, 49/8, Report no. 40).

113 , Herzfeld, Miquel, 11, 164s.Google Scholar

114 Holstein to Eulenburg, 21 Nov. 1889, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, vn, 192 f.; see also , Rich, op. cit. 1, 261 fGoogle Scholar.

116 On 28 Oct. 1889 Holstein and Eulenburg had dined with Helldorff, Gossler, Waldersee, and Kiderlen-Wachter. The meeting had lasted till 2.30 a.m. (BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, VI, 168).

116 Marschall Diary, entry of 22 Nov. 1889, PA Bonn; Holstein to Eulenburg, 23 Nov. 1889, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, vn, 193 f. ; , Rich, op. cit. 1, 262Google Scholar.

117 Marschall's Report no. 43, printed in , Gradenwitz, op. cit. pp. 79 fGoogle Scholar.

118 Grand duke of Baden to Eulenburg, 23 Nov. 1889, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, VII, 195 ff. Eulenburg read this letter to the Kaiser at Christmas, when Wilhelm was staying as Eulenburg's guest at Liebenberg (ibid, VII, 231 ff.).

119 Marschall's Report no. 44, 26 Nov. 1889 , , Gradenwitz, op. cit. p. 81Google Scholar.

120 Marschall's Reports nos. 45 and 46, both of 29 Nov. 1889, ibid. pp. 83 f.

121 Marschall Diary, entry of 2 Dec. 1889, PA Bonn; also Holstein Papers, in, 323. Helldorff had again dined with Holstein, Eulenburg, Marschall and Gossler on 29 Nov.; the topic of conversation was ‘the Kaiser and the Kartell’ (Marschall Diary, PA Bonn). On 12 Dec. 1889 the Kaiser demonstratively toasted Miquel in Frankfurt (see , Rich, op. cit. 1, 263).Google Scholar

122 Herrfurth to Boetticher, 19 Jan. 1890, BA Koblenz, Boetticher Papers, Herrfurth Folder; Herbert Bismarck to Bismarck, 22 Jan. 1890, printed in , Pols, op. cit. p. 22, n. 57Google Scholar.

123 Hinzpeter to Kaiser Wilhelm, 4 Jan. 1890, DZA , Potsdam, Reichskanzlei, Nr. 1816Google Scholar . Eulenburg had visited Hinzpeter on 9 Nov. 1889 on Holstein's suggestion. Eulenburg reported that Hinzpeter ‘completely shares our views’ and had agreed to write to the Kaiser (BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, VII, 175 ff. and 182 ff.).

124 Hinzpeter to Eulenburg, 8 Jan. 1890, BLHA Potsdam, Eulenburg Papers, Folder 248.

125 PA Bonn, Marschall Diary, entry of 5 Jan. 1890.

126 DZA , Potsdam, Reichskanzlei, Nr. 1816Google Scholar ; see also Bismarck, Herbert, Privatkorrespondenz, PP. 554fGoogle Scholar.

127 Bismarck to Hinzpeter, 5 Jan. 1890 (draft in Rottenburg's hand); Bismarck to Kaiser Wilhelm, 7 Jan. 1890, DZA , Potsdam, Reichskanzlei, Nr. 1816Google Scholar . Eulenburg saw in Bismarck's refusal to obey the Kaiser's command confirmation of his suspicion that the chancellor wanted to split the Kartell (Eulenburg to Hinzpeter, 9 Jan. 1890, BLHA Potsdam, Eulenburg Papers, Folder 248).

128 Hinzpeter to Bismarck, 7 Jan. 1890, and Bismarck to Kaiser Wilhelm, 9 Jan. 1890 (not sent off), DZA , Potsdam, Reichskanzlei, Nr. 1816Google Scholar.

129 Herbert Bismarck to Bismarck, 8 and 9 Jan. 1890, ibid.

130 Schwarzkoppen to Herbert Bismarck, 9 Jan. 1890, ibid.

131 Marschall Diary, entry of 10 Jan. 1890, PA Bonn.

132 Holstein to Eulenburg, 15 Jan. 1890, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, vin, 37; Eulenburg to Kaiser, 20 Jan. 1890, ibid. 47 ; , Gradenwitz, op. cit. pp. 91Google Scholar and 121 ; Bismarck, Herbert, Privatkorrespondenz, pp. 554 and 559Google Scholar.

