Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T22:08:18.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Global Politics and Germany's Destiny “from an East Asian Perspective”: Alfred von Tirpitz and the Making of Wilhelmine Navalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2013

Dirk Bönker
Dirk Bönker*
Affiliation:
Duke University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his memoirs, published in 1919, Grand Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, the former Secretary of the Navy and architect of the Wilhelmine battle fleet, claimed that it had been his great “fortune” in 1896 to receive a naval command abroad. Deployed to East Asia, he had been able to “take yet another look at the overseas interests of Germandom” right before the “takeover of the Imperial Naval Office and the inception of the naval buildup.” Appointed in late March 1896, Tirpitz commanded the East Asian Cruiser Division until he was summoned back to Berlin twelve months later, on March 31, 1897. He had returned home “with the impression that England sought to block as much as possible our future development,” as he characterized the main lesson he claimed to have learned during the months he spent away from Germany.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 61 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 2013

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 von Tirpitz, Alfred, Erinnerungen (Leipzig: Koehler, 1919), 60, 168Google Scholar.

2 Tirpitz to Senden, January 10, 1897, Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv (hereafter BA-MA), N 253/45; Tirpitz to Senden, January 20, 1897, BA-MA, N 160/5.

3 Arthur Julius Irmer, “Die Erwerbung von Kiautschou 1894–1898” (Ph.D. diss., Universität Bonn, 1931); Schrecker, John E., Imperialism and Chinese Nationalism: Germany in Shantung (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Albert Harding Ganz, “The Role of the Imperial German Navy in Colonial Affairs” (Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1972); Ganz, Albert Harding, “The German Navy in the Far East and Pacific: The Seizure of Kiautschou and after,” in Germany in the Pacific and Far East, 1870–1914, ed. Moses, John A. and Kennedy, Paul (St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Wippich, Rolf-Harald, Japan und die deutsche Fernostpolitik (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1987)Google Scholar; Mühlhahn, Klaus, Herrschaft und Widerstand in der “Musterkolonie” Kiautschou (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2000)Google Scholar.

4 Berghahn, Volker R., Der Tirpitz-Plan. Genesis und Verfall einer innenpolitischen Krisenstrategie unter Wilhelm II. (Düsseldorf: Droste, 1971)Google Scholar; Hobson, Rolf, Imperialism at Sea: Naval Strategic Thought, the Ideology of Sea Power and the Tirpitz Plan 1875–1914 (Boston: Brill, 2002)Google Scholar; Epkenhans, Michael, Tirpitz: Architect of the German High Seas Fleet (Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 2008)Google Scholar; Kelly, Patrick, Tirpitz and the Imperial German Navy (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2011)Google Scholar. Epkenhans, for example, devotes one small paragraph on Tirpitz's overseas command, while Kelly spends less than eight pages on the year Tirpitz was abroad in 1896–97, offering little more than a chronicle of Tirpitz's exploits. Compare Hallman, Hans, Der Weg zum deutschen Schlachtflottenbau (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933)Google Scholar; Steinberg, Jonathan, Yesterday's Deterrent: Tirpitz and the Birth of the German Battle Fleet (New York: Macdonald, 1965)Google Scholar; Salewski, Michael, Tirpitz. Aufstieg-Macht-Scheitern (Göttingen: Musterschmidt, 1977)Google Scholar; Winzen, Peter, “Treitschke's Influence on the Rise of Imperialist and Anti-British Nationalism in Germany,” in Nationalist and Racialist Movements in Britain and Germany before 1914, ed. Kennedy, Paul and Nicholls, Anthony (Oxford: Macmillan, 1981), 154–170Google Scholar; Scheck, Raffael, Alfred von Tirpitz and German Right-Wing Politics, 1914–1930 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kennedy, Paul, “Levels of Approach and Contexts in Naval History: Admiral Tirpitz and the Origins of Fascism,” in Doing Naval History: Essays Towards Improvement, ed. Hattendorf, John B. (Newport, RI: Naval War College Press, 1997), 143–149Google Scholar.

5 Poiger, Uta, “Imperialism and Empire in Twentieth-Century Germany,” History and Memory 17 (Spring/Summer 2005): 117–143, 137Google Scholar. Compare Conrad, Sebastian and Osterhammel, Jürgen, eds., Das Kaiserreich Transnational. Deutschland in der Welt 1871–1914 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004)Google Scholar; Conrad, Sebastian, “Transnational Germany,” in Imperial Germany 1871–1918, ed. Retallack, James (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 219–241Google Scholar.

6 A convenient summary of Tirpitz's travels is Kelly, Tirpitz, 117–125. The following analysis of Tirpitz's encounters and thinking in 1896–97 is primarily based on his reports and correspondence collected in BA-MA, N 253/43–45 and RM 3/3155–56; and on his letters to his wife, which are in N 253/167. Tirpitz's letters to his wife are documented in part in von Tirpitz, Wolfgang, “Tirpitz's letztes Frontkommando,” Marine-Rundschau 62 (1965): 321–335Google Scholar; and von Hassel, Ulrich, Tirpitz. Sein Leben und Wirken mit Berücksichtigung seiner Beziehungen zu Albrecht von Stosch (Stuttgart: Belser, 1920)Google Scholar. Some of Tirpitz's letters to his wife consist of various parts written on different days and bearing their own dates. When citing them I have chosen to provide the dates on which the part was written, and not the date of the final composite letter.

