3 APRIL 1964, Page 22

Peter Pan and the War-Lord

The Kaiser and His Times. By Michael Balfour. (Cresset Press, 50s.)

IN the course of this interesting book Mr. Balfour recalls a story told by Daisy, Princess of Pless. One day while Kaiser Wilhelm, in maudlin mood, was lamenting that his work for peace was mis- understood, there fell from his bright blue eyes a tear that fizzed and steamed on his cigar. No incident could more perfectly illustrate the spirit of his rich and foolish time. The tragedy through- out lacked dramatic power: the principals, and especially the leading man, had an unfortunate way of muffing the moments of climax.

William was pathetic and ridiculous when he ought to have been tragic; mean and spiteful when he tried to be iniquitous, and if he was not in fact nearly as wicked as foreign opinion sup- posed, this was much more because of his incapa- city and laziness than any vein of moral virtue. He was hungry for power and late in his reign was to be heard screaming against the indignity of becoming 'a mere constitutional sovereign,' but he could not face the hard work of genuine tyranny. Inevitably he formed a vacuum at the top which was the cause of most of his troubles. By a different process Nicholas II did the same in Russia. In a rare flash of intelligence the Kaiser once wrote, 'The Tsar is not treacherous but weak. Weakness is not treachery but it fulfils all its functions:' Perceptive words which applied forcibly to himself.

Mr. Balfour is fair to him, even indulgent at moments; indeed, in hislast chapter he comes near to falling over backwards in order not to ascribe excessive war-guilt to William or his country. He gives the whole case for the man and makes it abundantly clear that the people who surrounded him were for the most part worse than he was.

He makes a strong point in his favour when he says that contrary to much bad advice the Kaiser's appointments to the Chancellorship were roughly speaking the best he could make. He emphasises his moral courage in resisting Ger- man anglophobia at the time of the South African War. Yet when everything possible has been said in defence, William appears unmistakably, from the horrible story of his reign, as an appalling in- fluence on it. If he sometimes counselled modera- tion at a critical climax, he had invariably con- tributed to bringing the crisis into being. When Germany needed a moderate ruler of great strength, Fate handed her over to the care of this childish hysteric.

Men will probably argue for centuries to come about the state of Germany in the age of William. Its incessant neurotic discontent in the midst of achievement and success is baffling. This may have been the inevitable psychological outcome of German education, especially in the terrible military academies which fostered aggressive em- bitterment. It cannot be shown that there was a conscious German drive for a world war, but there was undoubtedly a conscious and energetic drive against the only alternative. Negotiation was looked on as essentially cowardly, something never to be seriously undertaken unless the out- come could be guaranteed in terms of total diplo- matic success with total humiliation of the other party. William personified this repulsive concep- tion of political life. Whenever a conference was proposed, the Emperor led the chorus, howling against the 'insult' to Germany or jeering at the pusillanimity of whoever had taken the initia- tive. If a foreign statesman (Joseph Chamberlain, for example) criticised such conduct William wept over his cigar complaining that his untiring efforts for peace were being malignantly misunderstood, but if the statesman then endeavoured to make amends with a polite speech about Germany, William began to scream again about treacherous efforts to embroil him in some terrible plot. Ger- many became a huge sinister children's play- ground.

Like all Peter Pans, William lacked self-know- ledge. This led him into immense confusion. He wanted to be a strong straight soldier as he imagined his beloved old grandfather had been, but simultaneously he wanted to shine as Machia- velli's prince. He muffed both roles: as the strong soldier he had a way of calling on his army to meddle in politics and to combine with him against socialists, even of the mildest kind; as a Machiavellian he indulged in ceaseless petty mis- chief-making which was invariably found out, thanks to his tactlessness. Not surprisingly he scored an all-time high total of diplomatic dis- asters. Though he was prone to moods of nervous exhaustion and self-pessimism he never guessed how silly he was, and this was very understand- able. He was clever, but not a hundredth part clever enough for the role he wanted to play. He was of quick, imaginative and occasionally pene- trating mind, but essentially so shallow that the familiar comparison with his not deeply intelli- gent uncle Edward VII invariably makes the latter appear by contrast as a man of firm and grave understanding. Edward's famous remark about his overdressed and versatile nephew, 'He is the most brilliant failure in history,' shows a commonsense insight which was habitual with the King and almost unknown with the Kaiser.

This book suggests that William's personal re- sponsibility for the 1914 war was rather more than is usually supposed today. The same would seem to be true of the 1914 Chancellor, Beth-

mann-Hollweg. Mr. Balfour's account of this odious man is not one of his successes. We hear the usual stuff about 'a man of intelligence, learn- ing and the utmost integrity,' but no notice is taken of the fact that his notion of integrity did not prevent him currying favour with the military and naval leaders by outdoing them in reckless- ness. When the Imperial baby got tired of scream- ing and tended to a moderate North Africa policy, Bethmann was the first •to stir him up again. It was Bethmann, acting alone, who turned down Grey's proposal for a conference in July, 1914, and, to improve on his achievement, made sure that the Austrians would do the same. From Lloyd George's memoirs he emerges as an hysteri- cal ass. This seems nearer the truth than the man of integrity.

This failure with Bethmann-Hollweg is re- peated in the case of Holstein. In spite of the publication of his papers he remains an enigmatic figure. If he was probably not the arch-fiend of former legend he was equally not the guileless figure of his self-portrait. Holstein was typical of Wilhelmine Germany: clever, ruthless, ob- scurely embittered, a consistent giver of bad advice. Where Mr. Balfour's picture fails, I be- lieve, is in giving no attention to the theory that the man's character was warped by the ignoble use to which Bismarck put him in his earlier days. He was used as a spy on von Arnim, the German ambassador to the young French Republic, and as the instrument of von Arnim's ruin the Im- perial family and Berlin society for long looked on him with disgust, Surely this was the reason that he only met the Kaiser once in his life. Mr. Balfour makes only a passing reference to this case, not even mentioning the ambassador's name. Excellent as is much of the background writing, he rarely gives an arresting background portrait.

There is one obscurity in William's own story which Mr. Balfour has not cleared up. During the negotiations for his abdication in 1918 no one apparently spared a thought for the poor Empress surrounded by a hostile crowd in Berlin. Off went William to Holland and safety where she joined him only after a perilous journey. Why did he not get her to Spa in the first place? Yet he was never reproached for this and husband and wife lost no affection. There seems a gap in the information somewhere.

After the war and the downfall of German monarchy William surprised the world by his dignified last years. He made an admirable head of the family and was deservedly and deeply loved by his grandchildren. He appeared to grow wise. When the Nazi regime showed its real char- acter, he went back on his early ill-informed admiration. He even went so far, after the 1938 pogrom, as to say that for the first time he was ashamed to be a German. But when Hitler cap- tured Paris the old euphoria overcame him and he sent a telegram of congratulation. Given his background the deed was forgivable, but it dis- posed of the idea of the sage of Doorn.

In spite of some failures by the way, Mr. Bal- four has told the Kaiser's story, one of the most incredible of modern history, with skill and learning, relating it firmly to the European scene which William and his kind unwittingly trans- formed. His judgment is acute. William had so much absurdity that it is arguable that he is best suited as a subject to more popular writers, but even so, his historical position demands the serious study which Mr. Balfour has definitively given. There seems now no room for a new opinion or a new book. William has had it. CHRISTOPHER SYKES