133 The minutes of the Crown Council are printed in , Eppstein, op. cit. pp. 157 ffGoogle Scholar.

134 Marschall Diary, entry of 4 Dec. 1889, PA Bonn.

135 Holstein to Eulenburg, 27 Jan. 1890, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, vm, 62 ff.

136 Eulenburg to Holstein, 29 Jan. 1890, ibid. 67 ff.

137 , Oncken, op. cit. II, 547 ff.Google Scholar

138 Bismarck informed Herrfurth, the Prussian minister of Interior responsible for the Prussian administration in the provinces, that the ministry of State should discuss the Kaiser's wish to appoint Miquel in his, Bismarck's, absence. The chancellor nevertheless expressed the opinion that, though he was opposed to Miquel's appointment, he did not feel the ministry of State should try to reject the Kaiser's request. The best solution, Bismarck said, would be for Miquel to be offered the post and for him to refuse it. That he would do so was, however, ‘by no means certain’ (Herrfurth to Boetticher, 13 Feb. 1890, BA Koblenz, Boetticher Papers, Herrfurth Folder). At the ministry of State meeting of 14 Feb. Herrfurth explained that the Kaiser's motive was to improve relations with the National Liberals. Boetticher, however, thought Miquel's appointment would do little to satisfy them, and Berlepsch objected that Miquel's appointment would seriously offend the Catholic clergy of the Rhineland (minutes of ministry of State meeting, DZA Merseburg).

139 Thus Herrfurth to Boetticher, 19 Jan. 1890 (BA Koblenz, Boetticher Papers, Herrfurth Folder), forecasting the consequences of the debate on the Anti-Socialist Bill if the government failed to give the Kartell a lead.

140 Holstein to Eulenburg, 18 Nov. 1889, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, VII, 188. See also above, pp. 77, 82.

141 Studt's Report of 18 Feb. 1890, and Bismarck to Kaiser Wilhelm, 20 Feb. 1890, DZA , Potsdam, Reichskanzlei, Nr. 1816Google Scholar . Bismarck had used exactly the same argument in the Prussian ministry of State on 26 Jan. 1890, urging the ministers to approve the Huene petition for the abolition of military service for priests. See above, p. 78.

142 Especially on 23, 26, 27 Feb. and 11 and 12 March 1890 (see , Mommsen, op. cit. pp. 106 ff.).Google Scholar

143 Gossler to Bismarck, 4 March 1890 (information from Dr R. Morsey, Bonn).

144 Printed in , Mommsen, op. cit. p. 121.Google Scholar

145 Printed in , Gradenwitz, op. cit. p. 144.Google Scholar

146 The date of the meeting is still disputed, but both Marschall's Diary and the Eulenburg Papers leave little room for doubt that 12 March—the date also given by Bismarck–is correct. The meeting was, however, actually arranged several days earlier. Bleichroder saw Bismarck on 8 March (Marschall Diary), and then visited Windthorst on the next day. Windthorst told Porsch on 9 March that negotiations had begun (Karl Bachem Papers, Folder 63, Stadtarchiv Koln).

147 Kayser to Eulenburg, 12 March 1890, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, ix, 246 f. Windthorst was a Hanoverian, hence the reference to the Guelphs.

148 Marschall Diary, entry of 13 March 1890, PA Bonn.

149 Ibid. 14 March. See also , Mommsen, op. cit. p. 123Google Scholar.

150 , Waldersee, Denkwürdigkeiten, II, 114f.Google Scholar

151 Ballhausen, Lucius von, op. cit. p. 521.Google Scholar

152 Porsch told Bachem of this in Sept. 1898 (Stadtarchiv Köln, Bachem Papers, Folder 63). 153 This scene is described in Bismarck's Gedanken und Erinnerungen, III, 81 ff.

154 See p. 61, n. II, above.

155 Thus the grand duke of Baden, as quoted in Marschall's Diary, 22 Jan. 1890, PA Bonn.

156 Paul Kayser to Eulenburg, 2 March 1890, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, ix, 169 ff. The italics are mine.

157 When, early in 1892, Chancellor Caprivi began to make moves to forge a ConservativeCentre alliance, Eulenburg warned that any step in that direction would immediately be stamped as ‘reaction’ by the greater part of public opinion, and that its only possible justification would be to provoke Socialist and Liberal uprisings as a pretext for an unconstitutional alteration of the electoral law (Holstein Papers, in, 400 f. and 402).

158 On 13 March 1890 Bismarck approved instructions drawn up by the war minister which ordered all commanding officers to prepare rooms for the imprisonment of Socialist agitators, to print proclamations immediately, and, if violence occurred, to make use of weapons in accordance with the gravity of the situation (Verdy to Bismarck, 12 March 1890, and Bismarck's reply, 13 March 1890, DZA Potsdam, Reichskanzlei, Nr. 1235; printed in part in Hohn, R., Die Armee als Erziehungsschule der Nation, Bad Harzburg, 1963, p. 158)Google Scholar.

159 Schieder, T. in New Cambridge Modern History, xi, 258.Google Scholar

160 P. Eulenburg to his cousin Botho Eulenburg, the Prussian minister-president, 14 April 1892, BA Koblenz, Eulenburg Papers, xix, 271 ff.