The 'Willy-Nicky' Letters 1
Author: Unknown
Date: 0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

The Willy-Nicky LettersThe ‘Willy-Nicky’ Letters: Introduction, and Letters I-V (8 November 1894-10 July 1895) Go to Letters VI - XX (26 November 1895-13 June 1901) Go to Letters XXI - XXVIII (22 August 1901 - 30 October 1904) Go to Letters XXXIX - XLVIII (17 November 1904 - 27 July 1905) Go to Letters XLIX - LXXV (22 August 1905 - 26 March 1914)

LETTERS FROM THE KAISER TO THE CZAR COPIED FROM GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES IN PETROGRAD UNPUBLISHED BEFORE 1920 PRIVATE LETTERS FROM THE KAISER TO THE CZAR FOUND IN A CHEST AFTER THE CZAR’S EXECUTION AND NOW IN POSSESSION OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT COPIED AND BROUGHT FROM RUSSIA BY ISAAC DON LEVINE NEW YORK FREDERICK A. STOKES COMPANY PUBLISHERS

Frontispiece: ‘Kaiser and Czar aboard the “Hohenzollern”

Introduction Upon the execution of Nicholas Romanoff, the former Czar of Russia, and his wife and children in Ekaterinburg in July, I9I8, a case containing his private correspondence was found among his personal effects. Among its contents was a batch of seventy-three letters from Kaiser Wilhelm to the Czar and a much more voluminous batch of letters from the Czarina to the Czar. The letters were transmitted by the local Ekaterinburg authorities to the central government in Moscow, where they are kept in the state archives. There have been so many absurd stories in circulation in Europe in connection with the Kaiser-Czar letters that the circumstances of their publication in Europe and America should be made clear here. In Great Britain Winston Churchill eulogized The Morning Post for obtaining the letters, although that journal had nothing to do with the bringing of the letters out of Russia. The London Naval and Military Record commented editorially on the same subject as follows: “It has been left to the enterprise of British journalism to publish the last and by far the most damaging exposure of Germany’s ex-Kaiser.” In Paris a prominent newspaper, describing how I obtained the letters, declared that I was enabled to do so through my influence with Lenin. In Amsterdam a newspaper printed a despatch from its Berlin correspondent announcing that the letters had once been published in I9I7 in a Petrograd monthly periodical. Now the facts are quite different from the foregoing allegations, which circulated in the European press for weeks. It was not the enterprise of British but of American journalism which gave the world the Kaiser’s and Czarina’s letters to the Czar. In April, I9I9, the writer left the United States to go to Soviet Russia in the capacity of correspondent for The Chicago Daily News, and made two trips there from Scandinavia, one in May and the other in September, I9I9. During my second visit to Soviet Russia I was enabled to gain access to the archives of the government where I discovered, among other things, the Kaiser’s letters to the Czar, and immediately realized their enormous historical value. The original letters are of course the property of the Russian state and there was no question of obtaining them. The task consisted of receiving the permission of the proper authorities to take copies of the letters. I did not need Lenin’s influence for this. As a matter of fact, I never even met Lenin while in Soviet Russia. I carried out with me only one copy from the original letters of the Kaiser to the Czar. This copy is in my possession and is the one reproduced in this volume. The copies of the letters used by The Morning Post in London, the Vossische Zeitung in Berlin, the Journal in Paris and the other European publishers were made from the copy in my possession. Being second and third copies, they were not free from errors. The present edition is therefore the only absolutely authoritative one and must be treated as the original edition by students of international affairs. The letters from the Kaiser to the Czar were written in English, the language of the Russian and German courts, and were usually addressed to “Nicky” and signed “Willy.” None of these letters, covering a period of twenty years, I894-I9I4, has ever been published before 1920. The correspondence between the Kaiser and the Czar, which was published in a Russian periodical in I9I7 and reprinted in a New York newspaper several months later, consisted of a number of telegrams exchanged between Willy and Nicky in the years I904-I907. It appeared as “The Willy-Nicky Correspondence,” and the Amsterdam newspaper previously referred to confused it with the letters here presented. Without questioning the genuineness of the Willy-Nicky telegrams, it should nevertheless be emphasized that it is scarcely possible that no errors should have been committed in the transmission of a large number of telegrams. In the case of the letters contained in this volume we have really a set of irrefutable and unquestionable documents. The Kaiser himself confirmed their genuineness, although criticizing their publication. In a letter written in January, 1920, from Amerongen, Holland, to Prince Fürstenberg, and reprinted in The London Times, on January 28th, the Kaiser wrote regarding these letters:

“What do you think about the unlawful publication of the correspondence with

Nicholas? These people have not the least sympathy in them, and I shall be
glad if everything is published without alterations. I have given orders to