7 Stoecker, Helmuth, Deutschland und China im 19. Jahrhundert. Das Eindringen des deutschen Kapitalismus (Berlin: Rütten & Loening, 1958)Google Scholar; Boelcke, Willi A., So kam das Meer zu uns. Die preussisch-deutsche Kriegsmarine in Übersee 1822 bis 1914 (Frankfurt: Ullstein, 1981)Google Scholar; Sondhaus, Lawrence, Preparing for Weltpolitik: German Sea Power before the Tirpitz Era (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Eberspächer, Cord, “Deutsche Kanonenbootpolitik in Ostasien,” in Auslandseinsätze deutscher Kriegschiffe im Frieden, ed. Klüver, Hartmut (Bochum: Winkler, 2003), 13–30Google Scholar; Sieg, Dirk, Die Ära Stosch. Die Marine im Spannungsfeld der deutschen Politik 1872 bis 1883 (Bochum: Winkler, 2005), esp. 201–275Google Scholar.

8 Tirpitz, Erinnerungen, 60.

9 Irmer, “Die Erwerbung,” 5–24; Ganz, “Seizure”; Wippich, Japan, 273–285; Mühlhahn, Herrschaft, 66–90. See also Lepsius, Johannes, Bartholdy, Albrecht Mendelssohn, and Thimme, Friedrich, eds., Die Grosse Politik der Europäischen Kabinette 1871–1914, vol. 14 (Berlin: Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft für Politik und Geschichte, 1924) (henceforth cited as Grosse Politik, vol. 14), 1–64Google Scholar; and Schüddekopf, Otto Ernst, Die Stützpunktpolitik des Deutschen Reiches von 1890–1914 (Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt, 1941), 33–56Google Scholar.

10 Hoffmann to Knorr, April 13, 1895, BA-MA, RM 38/28; Hollmann to Marschall, April 17, 1895, in Lepsius et al., eds., Grosse Politik, vol. 14, 7–11; Hoffmann to Knorr, June 26, 1895, BA-MA, RM 38/28; Hollmann, Memorandum on the choice of a naval base in East Asia, October 27, 1895, BA-MA, RM 2/1835; Knorr to Senden, October 30, 1895, BA-MA, RM 2/1835; Knorr, Memorandum on a naval base in East Asia, November 8, 1895, BA-MA, RM 3/6692; Hohenlohe, Note, November 11, 1895; BA-MA, RM 2/1835; Hoffmann to Knorr, March 24, 1896, BA-MA, RM 38/28; Jaeschke, Memorandum on Germany's need for a military base abroad, May 1896, BA-MA, RM 2/1835; Jaeschke to Hoffmann, May 27, 1896, BA-MA, RM 38/28.

11 Jaeschke, Memorandum on Germany's need for a military base abroad, May 1896, BA-MA, RM 2/1835.

12 The best explication is in Hollmann to Marschall, April 17, 1895, in Lepsius et al., eds., Grosse Politik, vol. 14, 7–11.

13 See, for example, Irmer, “Die Erwerbung,” 25–41; Ganz, “Seizure”; Wippich, Japan, 273–297; and Mühlhahn, Herrschaft, 70–75 and 89–94. Tirpitz's own account is in his Erinnerungen, 61–65.

14 Knorr to Tirpitz, May 21, 1896, BA-MA, RM 38/28.

15 Tirpitz to Knorr, September 5, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45. Compare Tirpitz to Heyking, September 1, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/44. On the navy's decision for Kiaochow, see Barandon, Memorandum, November 5, 1896, BA-MA, RM 3/6693; Knorr, Memorandum, November 9, 1896, in Lepsius et al., eds., Grosse Politik, vol. 14, 36–39; Wilhelm II to Hohenlohe, November 27, 1896, in Lepsius et al., eds., Grosse Politik, vol. 14, 43; Knorr to Wilhelm II, November 28, 1896, BA-MA, RM 3/6693; “Aufzeichnung des Auswärtigen Amtes,” in Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, Denkwürdigkeiten der Reichskanzlerzeit, ed. von Müller, Karl Alexander (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1931), 282–3Google Scholar; Hollmann to Marschall, December 8, 1896, in Lepsius et al., eds., Grosse Politik, vol. 14, 47; Knorr to Wilhelm II, December 15, 1896, BA-MA, RM 2/1835; Senden to Knorr, December 22, 1896, BA-MA, RM 3/6693. Compare Wippich, Japan, 293–295; Mühlhahn, Herrschaft, 89–92. On Wilhelm II and the Amoy incident, see Tirpitz to his wife, December 2, 1896, BA-MA, RM 3/167; Tirpitz to Müller, December 11, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45; Tirpitz, Report to the Naval High Command concerning the situation in Amoy from November 26 through December 3, early December 1896, BA-MA, N 253/44; Tirpitz, Erinnerungen, 64–65. On the Emperor's erratic behavior, see also Holstein to Hatzfeld, November 27–28, 1896, in Ebel, Gerhard, ed., Botschafter Paul Graf von Hatzfeld. Nachgelassene Papiere 1838–1902 (Boppard: Boldt, 1976), 1097–1102Google Scholar; and the documents in Lepsius et al., eds., Grosse Politik, vol. 14, 43–45.

