THE KAISER ON THE " SPECTATOR" DURING THE VENEZUELAN CRISIS
OF 1902.
ITo THE EDITOR or THE " SPECTATOR.") Sta,—A proper of your leading article of October 13th on Mr. Roosevelt's ultimatum to Germany, it may interest you and your readers to be reminded of what you actually said fifteen years ago in regard to the relations then existing between America, Germany, and Britain, and the consistent support given by Britain to the principle embodied in the Monroe Doctrine. I quote the passage in question in full, hoping that you may be able at any rate to find room for the Kaiser's entertaining opinion of the Spectator:— "We are at a loss to discover what Sir Henry Campbell- Bannerman can mean when he declares, as be did on Tuesday, that he has ' nothing but condemnation for the action of those in either nation who by stupid and vulgar abuse fomented discord
between the two nations—Le., Britain and Germany.' . . No reasonable and responsible newspaper has covered Germany or its ruler with vulgar abuse, or desires for a moment to do so. There has been, in fact, not the slightest symptom of any wish to imitate the German attacks upon our soldiers. We will take our own case as typical. Rightly or wrongly, we hold that Germany's political aspirations conflict with ours, and that Germany's world- polioy is one which, if encouraged by us, will end in our deadly injury. We hold also that the German Emperor, as is most natural and right from his own point of view, is using all that ability and personal magnetism for which he is conspicuous to capture the minds of our statesmen, and to control our foreign policy for his own ends. We believe, in other words, that the Kaiser has been, and is, trying in part to bully and in part to cajole us into an alliance which will be extremely advantageous to his own country and extremely disadvantageous to ours. Hold- ing such a view, how is it possible for us not to put it forward as strongly and as clearly as we can, and what is more, to set forth the facts which induce us to believe that Germany cannot be our real ally, and that the German Emperor only wants to use our alliance for his own country's advantage? Apparently we are to refrain from stating these facts because such a course is dis- pleasing and disappointing' to the German Emperor. We are not exaggerating when we say that the disappointment of the German Emperor at the line taken by the Spectator is gravely alleged as a ground for condemning our attitude. In an article published in the December number of the Empire Review (Macmillan and Co.) Mr. Baehford, in a paper entitled The Kaiser and England,' sets forth this view. Mr. Baahford begins by quoting a passage from the article on the objects of the Kaiser's visit published by us on November 8th, the day the Emperor landed, and states that it was ' affirmed by the Spectator that the Kaiser is determined "to take from Britain, if he can, the proud position that is now held by her "; and to this the writer added that the general object of the visit " may safely be assumed to be the making of ill-blood between us and Russia and France."' ' That a serious English review,' continues Mr. Basbford, 'should thus speak of the King's kinsman and gueet the very morning of his arrival in this country, is altogether unjustifiable. I was informed authoritatively that his Majesty was " disappointed " on hearing that these phrases had been used of him. He might, indeed, with justice, have selected a stronger term.' Our readers cannot, we feel sure, fail to be amused by the ' authoritative ' information. If, as we hope, they are students of Miss Austen's novels, they will recall the immortal scene in which Lady Catherine de Burgh declares as a final proof of Elizabeth's wicked- ness that she is disappointed in, or rather, displeased with, her. Really, the analogy is very close. We have neither hoped for nor expected approval from the German Emperor, and we cannot see. any more than could Elisabeth, how his being disappointed affects the matter. We have always spoken with proper courtesy of the Emperor personally, and have always admitted that he was a great and patriotic German, and we should be loth on general grounds to disappoint him, or, indeed, any other kinsman of the King. But it is, we fear, inevitable that the Kaiser should be disappointed if be expects us to advocate a German alliance, or hopes in any way to direct our foreign policy.
After all, is it reasonable to expect us so to model our policy as to save the German Emperor from disappointment, and not to speak out on public questions for fear of hurting his feelings? But even if we consider the question of disappointment, it would in the end have been a greater disappointment to the German Emperor if we had refrained from speaking out. and had led him to suppose that the thinking, or indeed any, portion of the British public was willing to form an alliance, or to support German action blindly in any part of the world. The British public at the present juncture are not prepared to go into political partner- ship with Germany, and surely there is no real enmity to Germany involved in a plain statement of so plain a fact. It was, as we have said, inevitable that the German Emperor should be dis- appointed if he expected, as he apparently did, that the Spectator,
or any other representative organ of public opinion here, would support his policy, or refrain from setting forth the objections to that policy merely because he woo paying the nation the honour of a visit, and was going to enjoy the mixed pleasure of shooting the Sandringham coverts and interviewing all the chief member. of the British Cabinet. After all, even Emperors cannot have it both ways. If they choose to combine phcaeant shooting and politics, their critics in the Press cannot be expected to notice only the feathered part of the `shoot.' When nations are in danger of being bagged as well as pheasants, comment cannot be altogether stilled. But though we feel bound to explain why we could not help disappointing the German Emperor, we readily admit that there was nothing exaggerated or unfair in the comment of which Mr. Bashford was ' informed authoritatively.' The German Emperor had every right to be disappointed, and to express hie disappoint. mint. But why need Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman be plus royalist, qua Is roil He also has, of course, every right to be disappointed, if he likes, with the tone of the British Press, but why should he speak of those who have opposed a German alliance aa men who' by stupid and vulgar abuse fomented discord between the two nations 'P As far as we know, there has been no writing in the serious Press which could possibly be described in such terms as these. If there la, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman should certainly produce examples of what he means, and make his point good."—Spectator, December 27th, 1902.
Previous page