Loewenfeldt to protest against the publication of these private letters, but
as this is being done in hostile countries he will have less success than in
the case of Bismarck. After the treatment I have received and still receive
from the German people I am not surprised that the German newspapers
participate in these dirty practices.” The Kaiser’s letters are of course published without alterations. There was never any intention to do otherwise. Not a word in them is omitted. Although the Kaiser’s English is far from perfect, it is left unchanged here. The only change made in this edition is the substitution of the word “and” for the character “&” which abounds in the original letters. The numerous errors in spelling are retained. The most confusing of these errors is “were” in place of “where.” Once the Kaiser has “keys” in stead of “quays,” and “boyes” for “buoys.” The other mistakes are understandable. “Beeing” for “being,” “wether” for “whether,” “takle” for “tackle,” are common misspellings. Even more common are “already,” “allways,” “wellfare,” “openess,” “assisstance.” The Kaiser writes “courtesey,” “existent” and “thruthfulness.” Instead of “Turkey” he writes “Turky,” and instead of “Dardanelles” he spells “Dardanels.” His letters are replete with faulty constructions and contain many misspellings in addition to those here mentioned. In reply to the Kaiser’s complaint about the publication of his private letters, Maximilian Harden, the noted German publicist, wrote: “The ex-Kaiser stigmatizes as a ‘dirty’ violation of propriety the publication of his letters to the Czar Nicholas and other monarchs, whereas he considered it to be his right and his duty to purloin documents in Belgium, to falsify them, and to circulate them all over the globe. This, however, is not surprising when the German people, who endured an adept in theatricalism for thirty years, are treated as if they were evilminded, undutiful children.” The comment on the letters all over the world has been as voluminous as it has been many-sided. However, three main viewpoints can be discerned in the very numerous reviews of the Kaiser’s correspondence. First, the opinion of the Kaiser held by The Morning Post, Great Britain’s leading Tory organ. Second, the comment of The Manchester Guardian, the great Liberal journal. Third, the average German view of Wilhelm as expressed by Professor Walter Goetz. To The Morning Post the letters reveal the Kaiser as an arch-plotter. Its comment has been expressed in a series of comprehensive and virile editorials bearing such titles as “the arch-conspirator,” the “honest Iago,” and “Nemesis.” Selections from some of the leading articles of The Morning Post are given below: Note. Many of the notes following the letters in this volume have been culled from the columns of The London Morning Post.

The publication of the letters of the GERMAN EMPEROR to the EMPEROR of ALL the

RUSSIAS has naturally awakened a profound interest both in this country and
abroad, in fact throughout the civilised world. Never before, perhaps, has
there been made known in the lifetime of the author so complete and so
voluminous an exposition of the vast and unscrupulous intrigues and the
grandiose ambitions of the powerful and autocratic monarch of a great military
nation. Thus the Imperial letters make an historical document of the highest
value, providing the key to the complex and hidden machinery of European
international policies during the ten years preceding the Great War, which was
their inevitable and disastrous consummation. In as far as the GERMAN EMPEROR
himself is concerned, there is little scope for conjecture, inasmuch as he
condemns himself with his own hand. History as a general rule is largely a
matter of piecing together available evidence and filling in the gaps with
ingenious and learned hypotheses. The discovery of new evidence not
infrequently invalidates the historian’s reconstruction, as in the notable
instance of the records of the French Revolution, lately so admirably
rewritten by M. LENÔTRE. But in the case of the letters of WILLIAM

HOHENZOLLERN the documents are complete. The records of the conversation at
one end of the telephone, as it were, are precise, and although the written
evidence of the replies is not available their nature may be divined with a
general accuracy by the student of the affairs of the time. Light is
concentrated upon the central figure of the long drama which merged into
tragedy at last, and in the shadow beyond may be discerned other Kings and

Emperors, their Ministers and Chancelleries, and beyond these again swarming
factories founding cannon, and busy dockyards building ships of war, and the
hosts of armed men. That single figure so uncontrollably active in the lighted
circle, swiftly writing, issuing commands with passionate gesture, continually
agitates the dimmer groups beyond, and the tremor speeds across seas and
continents until Peking is perturbed, there is a stir in Tokyo, and even the
massive tranquillity of Washington is momentarily ruffled. For if there is one
aspect which more than another saliently emerges from these letters, it is
that the GERMAN EMPEROR was wholly possessed by one master idea, and that idea
was war. Sleeping or waking, war colored the very texture of his mind.

Partly as cause and partly as effect, the GERMAN EMPEROR’s fixed idea of war
was inseparably connected with his dynastic ambitions. Step by step these are
revealed in his letters, and shape themselves into the gigantic plan of a vast
confederation of States of which Germany should be the head. Thence she could
dominate the world. It is the old, fatal dream of world-conquest; the vision
of SENNACHERIB, of ALEXANDER, of CĆSAR, of NAPOLEON. The GERMAN EMPEROR has
been called a mediaevalist; but in truth his aspirations derive from thousands
of years before the Christian era; and when he stood for days rapt in
contemplation of the disinterment of ancient inscriptions from the sun-baked
soil of the Mediterranean island it is odds but he was thinking of the
half-mythical conquerors of vanished civilisations as his progenitors. Like
them, the German War Lord was confronted with one formidable obstacle towering
in his path. Russia he might weaken and cajole; France he thought to subdue;

Austria-Hungary was obedient; Italy might be persuaded; and as for the smaller
nations, his foot would be on their necks. But what of the British Empire?

Supreme on all seas, owning one-fifth of the habitable globe, peaceable until
attacked, but when attacked indomitably stubborn, the English would never
consent to an European hegemony. They might be deceived for a time; but
ultimately, it seems, they must be vanquished. Now and again, in the course of
the letters, that conviction of the GERMAN EMPEROR is vividly revealed. For,
broadly regarded, the GERMAN EMPEROR’s main purpose became the conquest and
the subjugation of the British Empire. The astute suggestion made to the

Emperor NICHOLAS that he was threatened in the East had its part in bringing
about the Russo-Japanese War, which left Russia weakened and humiliated; and
therefore, so reasoned the KAISER, the more pliant to his will. He succeeded,
indeed, in fastening upon Russia a commercial treaty which ensured German
trade predominance, and a diplomatic treaty which was accepted by the Russian

EMPEROR, conferring upon Germany political predominance. Up to this point it
seems that NICHOLAS was deceived, or partly deceived. But what actually
happened was that the GERMAN EMPEROR’S cunning overreached itself. The terms
of both treaties were of a nature so monstrous that no nation would ultimately
accept them. By this time, too, the German policy had necessarily aroused
alarm throughout Europe, and awakened antagonistic forces. Broadly speaking,
the answer to the menace of a hostile European confederation, to which the

