Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:40:10.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Imperialism and Wilhelmine Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Ian L. D. Forbes
Ian L. D. Forbes
Affiliation:
Adelaide College of Advanced Education
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent times the historiography of the Wilhelmine Reich has clearly reflected the influence of Eckart Kehr and of later historians who have adopted and developed his work. The Rankean dogma of the Primat der Aussenpolitik (primacy of foreign policy) has been replaced by a new slogan, Primat der Innenpolitik (primacy of domestic policy). The resultant interpretive scheme is by now quite familiar. The social structure of the Bismarckean Reich, it is said, was shaken to its foundations by the impact of industrialization. A growing class of industrialists sought to break the power of the feudal agrarian class, and a rapidly developing proletariat threatened to upset the status quo. The internecine struggle between industrialists and agrarians was dangerous for both and for the state, since the final beneficiary might be the proletariat. Consequently agrarians and industrialists closed their ranks against the common social democrat enemy and sought to tame the proletariat, which had grown restive under the impact of the depression, by means of a Weltpolitik which would obviate the effects of the depression, heal the economy, and vindicate the political system responsible for such impressive achievements. Hans-Ulrich Wehler and others call this diversionary strategy against the proletarian threat social imperialism; and this, it is said, is the domestic policy primarily responsible for Wilhelmine imperialism.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 1979 , pp. 331 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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 The literature is too extensive to warrant full listing here. Some of it is referred to below. Further, of special interest is Eley, Geoff, ‘Sammlungspolitik, social imperialism and the Navy Law of 1898’, Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen, 1 (1974), 29–63Google Scholar. Conze, Werner, ‘Die deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft seit 1945: Bedingungen und Ergebnisse’, Historische Zeitschrift, ccv (1977), 21–2Google Scholar, comments on the current reception of this school of thought in West Germany. A recent work which lends support to Conze's comment is Winzen, Peter, Bülows Weltmachtkonzept: Untersuchungen zur Frühphase seiner Auβenpolitik 1897–1901 (Boppard am Rhein, 1977), pp. 20–1, 35–42Google Scholar. For an East German critique of the notion of social imperialism, see Gutsche, Willibald, Zur Imperialismus-Apologie in der BRD (Frankfurt, 1975)Google Scholar. Mommsen, Wolfgang J., Imperialismustheorien: Ein Überblick über die neueren Imperialismusinterpretationen (Göttingen, 1977), pp. 75–9Google Scholar, comments briefly and critically.

2 Mommsen, Wolfgang J., ‘Domestic factors in German foreign policy before 1914’, Central European History, VI (1973), 17Google Scholar ff.

3 Puhle, Hans-Jürgen, Agrarische Interessenpolitik und preussischer Konservatismus (Hannover, 1966), pp. 158–64, 185–9Google Scholar. In 1972 Nipperdey, Thomas believed Puhle's criticism was still valid: Historische Zeitschrift, ccxv (1972), 165–70Google Scholar.

4 Barkin, Kenneth D., The controversy over German industrialization, 1890–1902 (Chicago, 1970), p. 165Google Scholar, and part 2 in general. Also Puhle, Interessenpolitik, passim.

5 Ullmann, Hans-Peter, Der Bund der Industriellen (Göttingen, 1976), p. 165, also pp. 22CrossRefGoogle Scholarff. et passim. Also Nussbaum, Helga, Unternehmer gegen Monopole (Berlin, 1966), pp. 149Google Scholar ff.

6 Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, Das Deutsche Kaiserreich 1871–1918 (Göttingen, 1975), p. 102Google Scholar.

7 Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, Krisenherde des Kaiserreichs 1871–1918 (Göttingen, 1970), p. 131Google Scholar.

8 Eley, Geoff, ‘Social imperialism in Germany: Reformist synthesis or reactionary sleight of hand?’, in Radkau, Joachim, Geiss, Imanuel (Hrsg), Imperalismus im 20. Jahrhundert: Gedenkschrift für George W. F. Hallgarten (München, 1976), pp. 71Google Scholar ff. Eley, Geoff, ‘Defining social imperialism: use and abuse of an idea’, Social History, III (1976), 265–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Röhl, John C. G., Germany without Bismarck: the crisis of government in the Second Reich, 1890–1900 (London, 1967), p. 247Google Scholar; Ullmann, Bund, p. 175.