16 von Richthofen, Ferdinand, China. Ergebnisse eigener Reisen und darauf gegründeter Studien, vol. 2 (Berlin: D. Reimer, 1882)Google Scholar. On Richthofen, see Osterhammel, Jürgen, “Forschungsreise und Kolonialprogramm. Ferdinand von Richthofen und die Erschliessung Chinas im 19. Jahrhundert,” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 69 (1987): 150–195Google Scholar; Zögner, Lothar, “Ferdinand von Richthofen. Neue Sicht auf ein altes Land,” in Tsingtau. Ein Kapitel deutscher Kolonialgeschichte in China 1897–1914, ed. Hinz, Hans-Martin and Lind, Christoph (Eurasburg: Edition Minerva, 1998), 72–75Google Scholar.

17 Tirpitz to Heyking, September 28, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

18 Heyking to Hohenlohe, August 22, 1896, in Lepsius et al., eds., Grosse Politik, vol. 14, 34–36; Heyking to Tirpitz, October 30, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

19 Tirpitz to Knorr, September 5, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45. On prior assessments, see, for example, Hollmann to Marschall, September 25, 1895, and Knorr, Memorandum on a naval base in East Asia, November 8, 1895, both in BA-MA, RM 3/6692.

20 Tirpitz to Knorr, September 5, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

21 Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45. Compare also Tirpitz to Heyking, November 13, 1896, and December 20, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/44.

22 Tirpitz, Notes about his meeting and agreements with Heyking, August 6, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/43 and N 253/45; and Heyking to Hohenlohe, August 22, 1896, in Lepsius et al., eds., Grosse Politik, vol. 14, 34–36.

23 Senden to Tirpitz, November 22, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45, informing him that the navy leadership had come to accept the findings of his September report concerning Kiaochow. See also Jaeschke to Tirpitz, December 19, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45. On the dismissal of the conclusions of Tirpitz's December report, see Knorr, Memorandum about a naval base in East Asia, January 9, 1897, BA-MA, RM 5/914.

24 Tirpitz to Heyking, December 20, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/44.

25 Tirpitz to Senden, January 10, 1897. For Senden's previous letter, see Senden to Tirpitz, November 22, 1896. Both letters are in BA-MA, N 253/45.

26 Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

27 Tirpitz to Heyking, December 20, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/44. Compare also Tirpitz to Knorr, January 23, 1897, BA-MA, RM 38/29. On Tirpitz's previous rejection of Amoy, see his reports to Knorr from September 5 and December 7, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45; and in addition, his letter to his wife, December 2, 1896, BA-MA N 253/167.

28 Tirpitz to Senden, January 10, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/45.

29 On the failure of negotiations and its consequences, see the summary in Wippich, Japan, 294–297. On the navy's position in January, see Knorr, Memorandum about a naval base in East Asia, January 9, 1897, BA-MA, RM 5/914; Knorr to Tirpitz, December 31, 1897, January 2, 1897, January 12, 1897, February 5, 1897, BA-MA, RM 38/28. On Franzius's mission, see Franzius, Georg, Kiautschou. Deutschlands Erwerbung in Ostasien (Berlin: Schall & Grund, 1898)Google Scholar; Franzius, Georg, “Kiautschou,” Marine-Rundschau 9 (1898): 411–426Google Scholar. Franzius submitted his official report on August 27, 1897. BA-MA, RM 3/6693. Franzius visited Kiaochow in early May. Most historians, from Ganz to Mühlhahn, suggest that Franzius investigated Kiaochow in January in the company of Tirpitz, when, in fact, he did so only after the rear admiral departed from the Far East (which he witnessed). On Franzius's travels, compare Heyking to Hohenlohe, May 5, 1897, in Lepsius et al., eds., Grosse Politik, vol. 14, 50–54; Zeye to Knorr, June 10, 1897, BA-MA, RM 3/6693; Knorr, Memorandum for a presentation to the Emperor, July 31, 1897, BA-MA, RM 5/915. See also Franzius to Tirpitz, August 27, 1897, BA-MA, RM 3/6697.

30 Tirpitz to Knorr, January 23, 1897, RM 38/29.

31 On Tirpitz's opposition, see Bülow to Tirpitz, October 10, 1897, Tirpitz to Bülow, October 12, 1897, BA-MA, RM 3/6693; Koester to Tirpitz, November 1, 1897, Knorr to Tirpitz, November 2, 1897, BA-MA, RM 3/6694; Koester to Diederichs, November 3, 1897, BA-MA, RM 5/5930; Tirpitz to Hohenlohe, November 10, 1897, in Hohenlohe, Denkwürdigkeiten, 412; Hohenlohe to Wilhelm II, November 11, 1897, in Lepsius et al., eds., Grosse Politik, vol. 14, 78–79; Holstein to Hatzfeld, November 13, 1897, in Holstein, Friedrich von, Friedrich von Holstein. Die geheimen Papiere, ed. Frauendienst, Walter, vol. IV (Göttingen: Musterschmidt, 1963), 43–46Google Scholar; Note from November 15, 1897, in Lepsius et al., eds., Grosse Politik, vol. 14, 85–86; and Holstein, Diary, January 11, 1902, in Holstein, Holstein, ed. Frauendienst, vol. IV, 220–21.