GERMAN EMPEROR once thought of adding Japan, and, again, the United States,
was to divide the elements of the combination and so attain a balance of
power. In this connection the world owes very much to the sagacity and
diplomatic skill of King EDWARD VII., who was, of course, supported by his

Ministers. The Triple Alliance secured by the KAISER was balanced by the

Triple Entente; and the GERMAN EMPEROR’S design was for the time being
frustrated; a failure he never forgot nor forgave. The Great War was a
tremendous attempt to redeem that defeat. How craftily planned, how skilfully
manoeuvred, was the original design, are revealed in the letters. And here we
may note that clever as the GERMAN EMPEROR was, he was not clever enough. Of a
swift and a penetrating intellect, possessed of immense ingenuity, the KAISER
lacked what alone makes these gifts effective. He lacked judgment. He lacked
common sense. Common sense would have told him that world conquest is no
longer practicable. Common sense would have warned him that to extort too much
from a neighbor would annul the very purpose of the extortion. And a reasoned
judgment would have enabled the KAISER to perceive that even if it were
possible to furfil his dream, the cost would be so frightful that none could
gain by it, that the fulfilment could be no more than the affair of a moment,
and that the rest would be war, unending war. As matters stand, after the
event, the war has brought no profit even to the victors, but a wide calamity
and a profound disease which cannot be healed in this generation. And he who
before all others is most guilty, deprived of his glory, stripped of his
possessions, discrowned and abject, dwells in a dishonorable exile, the
pensioner of a small nation which once he despised….

There can be no doubt that the ex-German Emperor was a great letter writer;
the letters which he sent to the Czar prove it conclusively.

It is clear that in this correspondence the Emperor set out to make himself
interesting, and it is equally clear that he fully succeeded. Whatever may be
the subject on which he is expatiating the French mentality, the modern
newspaper, the British Navy, the way to manage the people, the diplomacy of

King Edward, the “Yellow Peril,” the famous visit to Jerusalem, and so on he
is always entertaining. He was, of course, tremendously interested in a vast
number of subjects and he knew just enough about them never to be grotesque
and not enough ever to be dull. And in this correspondence, he was at his very
best, for he was playing a great game. Indeed, to break the Franco-Russian

Alliance, to make the CZAR an enemy of England, to place Europe under German
hegemony was an ambition strong enough to make even a dull man lively and to
speed a clumsy and halting pen. It was only when the writer realised the game
was up that the letters became shorter and less exuberant. But during those
historic days when Great Britain, Russia, and France were drawing together
under the impulse of a common danger, the Imperial scribe used every art to
cajole, to flatter, to amuse, and to threaten the Emperor Nicholas. Indeed, it
is the variety of method employed that is one source of special attraction in
these letters. Suddenly, amidst the flatteries, the sage counsels, the tender
solicitude, the deep sympathy, the mailed fist appears, and a threat and
almost a command are launched forth. Then he changes his tune again. But the
aim is always the same, and though it failed perhaps because it failed the
letters are of extraordinary interest, not only for their “human” side, but
because they are the prelude to the great storm which broke on the world in

1914….

These intimate epistles, addressed to the late Emperor of RUSSIA, alone
suffice to prove that from first to last the GERMAN EMPEROR, in the
prosecution of his vast and sinister designs, was so far from acting as a
despot, ignoring the sentiments and predilections of his people, that he never
entertained the smallest doubt of their absolute and enthusiastic support. To
what extent their allegiance had been secured by that method of

“mass-suggestion,” of which a good deal has been written, is another question.

It is enough to know that the German nation was welded together as a single
instrument to accomplish the triumphant destiny of the Great German race….

It was one of the essential elements in the schemes of the GERMAN EMPEROR so
to weaken Russia that she should become subservient to the German hegemony;
and the readiest means to that end was to embroil Russia with Japan. Thus, in
these crafty suggestions we trace the origin of the Russo-Japanese War. As the
series proceeds the GERMAN EMPEROR’S hatred of England and his dislike and
jealousy of King EDWARD VII. become manifest. But in KING EDWARD the GERMAN

MONARCH was dealing with an intelligence superior to his own, and a talent for
diplomacy to which this country owes much more than has yet been revealed. But
if the GERMAN EMPEROR hated England, he held France in a stupid contempt, for
which he subsequently paid a devastating price.

Although we have not the replies of the Emperor of Russia to complete the
correspondence, the internal evidence of the GERMAN EMPEROR’s letters shows
that the CZAR by no means allowed his policy to be dominated by the German
guile. When the decisive moment arrived the Emperor of Russia chose the Triple

Entente, and the GERMAN EMPEROR’S long and elaborate combinations were
completely foiled….

In the course of his letters it will be remarked that his IMPERIAL MAJESTY
stooped to the basest devices without a thought. It was perhaps this singular
moral obtuseness which ultimately vitiated his diplomacy. He had a blind spot
in his mind. At the same time the amiable duplicity of the GERMAN

EMPEROR’scorrespondence is so admirably done as to become an effect in art;
and the letters of WILLIAM HOHENZOLLERN will assuredly rank as a classic in
that form of literature…

One of two things invariably occurred to rulers or statesmen who tried to deal
with the GERMAN EMPEROR. Either they were compelled, like Austria and the

Ottoman Empire, to accept a subordinate, even a servile, position, or, like
certain British Ministers, they fell into the snares so carefully designed by
the arch-conspirator. The Marquess of SALISBURY, the greatest statesman of his
time, entertained no illusions concerning the GERMAN EMPEROR, whose
extraordinary instability of character had by 1898 become notorious. The
inconsistency of the letter of May 30, 1898, must have been evident to the

Emperor of Russia, for if tentative offers of alliance were made by Great

Britain, they were, on the Imperial writer’s own showing, conceived in the
interests of peace, and yet in the same letter and in the next the GERMAN

EMPEROR plainly insinuates that Great Britain is inspired by some sinister
design against the peace of Europe. We two, writes the GERMAN EMPEROR to the

CZAR, “have the same opinions: we want peace, and we have sustained and upheld
it till now … they (the British) are trying hard, as far as I can make
out, to find a Continental army to fight for their interests.”