10 Ullmann, Bund, pp. 175 ff.; Barkin, Controversy, pp. 211 ff.; Puhle, Interessenpolitik, pp. 238–40 et passim.

11 Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, Bismarck und der Imperialisms (Köln, Berlin, 1969), p. 23Google Scholar.

12 Forbes, Ian L. D., ‘German informal imperialism in South America before 1914’, Economic History Review, 2nd series, XXXI (1978), 384–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 A copy of the motion is in various German archives; for example, Bundesarchiv Koblenz (hereafter BAK) R2/1507.

14 Centralverband deutscher Industrieller an die zum Centralverband deutscher Industrieller gehörigen Verbände, Vereine, pp. 14.12.1894, Archiv, Handelskammer Hamburg (hereafter AH Hamburg) 95.C.2.7, Bd. 1. The chambers of commerce document is in the same file.

15 Hasenclever to Central Association of German Industrialists 29 Dec. 1894, Geschäftsarchiv der Firma Johann Bernhard Hasenclever Söhne, Stadtarchiv Remscheid.

16 Tornquist, E., Deutschlands Handebbeziehungen mit Argentinien, 23 12 1894Google Scholar, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Wirtschaftsarchiv zu Köln (hereafter RWWA Köln), 1, 24d, 60; Denkschrift der Handebkammer Hamburg, 30 Jan. 1895, AH Hamburg 95.C.2.7, Bd. 1.

17 They are in AH Hamburg 95.0.2.7, Bd. 2.

18 Centralverband deutscher Industrieller, An den Hoken Reichstag, 24 06 1895Google Scholar.

19 Stenographische Berichte über die Verhandlungen des Reichstags, IX Legislaturperiode, 59. Sitzung.

20 Stenographische Berichte, IX Legislaturperiode, Berichte der XIII Kommission, 24 May 1895.

21 Commercial reports from Argentina referred to this at length. See also Statistical Abstracts for this period in Parl, Papers.

22 Verein Hamburger Exporteure an Reichsamt des Innern, 16 Oct. 1903, AH Hamburg 95.C.2.5.

23 Von Sanden to Waldthausen 19 July 1905, BAK R2/1651.

24 Foreign Office to Treasury 31 Dec. 1905, BAK R2/1651.

25 Steifensand to Hohenlohe 5 Oct. 1895, BAK R2/1507.

26 The covering letter commenced by referring to ‘Your Excellency's letter of 27 August of the previous year: Reichardt to Posadowsky 20 Jan. 1896, BAK R2/1507.

27 The reports are in BAK R2/1450 1507, 1636, 1649, 1653. See also Parl. Papers 1900, XCII, p. 139Google Scholar.

28 Reichardt to Treasury 20 Feb. 1896, 28 April 1896, etc., BAK R2/1507.

29 Klügmann, Hanseatische Gesandtschaft Berlin, Gesandtschaftsbericht 13 Oct. 1900, Staatsarchiv Hamburg A.1.4.

30 Posadowsky to Richthofen 20 Sept. 1905, quoted by Kannapin, Klaus, ‘Die deutschargentinischen Beziehungen von 1871 bis 1914 unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Handels- und Wirtschaftsbeziehungen und der Auswanderungspolitik’, Humboldt Universität Berlin Ph.D. dissertation, 1968, p. 157Google Scholar.

31 Richthofen to Posadowsky 28 Oct. 1905, quoted by Kannapin, ‘Deutsch-argentinischen Beziehungen’, p. 157.

32 Ullmann, Bund, pp. 175–86.

33 Foreign Office to Treasury 31 Dec. 1905, BAK R2/1651.

34 A record of the meeting is in BAK R2/1651.

35 Kannapin, ‘Deutsch-argentinischen Beziehungen’, pp. 159–60.

36 Blaich, Fritz, Kartell – und Monopolpolitik im kaiserlichen Deutschland: Das Problem der Marktmacht im deutschen Reichstag zwischen 1879 und 1914 (Düsseldorf, 1973), pp. 92ffGoogle Scholar.