32 Gottschall, Terrell D., By Order of the Kaiser: Otto von Diederichs and the Rise of the Imperial German Navy 1865–1902 (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2003), 144–180Google Scholar. On the seizure of Kiaochow, compare Mühlhahn, Herrschaft, 94–11; Ganz, “Seizure”; and Wippich, Japan, 325–359.

33 On Diederichs's thinking about German aspirations in China, see his massive report to Admiral Eduard von Knorr from August 21, 1897, BA-MA, RM 3/6694.

34 Mühlhahn, Herrschaft, 200–07. On Tirpitz's reasoning, see his notes from January 4 and 16, 1898, BA-MA, RM 3/6699. Strikingly, the Secretary of the Navy also sought control over the deployment of overseas ships in 1898. On this, see Berghahn, Der Tirpitz-Plan, 36–37; and Hubatsch, Walter, Der Admiralstab und die obersten Marinebehörden in Deutschland 1848–1945 (Frankfurt: Bernard & Graefe, 1958), 73–84Google Scholar.

35 Herwig, Holger, “Luxury” Fleet: The Imperial German Navy 1888–1918 (London: Allen & Unwin, 1980), 98–103Google Scholar; Kaulisch, Baldur, “Zur überseeischen Stützpunktpolitik der kaiserlichen deutschen Marineführung am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts und im ersten Weltkrieg,” Militärgeschichte 18 (1980): 585–598Google Scholar; Schult, Volker, Wunsch und Wirklichkeit. Deutsch-philippinische Beziehungen im Kontext globaler Verflechtungen 1860–1945 (Berlin: Logos Verlag, 2008), 125–174Google Scholar.

36 Note of foreign service officer Klehmet about a conversation with Tirpitz on March 16, 1898, printed in Bülow, Bernhard von, Denkwürdigkeiten (Berlin: Ullstein, 1930), vol. I, 188–189Google Scholar. Strikingly, in 1904, Tirpitz argued that Germany had no interest in a Russo-Japanese war turning into a global conflict involving other large powers. Such a war would be a “disaster” for Germany because “the English” would then take full possession of the Yangzi River. See Bülow to Holstein, January 16, 1904, in Holstein, Holstein, ed. Frauendienst, vol. IV, 249–250. On Tirpitz, the Spanish-American War, and colonial schemes, see also the discussion in Herwig, Holger H., Politics of Frustration: The United States in German Naval Planning, 1889–1941 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1976), 24–36Google Scholar.

37 Eulenburg, comments on a letter from Holstein to him, November 10, 1897, quoted in Eulenburg, Philipp, Philipp Eulenburgs Politische Korrespondenz, ed. Röhl, John C. G., vol. III (Boppard: Boldt, 1983)Google Scholar, 1874, footnote 4.

38 Albert Hopman, Diary, December 22, 1904, in Hopman, Albert, Das ereignisreiche Leben eines “Wilhelminers.” Tagebücher, Briefe, Aufzeichnungen von Albert Hopman, 1901 bis 1910, ed. Epkenhans, Michael (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2004), 119–122Google Scholar.

39 Tirpitz's vacillation on Kiaochow has already been noted by Gottschall, Order, 141–144, and, following him, Kelly, Tirpitz, 121–124. Compare also Steinberg, Yesterday's Deterrent, 103–104. Usually, historians (including Irmer, Ganz, Wippich, and Mühlhahn) briefly mention Tirpitz's December report and its conclusions but then pay no further attention to Tirpitz's shift in thinking and its significance. It is important also to note that Tirpitz's ultimate interest in the Yangzi Valley as such is well known among scholars. But it is usually presented as entirely compatible with his investment in Kiaochow.

40 A summary of Tirpitz's troubles is in Kelly, Tirpitz, 120–128. Repeatedly, Tirpitz complained about the adversity he faced. See, for example, Tirpitz to Knorr, November 21, 1896, BA-MA, RM 38/29; Tirpitz to his wife, December 2 and 24, 1896, BA-MA, RM 3/167; Tirpitz to Knorr, December 8, 1896, BA-MA, RM 4/170; Tirpitz to Müller, December 11, 1897, Tirpitz to Heyking, December 20, 1896, Tirpitz to Senden, January 10, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/44 and N 253/45. Compare his account in his memoirs: Tirpitz, Erinnerungen, 61–65. Collected in BA-MA, RM 3/1835–36, Tirpitz's Tätigkeitsberichte (action reports) chronicle both the constant repairs the ships under his command underwent and their movements, including the schedule of exercise and site inspection. On Tirpitz's frustration with Heyking over the Amoy incident, see also Tirpitz to Tirpitz, Report to the Naval High Command concerning the situation in Amoy from November 26 through December 3, early December 1896, BA-MA, N 253/44.

41 Tirpitz's report in December was certainly not the product of a temporary mood swing, a “bout of depression,” as Kelly, Tirpitz, 123, has suggested.

42 Naval High Command, “Allgemeine Erfahrungen aus den Manövern der Herbstübungsflotte,” June 16, 1894, BA-MA, RM 4/176. On the Tirpitz-Mahan connection, see the excellent discussion in Hobson, Imperialism, 179–190, 209–212.