At that time the feeling of France towards England was far from amicable; and
that circumstance apparently moved the GERMAN EMPEROR to tell the CZAR that
the newest move” of the British “is the wish to gain France over from you, and
they in consequence have suddenly decided to send the DUKE OF CONNAUGHT to the

French Army Manouvres, a nice little plan of COURCELLES, I think, who is
ardently at work between Paris and London. I already once warned your people
of him!” The intention of these suggestions is to make as much mischief as
possible between Russia, France, and England. The RUSSIAN EMPEROR is asked to
suspect Great Britain of ulterior purposes inimical to Russia. Nothing that

England can do is right; nor is anything more remarkable in the GERMAN

EMPEROR’S correspondence than his intense hatred and jealousy of Great

Britain. In this alone is he consistent. One of the chief reasons why the

Cretan affair, which threatened about this time to embroil all Europe, was so
difficult to settle is now revealed. While Germany was ostensibly helping the
other Powers to restore order in Crete, where the Turks were slaying the

Christians in their familiar light-hearted way, the GERMAN EMPEROR was
secretly inciting the CZAR to side with the Ottoman Empire and to prevent the
expulsion of the Turks from the island. Diplomacy, in fact, was at a stand,
and we now know why. The difficulty was solved by Rear-Admiral NOEL

(afterwards Admiral of the Fleet, Sir GERARD NOEL), who definitely ordered the

Turks to leave Crete, who saw to it that his orders were obeyed, and who was
afterwards publicly complimented by Lord SALISBURY upon his action.

It is at this period, too, that the GERMAN EMPEROR’s vast dream of Eastern
conquest begins to emerge. He desires for the time being to secure the support
of Russia, as an Oriental Power, and her recommendation to the Mohammedan
world in general. The vision of a Mohammedan Empire inspires his memorable
voyage to the Holy Land….

The progress of the correspondence between the Ex-EMPEROR and the late CZAR
brings us to a very remarkable little drama in which the HOHENZOLLERN reveals
in a sudden and baleful flash the treachery of himself and of his race. He had
been egging on the CZAR to his disastrous Manchurian adventure. He had
described himself and the Emperor NICHOLAs as the two crusaders of Christendom
against the Yellow Peril. With the pen and even with the brush he had done his
best to rouse the Emperor of RUSSIA to a fanatical fervour, and his letters
were full not indeed of explicit pledges but of hints and implications that he
might be trusted as a brilliant second, or at least as a benevolent neutral in
any such enterprise. Thus urged, and not, we may be certain, only by WILLIAM,
but by all the agents of persuasion at the German command, Russia went to war.

The Emperor NICHOLAS, as we see from the letter of the 6th of June, 1904,
regarded his Correspondent as a “real friend,” and this “real friend”

overflows with sympathy at the Russian naval losses and military
embarrassments. The “real friend” also is ready to help with any information
which will widen the quarrel, as, for example, that Japan has supplied China
with arms made of French steel, and that France has been induced by a
perfidious England not to help her Ally in the field or on the sea: ‘II va
sans dire that if France had been under the obligation of helping you I would,
of course, not have budged a finger to harm her, for that would have been most
illogical on the part of the author of the Picture ‘Yellow Peril.”’

But the time comes when Russia is so deeply engaged that she must either draw
troops from her Western frontier or submit to defeat. And then the “real
friend” reveals himself. He will guarantee that Western frontier; in plain
language, he will not attack Russia when she can no longer defend herself but
at a price, and that price is a Commercial Treaty. Now there are treaties and
treaties, but this particular Treaty was, in fact, a Treaty of Exploitation —
of such exploitation, indeed, that no country — at least no country not a

Free Trade country — would have submitted to it unless under compulsion.

Russia was greatly dependent upon the German market for the sale of her corn,
and in 1902 Germany had raised the duty on Russian corn from 43 to 78 per
cent. WITTE had replied by raising the Russian duty on German manufactures.

Germany now demanded that the Russian excess duty on her manufactures should
be abolished, but refused to make any concession in the German excess duty on

Russian corn. Russia protested, but was forced to grant a practically open
market to German manufactures and preferential railway terms without any
reciprocal benefit….

There is naturally some delay in signing such a document, and the Emperor

WILLIAM writes — from the Mediterranean — a letter which in one lurid flash
reveals that sinister character of which we have spoken. He speaks with
illconcealed irritation of the delay, and adds:

“What a lark it would be if you suddenly were to thump your imperial fist on
the ‘Table of green cloth,’ and give the lazy ones a jump! After all, one
cannot wait for ever, considering the many months that have already been
wasted. A promise of a nice picnic in Siberia will, I am sure, do wonders.”

The EMPEROR, in fact, is to threaten his Ministers with Siberia if they do not
sign a treaty disastrous to Russia! And the KAISER thinks that the CZAR will
be amused by such a proposal! We are left wondering what CZAR replied to his

“real friend,” but we may imagine that the reply was tinged with sarcasm. To the Liberal Manchester Guardian the letters show the Kaiser as a contemptible figure, “a mediavalist fanatic on a modern throne.” He is characterized as an “anti-Liberal,” an. “arch-Tory,” a most irresponsible person in one of the most responsible offices in the world. The Guardian writes:

It is appalling to think that the brain behind them (the letters) was for many
years the most self-assertively active in the international affairs of the
world, and that a nation with the immense capacity and energy of the Germans
should not have shaken itself free of such captaincy before the catastrophe
came.