37 Nussbaum, Unternehmer, p. 189.

38 Ibid. pp. 174 ff.

39 Blaich, Kartell – und Monopolpolitik, pp. 119, 209 ff.

40 Nussbaum, Unternehmer, p. 147.

41 Ibid. pp. 203 ff.; Blaich, Kartell – und Monopolpolitik, p. 110.

42 See, for example, Blaich, Kartell – und Monopolpolitik, pp. 217 ff.

43 The documents are in Brasilien 3–4, Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amts, Bonn (hereafter PA Bonn).

44 Zum 25 jährigen Bestehen der Rheinischen Metallwaaren – und Maschinenfabrik Düsseldorf-Derendorf den 7. Mai 1914 (Düsseldorf, 1914), pp. 9–14Google Scholar.

45 Stenographische Berichte, XI Legislaturperiode, I. Session, 1903/1905, vii, 5618–20.

46 A copy of Ehrhardt's 1903 prospectus, with details of the hearing, is in Deutschland 121.19.5, PA Bonn. It also has details of Ehrhardt's test shoots.

47 Von Kries to Foreign Office 13 Jan. 1903, La Valette to Foreign Office 16 Jan. 1903, Brasilien 3.4, PA Bonn.

48 Von Kries, Memorandum 22 Jan. 1903, Brasilien 3.4, PA Bonn.

49 Foreign Office to minister for war and Admiralty 19 Feb. 1903, Brasilien 3.4, PA Bonn.

50 Ministry for war to Richthofen 28 Feb. 1903, Tirpitz to Foreign Office 13 Mar. 1903, Brasilien 3.4, PA Bonn.

51 Von Kries, confidential memorandum 15 March 1903, Brasilien 3.4, PA Bonn.

52 Only a summary release appeared in the press, for example Weser-Zeitung Bremen, 28 Feb. 1903 to 5 Mar. 1903. There are no reports in Reichstag papers.

53 Stenographische Berichte, X Legislaturperiode, II. Session, 1901/1903, x, 8539/49. A full coverage appeared in the press.

54 Treutler to Bülow 27 Nov. 1903, 28 April 1904, Brasilien 3.4 and 3.5, PA Bonn.

55 Stenographische Berichte, XI Legislaturperiode, I. Session, 1903/1905, vii, 5360–6,5615–30.

56 Kiderlen to Bülow 12 Feb. 1906, Rumänien 6.1; Marschall to Bülow 23 Feb. 1906, Türkei 142.23; both in PA Bonn.

57 Claer to war ministry 30 Dec. 1905, Türkei 142.23, PA Bonn.

58 Zimmermann, memorandum to Foreign Office secretary of state 19 Mar. 1906, Türkei 142.23. PA Bonn.

59 See, for example, Bodman to Bülow 14 Feb. 1909, Chile 1.39, PA Bonn.

60 Forbes, Ian L. D., ‘German commercial relations with South America 1890–1914,’ University of Adelaide Ph.D. dissertation, 1975, pp. 185–96Google Scholar.

61 Stegmann, Dirk, ‘Wirtschaft und Politik nach Bismarcks Sturz: Zur Genesis der Miquelschen Sammlungspolitik 1890–1897,’ in Geiss, Imanuel, Wendt, Bernd Jürgen(Hrsg), Deutschland in der Weltpolitik des 19 und 20. Jahrhunderts (Düsseldorf, 1973), pp. 183–4Google Scholar.

62 Saul, Klaus, Staat, Industrie, Arbeiterbewegung im Kaiserreich. Zur Innen – und Sozialpolitik des Wilhelminischen Deutschland 1903–1914 (Diisseldorf, 1974), passim.Google Scholar

63 Geiss, Imanuel, German foreign policy, 1871–1914 (London, Boston, 1976), p. 49Google Scholar. Geiss sees German imperialism beginning with Weltpolitik; colonial expansion prior to 1896–7 is ‘pre-imperialist’.

64 See comments by Mommsen, Wolfgang J., ‘Europäischer Finanzimperialismus vor 1914: Ein Beitrag zu einer pluralistischen Theorie des Imperialismus,’ Historische Zeitschrift, ccxxiv (1977), 19 ffGoogle Scholar.