43 On the Weltreichslehre, see Neitzel, Sönke, Weltmacht oder Untergang. Die Weltreichslehre im Zeitalter des Imperialismus (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2000)Google Scholar. On Peez's influence, see Tirpitz, Erinnerungen, 96–97; Heeringen to Tirpitz, June 28, 1914, BA-MA, N 253/407.

44 Grimmer-Solem, Erik, “Imperialist Socialism of the Chair: Gustav Schmoller and German Weltpolitik, 1897–1905,” in Wilhelminism and its Legacies: German Modernities, Imperialism, and the Meanings of Reform, 1890–1933, ed. Eley, Geoff and Retallack, James (New York: Berghahn Books, 2003), 107–122Google Scholar.

45 Winzen, “Treitschke's Influence.”

46 Naval High Command, “Allgemeine Erfahrungen aus den Manövern der Herbstübungsflotte,” June 16, 1894, BA-MA, RM 4/176. In this service memorandum, Tirpitz also laid out the paradigm of battle-fleet warfare in an authoritative fashion.

47 Tirpitz, Memorandum, January 3, 1896, Tirpitz, Notes for a presentation to the Emperor on January 28, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/3; Tirpitz to Stosch, February 13, 1896 (quote), BA-MA, N 253/321; Tirpitz, Draft for a speech in the Reichstag, March 1896, in Hallmann, Hans, Krügerdepesche und Flottenfrage (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1927), 79–97Google Scholar. With the exception of the speech draft, these documents are printed in Berghahn, Volker R. and Deist, Wilhelm, Rüstung im Zeichen der wilhelminischen Welpolitik. Grundlegende Dokumente 1890–1914 (Düsseldorf: Droste, 1988)Google Scholar.

48 Tirpitz to Schmoller, July 28, 1897, Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Nachlass Schmoller. I thank Erik Grimmer-Solem for providing me with his transcription of this important letter. Compare Grimmer-Solem, “Imperialist Socialism,” 110.

49 Tirpitz to Amsler, July 18, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/166.

50 Tirpitz, Notes for the Imperial audience on September 28, 1899, BA-MA, RM 3/1 (printed in Berghahn and Deist, Rüstung, 159–162).

51 Tirpitz to his wife, September 12, 21, and 26, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167; Tirpitz to Knorr, August 6 and September 30, 1896, BA-MA, RM 3/3155; Tirpitz to Heyking, September 28, 1896, Tirpitz, Notes for a report about Russia's position in the Far East, October 26, 1896, Tirpitz to Knorr, fall 1896 (draft), Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896, all in BA-MA, N 253/45.

52 Tirpitz to his wife, September 26, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167.

53 Kaulisch, Baldur, “Alfred von Tirpitz und Rußland,” in Deutsch-russische Beziehungen. Ihre welthistorische Dimension vom 18. Jahrhundert bis 1917, ed. Thomas, Ludmila and Wulff, Dietmar (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1992), 174–187Google Scholar.

54 Tirpitz to Knorr, August 6, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

55 Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

56 Tirpitz to Knorr, August 6, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

57 Tirpitz to Heyking, September 28, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45. Compare also Tirpitz to Heyking, September 1, 1896, N 253/44.

58 Tirpitz, Notes for a report about Russia's position in the Far East, October 26, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

59 Tirpitz to his wife, September 21, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167.

60 Tirpitz to Knorr, September 30, 1896, BA-MA, RM 3/1835.

61 Tirpitz to his wife, September 12, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167.

62 Tirpitz to his wife, September 21, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167.

63 Tirpitz to Knorr, fall 1896 (draft), BA-MA, N 253/45.

64 Tirpitz to his wife, September 26, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167.

65 Tirpitz to Hassel, 1902, in Hassel, Tirpitz, 172.

66 Naval High Command, “Allgemeine Erfahrungen aus den Manövern der Herbstübungsflotte,” June 16, 1894, BA-MA, RM 4/176.

67 On this trip, see Kelly, Tirpitz, 235–236.

68 Tirpitz to his wife, May 20, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/167.

69 Tirpitz to his wife, May 15, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167.

70 Tripitz to his wife, May 17, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167.

71 Tirpitz to Knorr, fall 1896 (draft), BA-MA, N 253/45.

72 Tirpitz to his wife, May 15, 1896. Compare his letters from May 17 and 21, BA-MA, N 253/167.

73 Tirpitz to his wife, May 18, 1896. On Tirpitz's impressions of the west coast, see Tirpitz to his wife, May 21 and June 3, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167.

74 Tirpitz, “Allgemeine Gesichtspunkte bei der Feststellung unserer Flotte nach Schiffsklassen und Schiffstypen,” July 1897, BA-MA, N 253/4 (printed in Berghahn and Deist, Rüstung, 122–27).

75 See the materials cited in Footnote 47. On Tirpitz and the war scare, see the summaries in Lambi, Ivo Nikolai, The Navy and German Power Politics, 1862–1914 (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1984), 113–118Google Scholar; and Kelly, Tirpitz, 107–117.

76 Tirpitz to Senden, January 10, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/45; Tirpitz to Senden, January 20, 1897, BA-MA, N 160/5.