At bottom the KAISER had only one subject — the indefeasible excellence of
monarchy by divine right. Whatever else he might mention, the KAISER was
always asserting by implication the infallibility of anointed sovereigns. “We

Christian Kings and Emperors,” he writes, “have one holy duty imposed on us by

Heaven, that is, to uphold the principle von Gottes Gnaden [by the Grace of

God].” He evidently believed it. As one reads on through the letters one
becomes steadily more and more thankful that in England we dealt with such
stuff, once for all, in the seventeenth century. KING CHARLES’S head keeps on
coming in, all over the manuscript….

These letters from the KAISER to the CZAR suggest obliquely a sinister sketch
of the last unhappy autocrat of Russia. For many of the KAISER’s letters are
such as it was a baseness in the CZAR to receive without sending such a
stinging reply as would have stopped the whole ignoble campaign of back-biting
and disloyalty. While these letters in which the KAISER bespattered the whole

French nation with contemptuous abuse were going apparently unrebuked, at any
rate unprevented to the CZAR, the CZAR was posing in public as the loyal and
chivalrous friend of France. While the CZAR was an honoured guest of the
people of France he was accepting at any rate a passive part in a
correspondence in which his hosts, and especially their army, were accused of
dishonour and lying, corruption and cowardice. We knew already that before the

Russian Revolution no military secret of ours or France’s was safe at the

Russian Court. And now we see why. If these letters were what the CZAR would
read from the KAISER during the honeymoon of the Franco-Russian Alliance,
there was no bar of honour left to keep “Willy” and “Nicky” from sending and
receiving abuse of France and England during the war.

The luckless CZAR cannot answer now for his passive complicity in this breach
of decency. In a sense, we cannot even accuse him of personal failure. Fate
set him up for an autocrat, and whatever may have been true in some simpler
age of the world, if there ever was any, it is clear now that a man cannot be
brought up as an autocrat without such damage to judgment and character as
makes him unfit to exercise any determining infuence on public affairs. The

KAISER’s letters are those of a lost mind not, apparently, a mind organically
deficient, but a mind deprived of all sense of the relative values of things
by the lifelong nursing of the illusion that some 78,000,000 men and women are

“his,” as the deer in a park are his, and that God has made it his, the

KAISER’s, job to go up and down the world scheming and bluffing and grabbing
and pulling wires and setting other peoples by the ears in order to get “his”

people on in the world and show “his” Reichstag how little it can do as
compared with a modern FREDERICK THE GREAT or HENRY THE FIFTH. The wires
pulled in these letters were seldom very nice. Sometimes they were
disreputable with a vengeance. The setting-on of Russia to wear herself out in
fighting Japan, for the honour of CHRIST and the confusion of BUDDHA, was
pretty bad. But the letters written in the prosecution of that piece of policy
are run close by one written a little before Christmas, 1898, from Palestine,
in which fervour about Holy Places is oddly jumbled with almost incoherent
rage at the failure of France and England to go to war about Fashoda. This
passionate cultivation of ill-will between neighbours is the most repulsive
ingredient in the diplomatic method of the KAISER. SHAKESPEARE’s Bolingbroke,
another typical Old Diplomatist, gave it as a precept of statecraft to his son
to “busy giddy minds in foreign quarrels.” The KAISER tried to improve on this
by busying foreign minds in giddy quarrels. In these letters he tries to
embroil Russia with Japan, with France, and, apropos of Crete in 1898, with

England, whom he accuses of an intention to grab Crete or Suda Bay, just as he
had accused us of plotting to violate the Dardanelles when we tried, somewhat
feebly, to dissuade ABDUL HAMID from murdering Armenians. The Old Diplomacy is
seen, again, in its full panoply of cynicism where Mr. CHAMBERLAIN made his
famous overture to Germany for an alliance at a time when our relations with

France were at their worst and our yellow press was genially proposing to

“roll France in mud and blood,” contrary to the advice of slow-coaches like
ourselves. On getting the offer, the KAISER at once wrote a glowing account of
its handsomeness to the CZAR, pointedly indicating that the suggested league
would include England, Germany, Austria, Italy, the United States, and Japan,
and exclude Russia and France, and then went on: “Now, as my old and trusted
friend, I beg you to tell me what you can offer me and will do if I refuse.”

Simply the auction idea. All the balm on this anointed King did not prompt him
to anything nobler than that. Professor Walter Goetz’s comment on the Kaiser’s letters may be said to be a fair expression of Germany’s view of the Kaiser after the publication of his correspondence with the Czar. This view is that although Wilhelm was an irresponsible person, although his mistakes were numerous, he nevertheless sincerely worked for peace and the war was not of his making. Upon the publication of the Kaiser’s letters in Germany, the Nationalists, the strongest group of monarchists in the country, at their convention in Cologne, adopted a resolution repudiating their former emperor. In part, this resolution read: “The Kaiser’s letters give a true picture of his haphazard, irresponsible policy which vacillated constantly. The effect of these letters has been revolting. Although we are still convinced monarchists, we have the right to criticize. Therefore, we announce that the person who was our former Kaiser is no longer representative of our monarchistic principles.” Professor Goetz sees in the Kaiser a poor diplomatist primarily, a man who chased after wild schemes without tending to the vital interests of Germany. The Kaiser is represented as having had good intentions, but as blundering in his efforts to accomplish them. Profesor Goetz’s article, in part, follows:

These letters need not shun the light of publicity. They do, it is true,
exhibit all the foibles which detract from the picture that WILHELM II.

presents to the observer; still on the other hand they all bear witness to his
good intentions and, above everything else, to his honest desire for peace.

This positive statement may well be made, before any opponents, filled with
prejudice, will exploit them for their purposes.