77 Naranch, Bradley, “Made in China: Austro-Prussian Overseas Rivalry and the Global Unification of the German Nation,” Australian Journal of Politics and Society 56 (2010): 367–381Google Scholar.

78 Eduard von Capelle to Tirpitz, August 7, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/4; Krugg von Nidda to the Secretary of War of Saxony, December 3, 1899, recording a conversation with Tirpitz, Hauptstaatsarchiv Dresden, Berichte des Militärbevollmächtigten in Berlin, File 4516.

79 Tirpitz to Knorr, fall 1896 (draft), and Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896, both in BA-MA, N 253/45. On this assessment, compare Winzen, Peter, “Zur Genesis von Weltmachtkonzept und Weltpolitik,” in Der Ort Wilhelms II. in der deutschen Geschichte, ed. Röhl, John C. G. (Munich: Beck, 1991), 195–222, 201–203Google Scholar.

80 Note of foreign service officer Klehmet about a conversation with Tirpitz on March 16, 1898, printed in Bülow, Denkwürdigkeiten, vol. I, 188–189.

81 Tirpitz, Notes about the English Press, St. Blasius, summer 1908, BA-MA, RM 3/8.

82 Tirpitz to Knorr, September 5, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

83 Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

84 Tirpitz to Knorr, fall 1896 (draft), and Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896 (quote), Tirpitz to Senden, January 10, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/45.

85 Jaeschke, Memorandum on Germany's need for a military base abroad, May 1896, BA-MA, RM 2/1835; Jaeschke to Hoffmann, May 27, 1896, BA-MA, RM 38/28.

86 Tirpitz to his wife, July 11, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167.

87 Tirpitz to his wife, July 18, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167.

88 Tirpitz to Knorr, fall 1896 (draft), and Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896, both in BA-MA, N 253/45. On Tirpitz's views, see also, in addition to the letters cited in the previous two notes, Tirpitz to his wife, July 17 and 19, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167.

89 Tirpitz to his wife, December 12, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167.

90 Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

91 For example, Tirpitz to his wife, January 10, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/167.

92 Tirpiz to Knorr, fall 1896 (draft), BA-MA, N 253/45.

93 Tirpitz to his wife, January 10, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/167.

94 Typical are Tirpitz's letters to his wife that he sent from Chefoo in summer 1896 and from Hong Kong in the subsequent winter; BA-MA, N 253/167. On this point, compare W. von Tirpitz, “Tirpitz's letztes Frontkommando,” 330–332. There are no complaints about ill treatment by British officials in Tirpitz's entire correspondence.

95 Tirpitz to his wife, June 10, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167.

96 Tirpitz to Knorr, August 6 and November 10, 1896, BA-MA, RM 3/1835. Compare also Tirpitz to Heyking, September 1, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/44.

97 Tirpitz to Knorr, November 10, 1896, BA-MA, RM 3/1835. His predecessor had made a similar proposal. A position was finally created in 1898. On this issue, see Giessler, Klaus-Volker, Die Institution des Marineattachés im Kaiserreich (Boppard: Boldt, 1976), esp. 99–100 and 104–105Google Scholar. For the immediate response to Tirpitz's suggestion, see Knorr, “Denkschrift zum Immediatvortrag betreffend Marine-Attaché in Ostasien,” January 2, 1897, BA-MA, RM 5/914.

98 Tirpitz to his wife, June 10 and October 27, 1896; compare Tirpitz's other letters to his wife from late September and October 1896. BA-MA, N 253/167.

99 Tirpitz to Knorr, November 10, 1896, BA-MA, RM 3/1835.

100 Tirpitz to Amsler, July 18, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/166.

101 Holstein to Tirpitz, January 2, 1898, including Tirpitz's comments, BA-MA, N 253/45. On the navy's panic and its fantastical war plans, see the comprehensive discussion in Wippich, Japan, 371–384, 293–94. The two key planning documents are the Naval High Command's provisional war plan from December 16 and Admiral Knorr's memorandum on naval preparations for a war with Japan from December 18, 1896, both in BA-MA, RM 5/5914.

102 Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

103 Tirpitz to Schmoller, July 28, 1897, Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Nachlass Schmoller; Tirpitz to Amsler, July 18, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/166; Tirpitz, Notes for the Imperial audience on September 28, 1899, BA-MA, RM 3/1; Tirpitz to Hassel, 1902, in Hassel, Tirpitz, 172.

104 Tirpitz to his wife, January 1, 1897, BA-MA, N253/167; Tirpitz to Knorr, January 1, 3, 18, and 26, 1897, BA-MA, RM 3/1836.

105 For example, Tirpitz to Amsler, July 18, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/166; Tirpitz, Notes for the Imperial audience on September 28, 1899, BA-MA, RM 3/1; Tirpitz, Notes for speech before senior naval officers in Wilhelmshaven on October 20, 1899 (printed in Berghahn and Deist, Rüstung, 162–64), BA-MA, RM 3/1; Tirpitz to Hassel, 1902, in Hassel, Tirpitz, 172.

106 Tirpitz to his daughter, 1903, Hassel, Tirpitz, 223–4.

107 For example, Tirpitz to Admiral Stosch, December 21, 1895, BA-MA, N 253/321; Tirpitz, Memorandum, January 3, 1896, and Tirpitz, Notes for an Imperial audience on January 28, 1896, both in BA-MA, N 253/3.