The letters are written in English, the language which both rulers always
used, in conversation as well as in writing to each other. The CZAR’S answers
are missing; here and there some traces as to how they ran can be found in the
letters of WILHELM II. For us, however, those answers would be secondary in
interest, compared with the KAISER’S expressions. Hardly any evidence will be
needed to establish the fact that WILHELM II. was the personality with far
more strength and initiative. As the letters show, the active political aims
are on his side. He wants to produce an impression on the CZAR; he wants to
cement Russia’s policy with that of Germany, in accordance with the needs of
the German interests and the peace of Europe. It would surely be desirable to
have the CZAR’S answers; they would settle beyond any doubt the historical
events. Still, at this moment the world is concerned with WILHELM II., with
his alleged responsibility for the world war, with his entire personality, and
for this purpose the share borne by him in this correspondence will suffice
for us. The contents of the letters are ample enough to give us an insight
into the KAISER’S political realm of thought, although high politics is the
very subject about which we are being informed only in a fragmentary way, and
some important questions are not discussed. Moreover, in order to form a final
judgment, the reader would have to be placed in a position to follow through a
similar series of confidential letters the simultaneous relations towards

Queen VICTORIA of England and King EDWARD VII.; for however close and
unquestionably evident the friendship towards NICHOLAS II. was, and however
pointed some expressions he uses about England may sound, still friendship and
tactics were undoubtedly closely in touch with each other on all these
occasions of political intercourse, and the urgent desire again and again
shown by the KAISER for new possibilities of intercourse can be taken only as
indicating his apprehension that influences brought by others to bear upon

NICHOLAs II. might interfere with the direction that his German friend was
attempting to give to matters.

WILHELM II., who overrated himself and his words to such a marked extent, was
evidently unable to realize that it was just he, almost more than anybody
else, who jarred upon the feelings of others and provoked unpleasant opinions;
he believed in his charming amiability, in his persuasive talents and in the
deeply rooted right of his convictions. He was not conscious of the want of
tact which not infrequently went hand in hand with affability and estranged
from him persons of importance. Appearances pointed to it that the meetings
with the CZAR were successful — that political results sprung from them; and
this is why this expedient was resorted to over and over again. Undoubtedly
the CZAR was loyally devoted to the KAISER and inclined to heed the influence
of his friend, who was about as much ahead of him in age as in length of
reign, and whom he this is said with hesitation and uncertainty — may have
admired for his brilliant qualities.

Such were the natural dispositions and limitations which engendered in WILHELM

II. the first great deception in which he was living: namely the belief that a
general policy could be built up on the personal relations of the rulers. The
very personality of the CZAR would hardly suffice to offer the securities
required for such an assumption. For however the descriptions of the CZAR that
have so far appeared, may vary in detail, still all critics agree as to the
lack of a strong and clearly expressed will on his part. It is true that the

CZARINA, with her German inclinations, is likely to have exercised
considerable influence over her husband; still the letters published in this
book furnish the proof that all brotherly friendship could not divert the

Russian policy from its ultimate fatal aims. The KAISER had, so it seems,
tried everything to adapt himself to the CZAR’S personality and to retain his
confidence. He had shown to him and the Russian naval office secret German
ship-building plans, while giving utterance to the thought that the fleets of
both countries were to be considered as one great organization; he offered a
suggestion that the German Bagdad railway might serve to transport Russian
troops in a trice from Odessa to Koweit on the Gulf of Persia, so as to halt
the British there; he informed the CZAR at once of the English alliance
offered in 1898; yet, after all, neither friendship nor confidence was the
decisive factor in high politics.

In the same way as the KAISER was relying on erroneous premises when judging
of the formal elements of politics, he was unable to place himself in the
midst of the conditions that existed in the world. However modern the KAISER
has often appeared to be when handling questions concerning the future of

Germany, when showing an interest in technical problems and conferring with
economical experts whatever their creed might be, a fundamental contrast still
existed between him and the world of today. Devoted as he was to the duties
imposed on him by his vocation as a ruler, he could not help viewing that
vocation as a divine mission and this led him to a blind overestimation of the
princely system and of princely persons, and to an underestimation, no less
blind, of other forms of government, and other persons. The letters published
in this volume are rich in examples of this disastrous imagination. It was
this mistaken idea which, notwithstanding all plainly visible notes of
warning, led to the belief that Germany and Russia had to represent common
monarchical interests, in opposition to an inferior world. An understanding of
real facts, while found here and there, is yet on the whole lacking to a
surprising extent. Roughly speaking, the letters start with the time when

Germany entered into world politics. It might be assumed therefore that the
occasion existed for discussing and settling the relations of Germany with the
great world powers. But the KAISER is hardly ever seen to handle such concrete
questions as would adjust contrary views, establish a community of interests
and safeguard the course of the policy of Germany. Always the “traditional
friendship” between the HOHENZOLLERNS and the CZARS, and next to that also the
community of monarchical interests, are the proposed link to connect Russia
and Germany. Republican institutions, the parliamentary system, anarchy,
nihilism and revolution are pushed forward by the KAISER and presented as
possessing a dangerous inner relationship; this perspective is opened before
the ally of the French Republic, to frighten him. In the common interest the
cry is raised to beware of English intrigues (nor, of course, can there be any
doubt that they existed); but in vain will the reader look for political ideas
that could have established a Russian-German community of interests on a solid
basis. Instead of this, the “Yellow Peril” dominates the KAISER; in the Far

East he sees looming a menace to the white race, to western civilization. This
thought is reiterated like a monomaniac’s idea — the difficulty of German
world politics had never in any way entered the mind of the KAISER when he
imagined the warding off of “Buddhism, heathenism and barbarism” as common
tasks which were to bind together the European powers. Or did he bring forward
here views that were to occupy only the Russian mind, and was it his intention
to divert Russia with all means towards eastern Asia?

German statesmen surely were pleased to see Russia draw herself back from her
old favorite field of troublemaking activity, the Balkans, and map out aims in
the east which were likely to occupy her for decades to come. However, it is
not Germany who has pointed out to Russia this new field, but the successes of
the Japanese in the war against China gave the impulse to Russia to proceed in
that direction. Her intention was to secure the eastern sea coast and an
influence on China, before Japan could become an annoying competitor. Russian
public opinion had for weeks been aroused against Japan, and in favor of
having free play in the east, before the KAISER expressed himself to the CZAR
in this matter. Russia was the leading power in the common action of Germany,

France and Russia against Japan; no instigation from Germany was needed to
make Russia discover her interests in eastern Asia and stand up for them with
increasing obstinacy. If the KAISER, in language rich with enthusiasm,
extolled the CZAR as the author of these new political tendencies, we might
well find in this fact a hope for deliverance from the nightmare which Russia
had constituted for Europe, as well as a hope for common advantages, as is
clearly shown by the wish expressed for a German coaling station in the orient.

German politics, of course, had to take into consideration one more point: to
divert Russia from joint action with France against Germany. Surely, the

KAISER cannot be blamed in this case for harboring such a wish. In attempting
to realize his desire, he chose the means of stirring up the CZAR’S
monarchical instinct against the French Republic. This could, however, have
but little effect, after Czar ALEXANDER III. had once overcome this inborn
dislike and closed with the republic an unprejudiced alliance. Later, in 1904
and 1905, came the exceedingly strange attempt to draw France into a

Russian-German alliance. This may well be considered as the culminating point
of the entire correspondence.

Undoubtedly it would have been a full triumph for the KAISER’S policy had he
been able now to effect new and clearly defined arrangements with Russia. Not
only would this have disposed of the charges based on his non-renewal of

BISMARCK’S “reinsurance” treaty, which had guaranteed to Germany the friendly
neutrality of Russia in case of an attack of France, and there would thus have
been inaugurated a better and more honest form of cooperation with Russia; but
the policy of EDWARD VII. would also have met with a serious obstacle, and the

French hope for revenge would have been ultimately doomed. The refusal of the

English alliance offer of 1898 and 1901, which meant the critical
turning-point for the entire position of Germany, would have been
counterbalanced; she would have won new safety. All this makes it easy to
understand the exulting satisfaction which beams forth from the letters
written by the KAISER at that time.

But very soon it was to become plain that the weavers of-this loom had been
working entirely without BISMARCK’S masterly hand. The very first intimations
contained in the KAISER’S letter of July 27th about the secret treaty are
surprising: so this alliance, which would indeed have taken a foremost rank in
the annals of history, had been closed by the two emperors in a personal
conference of one day’s duration, without the cooperation of the authoritative
ministers? The chancellor of the German Empire received confidential
information only after the KAISER’S return from his journey, and the same
thing happened with the Russian minister of the exterior.

But if there still existed a remnant of political sagacity, now was the time
for it when the seriousness of the matter forced itself on the understanding;
when a way had to be found to escape this desperate situation. It sounds like
the statement of a man either totally blind or clearly strained in his
utterances, when on January 29th, 1906, the KAISER resorts to a coarse jest
about the “woodcutter Fallieres” (meaning the president of the French

Republic) in attempting to get rid of the significant fact that the CZAR wants
to receive a French aide-de-camp in his suite; so funny does this arrangement
look to the KAISER that he can hardly check his mirth. Was he really unable to
see how France was beginning to eclipse him even in the CZAR’S personal
surroundings? And furthermore: in June, 1906, the KAISER learned, from what
the CZAR told him, that England was trying to come to an understanding with

Russia about Asia. Not even this fact prompts the KAISER to take up the
concrete questions that are to be solved; it merely causes him to become
worked up again and again about the “Yellow Peril,” which he believes to have
discovered, and which according to him is to help bridge over the conflicting
interests in Europe and the near east. It would appear that he fails to
recognize, while thus reasoning, that the differences between Japan and

America, Japan and Russia are of a political and economic nature, and that the
alliance of England with Japan satisfied the immediate interests of both
countries more satisfactorily than a crusade of the white against the yellow

-race would have done.

Thus the political accomplishments of these letters are not especially
encouraging. In fact, they allow the reader to look only into details, but not
into the whole of the German-Russian relations. Several of the most important
questions, for instance the Russian suggestion to interfere in the Boer War,
are not referred to in the letters as we have them. But they do show how a
policy went to grief which had attempted to solve the gravest problems with
insufficient means. They show the KAISER not as the nation’s political leader,
but filled with untenable ideas as to the vocation of a sovereign and
international politics, and they show us the difficulties under which the
responsible functionaries of the imperial government had to work the entire
time. Yet, one thing these letters disclose without any doubt: never has the

KAISER occupied himself with schemes of attack, with preparations for the
world war. The dominating thought in every instance is how to assure peace.

That he wanted to see Germany and Russia as the center of the league which was
to guarantee peace, needs no defense. For he had to transact German, not

French or English politics. In making efforts to free Russia from the French
and English embrace, he acted within his rights (however inadequate were his
means); the very course of events has proven that this embrace ultimately
meant the world war. That the KAISER wanted to avoid this war, is demonstrated
by these letters, and this is what makes them historical documents which will
bear testimony against our enemies as long as an impartial science of history
will exist. Valuable as the contemporary comment on the Kaiser’s letters is, the final judgment on them and their author must be left to the future when passions and prejudices will have given way to calm investigation and impartial analysis. History will announce its own sentence on the Kaiser only when the letters of his correspondents, Czar Nicholas of Russia, King Edward of England, Francis Joseph of Austria-Hungary, the Sultan of Turkey and the Balkan kings are revealed to the world. So far only the archives of the Romanoffs have been made public by the Russian Government. What a boon to humanity it would be if the enormous volume of truth lying buried in the archives of a dozen European courts, existing and extinct, were suddenly to be disclosed to humanity! ISAAC DON LEVINE. Chicago, April, 1920