108 Tirpitz, Notes for the Imperial audience on September 28, 1899, BA-MA, RM 3/1; Tirpitz, Erinnerungen, 60. The documentation of the actual global reach of German “maritime interests” in the present was the key theme of the naval propaganda that Tirpitz and his aides in the Imperial Naval Office orchestrated after 1897. Good examples are Reichsmarineamt, Die Seeinteressen des Deutschen Reiches (Berlin: Mittler, 1898)Google Scholar; Reichsmarineamt, Die Steigerung der Deutschen Seeinteressen von 1896 bis 1898 (Berlin: Mittler, 1900)Google Scholar; Reichsmarineamt, Die Entwicklung der deutschen Seeinteressen im letzten Jahrzehnt (Berlin: Mittler, 1906)Google Scholar.

109 Tirpitz to Schmoller, July 28, 1897, Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Nachlass Schmoller. Compare Grimmer-Solem, “Socialist Imperialism,” 110.

110 Tirpitz to Admiral Knorr, fall 1896 (draft), BA-MA, N 253/45.

111 Tirpitz, Notes for an Imperial audience on June 15, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/4; Tirpitz to Emperor, April 24, 1898; Tirpitz, “Motive für die Organisationsänderung,” undated notes, summer 1898; Tirpitz to Prince Henry of Prussia, September 15, 1898; all in BA-MA, N 253/39. On Tirpitz's plea in the winter of 1895–96, see Tirpitz to Stosch, December 21, 1895; Tirpitz, Memorandum, January 3, 1896; Tirpitz, Notes for and about an Imperial audience on January 28, 1896; all in BA-MA, N 253/3. See also Tirpitz to Senden, February 8, 1896, BA-MA, N 160/5; Senden, Notes about a conversation with chief of the Civil Cabinet, February 13, 1896, BA-MA, N 160/11; Senden to Tirpitz, February 13, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/3; Tirpitz to Senden, February 15, 1896, BA-MA, N 160/5. On Stosch, see Sieg, Die Ära Stosch, 379–390.

112 Tirpitz, Draft for a letter to Imperial Secretary of Finance Thielmann, August 8, 1897, BA-MA, 253/4. Tirpitz deleted this particular passage in the final copy of the letter. Compare Tirpitz, Comments on Ernst von Halle's memorandum from July 7, 1899, BA-MA, RM 3/1; Tirpitz to unknown, November 18, 1899, BA-MA N 253/16. On this issue, see also the discussion in Eley, Geoff, “Sammlungspolitik, Social Imperialism, and the Navy Law of 1898,” in Geoff Eley, From Unification to Nazism: Reinterpreting the German Past (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1986), 110–153Google Scholar.

113 Bade, Klaus J., Friedrich Fabri und der Imperialismus in der Bismarckzeit. Revolution-Depression-Expansion (Freiburg: Atlantis Verlag, 1975)Google Scholar; Smith, Woodruff D., The Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Conrad, Sebastian, Globalisierung und Nation im Deutschen Kaiserreich (Munich: Beck, 2006)Google Scholar.

114 von Heyking, Elisabeth, Tagebücher aus vier Weltteilen 1886/1904, 4th ed. (Leipzig: Köhler und Amelang, 1926), 185Google Scholar. For Tirpitz's articulation of emigrationist anxieties before his trip to East Asia, see Tirpitz, Memorandum, January 3, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/3. In this context, see also Maltzahn to Tirpitz, August 28, 1895, BA-MA, N 253/408.

115 Tirpitz to his wife, May 15, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167; Tirpitz, Erinnerungen, 71–72.

116 Tirpitz to Admiral Knorr, fall 1896 (draft), BA-MA, N 253/45. On this issue, compare Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

117 Tirpitz to his wife, September 21, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167.

118 Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

119 Tirpitz to Wilhelm II, April 24, 1898, BA-MA, N 253/39.

120 Tirpitz to his wife, September 21, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167. See also Heyking, Tagebücher, 185, diary entry for July 30, 1896, covering a conversation with Tirpitz.

121 Tirpitz to Knorr, September 5, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

122 Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

123 Tirpitz to Knorr, fall 1896 (draft), BA-MA, N 253/45.

124 Tirpitz to Richthofen, November 1, 1904, BA-MA, RM 3/4. On this imperative, see Berghahn, Der Tirpitz-Plan, 380–415.

125 Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45. Compare Tirpitz to Senden, January 10 and 20, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/45 and N 160/5.

126 Tirpitz to Knorr, fall 1896 (draft); Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896 (quote); both in BA-MA, N 253/45.

127 Tirpitz to Heyking, September 28, 1896; Tirpitz to Knorr, fall 1896 (draft); Tirpitz to Knorr, December 7, 1896 (quote); all in BA-MA, N 253/45.

128 Tirpitz, Notes for a report about Russia's position in the Far East, October 26, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

129 Tirpitz to Knorr, fall 1896 (draft), BA-MA, N253/45.

130 Tirpitz to Senden, January 10, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/45; Tirpitz to Senden, January 20, 1897, BA-MA, N 160/5. On Tirpitz and naval legislation back in Germany, see also Kelly, Tirpitz, 125–128.

131 Tirpitz to Knorr, September 5, 1896 (quotes), and December 7, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

132 Tirpitz to Knorr, July 6, 1896; see also his letters to Knorr from August 8 and 18, 1896, BA-MA, RM 3/1835, and to his wife on June 24 and July 11, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167. On German military aid and Chinese self-strengthening, see Eberspächer, Cord, “To Arm China: Sino-German Relations in the Military Sphere prior to the First World War,” in The Limits of Empire: New Perspectives on Imperialism in Modern China, ed. Mühlhahn, Klaus (Münster: LIT, 2008), 54–74Google Scholar; Ratenhof, Udo, Die Chinapolitik des Deutschen Reiches 1871 bis 1945. Wirtschaft—Rüstung—Militär (Boppard: Boldt, 1987)Google Scholar.

133 Tirpitz to his wife, August 21 and September 12, 1896, BA-MA, N253/167. Compare his letter to his wife from November 12, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/167.

134 Tirpitz, Notes for a report about Russia's position in the Far East, October 26, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

135 Tirpitz to Müller, December 11, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45.

136 Tirpitz, Report to the Naval High Command concerning the situation in Amoy from November 26 through December 3, early December 1896, BA-MA, N 253/44; Tirpitz to his wife, December 2, 1896, BA-MA, N253/167; Tirpitz to Müller, December 11, 1896, BA-MA, N 253/45. See also Tirpitz, Erinnerungen, 64–65.

137 Tirpitz to Hohenlohe, November 10, 1897, in Hohenlohe, Denkwürdigkeiten, 412; Hohenlohe to Wilhelm II, November 11, 1897, in Lepsius et al., eds., Grosse Politik, vol. 14, 78–79; Tirpitz to Grand Duke of Baden, November 14, 1897, BA-MA, N 253/4; Holstein to Hatzfeld, November 13, 1897, and Holstein, Diary, January 11, 1902, in Holstein, Holstein, ed. Frauendienst, vol. IV, 43–46 and 220–21. Tirpitz was also alarmed about how conflict over German action in Kiaochow would make passage of the naval bill he sought difficult, if not impossible.

138 Otto von Diederichs, “Die Besetzung von Tsingtau, November 14, 1897,” BA-MA, N 255/24; Knorr to Wilhelm II, May 21, 1898, BA-MA, N 253/39. Wilhelm II wrote in 1906 that a grumbling Tirpitz had “stood aside” and counseled “giving in.” Bülow, Denkwürdigkeiten, vol. I, 210 (Emperor's marginal notes on an article in Figaro, January 8, 1906). Conversely, critics of the navy's Kiaochow activism such as Eulenburg and Holstein praised Tirpitz as the one reasonable navy leader who acted in a calm, responsible manner. Holstein to Eulenburg, November 10 and 23, 1897, and Eulenburg, Comments on Holstein to Eulenburg, November 10, 1897; in Eulenburgs Politische Korrespondenz, ed. Röhl, 1873–74, 1874 footnote 4, and 1874–75. See also Eulenburg to Holstein, November 13, 1897, in Holstein, Holstein, ed. Frauendienst, vol. IV, 47.

139 For example, Herwig, Holger H., The German Naval Officer Corps: A Social and Political History 1890–1918 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973)Google Scholar; Herwig, Fleet. Herwig has suggested that in the “absence of cruises in foreign waters” the intellectual outlook of the typical Wilhelmine naval officer was as narrow as that of “army officers in provincial garrison towns”; Herwig, Corps, 91. For a similar argument made by contemporaneous critics of the Wilhelmine navy, see Persius, Lothar, Menschen und Schiffe in der Kaiserlichen Flotte (Berlin: Dietz, 1925)Google Scholar.

140 Punctuated by the deployment of a massive armada of several battleships in the context of the suppression of the anti-imperial revolt in China in 1900–01, the activities of the Cruiser Division, the naval administration in Kiaochow, and continuous gunboat action on the Yangzi River nonetheless ensured that a considerable number of officers saw service in the Far East. Ganz, “The Role of the Imperial German Navy”; Eberspächer, Cord, Yangtse-Patrouille. Das Deutsche Reich und der Boxeraufstand, ed. Kuss, Susanne and Martin, Bernd (Munich: Iudicium Verlag, 2002)Google Scholar.

141 For example, Scheer, Reinhard, Vom Segelschiff zum U-Boot (Leipzig: Quelle und Meyer, 1925), 174–196Google Scholar; Görlitz, Walter, ed., Der Kaiser . . . Aufzeichnungen des Chefs des Marinekabinetts Admiral Georg Alexander v. Müller über die Ära Wilhelms II. (Berlin: Musterschmidt, 1965), 18–23Google Scholar.

142 A comprehensive analysis of this enterprise is in Bönker, Dirk, Militarism in a Global Age: Naval Ambitions in Germany and the United States before World War I (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

143 Ludwig Schröder, “Braucht das deutsche Reich Flottenstützpunke im Ausland?,” April 15, 1903, BA-MA, RM 5/5956.

144 On this, see the evidence in Boelcke, Meer; Gottschall, Order; and Eberspächer, Yangtse-Patrouille.

145 Tirpitz to Knorr, fall 1896 (draft), BA-MA, N 253/45.