I Neues Palais, 8/XI/94 My dear Nicky The heavy and responsible task for which Providence has destinied you has come upon you with the suddeness of a surprise, through the so unexpected and untimely death of your dear lamented father.1 These lines are to express my fullest and warmest sympathy with you and your Alix 2 and your poor distressed mother.3 I can well understand the feelings which must have agitated your heart in witnessing the ebbing away of the life of your father, as his illness and sudden passing away was so very like my own dear Papa’s;4 with whose character and kind geniality the late Czar had so many likness. My prayers to God for you and your happiness are unceasing. May heaven comfort you in your grief and give you strength for your heavy duties, and may a long and peaceful reign give you the opportunity of looking after the welfare of your subjects. The sympathy and real grief at the so untimely end of your lamented father in my country will have shown you how strong the monarchical instinct is and how Germany feels for you and your subjects. As former you will always find me the same in undiminished friendship and love to you. What our political ideals are we both know perfectly and I have nothing to add to our last conversation in Berlin,5 I only can repeat the expression or you and the assurance that I shall always cultivate the old relations of mutual friendship with your house in which I was reared by my Grandfather,6 and some examples of which I was so glad to be able to give to your dear Papa in these last six months of his reign, and which I am happy to hear were fully appreciated by him. I would have come myself to pray with you at the funeral,7 but I have so much to do with administration at home that it is impossible. Henry will be the bearer of my messages, Gen. v. Plessen,8 commandant of my Headquarters, Lieut. Col. v. Moltke9 my Aide de Camp, and Gen. v. Villaune10 your old friend will accompany him on board his ship to Cronstadt. At the same time by land Col. v. Saussin of the Kaiser Alexander Garde Grend. Reg. I. will report himself to you as the new Chef of the Regiment. Whereas to your Regiment of Hussars11 I have given your name of which they will be immensely proud. In the first named Guard Regiment the person of the late Tsar was always highly venered and last Mondays the whole corps of its officers and the four Colours of the Reginal joined their prayers with mine of the chapel of the Russian Embassy at Berlin. Now, dearest Nicky, Good bye, God bless and protect you and dear Alix and give you happiness in your new married life, that is the warm wish of Your most aff-ate and devoted friend and cousin William.

Notes 1. Alexander III., the father of Nicholas II., died at Livadia on November Ist,

1894.

2. Princess Alix of Hesse, to whom Nicholas was betrothed. They were married 18 days after the date of this letter, on November 26th, 1894. 3. The Dowager Empress Marie Feodorovna, formerly Princess Dagmar of Denmark. 4. Emperor Frederick. 5. The conversation referred to took place on January 28th, 1894. 6. William I., the first German emperor. 7. The funeral of the late Czar took place on November 19th, 1894. Prince Henry of Prussia represented the Kaiser. 8. Von Plessen was commandant of the Kaiser’s headquarters 9. Lieutenant-Colonel von Moltke a nephew of the great Moltke — was the Kaiser’s aide-de-camp since 1891. From 1906 to December, 1914, he was Chief of the German General Staff 10. Von Villaune is probably General Carl von Villauny. 11. The 8th Hussars. II. Potsdam, 5/I/95, My dear Nicky Your kind letter which Knorring brought to me involved very interesting but very sad news. I am very thankful for your explanation and fully understand the motives which prompt you to decide about Count Schouvaloff.1 In the same time I can assure you that I am deeply grieved at losing excellent Paul, who was the only ambassador at Berlin with whom I was on really intimate terms and who was an “ami intime” to me as far as a non-German could claim such name. I will miss him very much indeed!I He fully deserves the eulogies you gave him in your rescript and the near and intimate relations of our Courts and People could not have been better looked after than by him. I hope and trust that the person whom you are going to select to replace him will be able to carry on the work in the same manner and with the same thruthfullness and openess of character like Schouvaloff; as the relations of our two countries rest on traditional bases, quite other than those with other nations, and are of commanding influence on the whole of the world! At your dear Fathers express wish I replaced Schweinitz2 by Werder, if I could at the same time express a wish, it would be that you chose either Pahlen,3 Richter4 or Staal5 as remplaçants if possible.6 Now let me wish you a Happy New Year at the side of that dear Angel Alix, and may it be a year of peace and prosperity! My Xmas gift will I hope amuse you, it is an album with photos from the Fahnenweihe at Berlin. Hoping that we shall be able to meet each other somewhere this year I remain Your most aff-ate friend Willy

Notes I. Count Schouvaloff was one of Russia’s foremost diplomats. He was Russian Ambassador to London in 1878, during the Berlin Conference. On January 3rd, 1895, he was transferred from his post as Russian ambassador in Berlin, which he filled for nine years, to the Governor-Generalship of Warsaw. 2. General von Schweinitz was German ambassador in Petrograd until 1892, when after Bismarck’s fall, he was replaced by General von Werder. 3. Count von der Pahlen a high dignitary of the Russian court. 4. General Richter was chief of the Czar’s Military Household. 5. Georges de Staal was Russiqn ambassador in London from 1884 to I903. 6. The Kaiser’s suggestions were ignored by the Czar, and Count Osten-Sacken was appointed to succeed Count Schouvaloff.

III Berlin 7/II/95 Dearest Nicky Egloffstein1 will, I hope, be able to bring over the whole heap of porcelain without any breakage. He is instructed to arrange the table so as it would be if you gave a dinner for 50; so that you should have the coup d’oeil of the whole affair. I hope that my manufacturer has done everything to fulfill your wishes and that the present may be useful to you both. Since the sad weeks you had to go through have passed much has happened in Europe. You have lost an excellent old servant of your predecessors, old Giers,2 who was a very good fellow whom I much esteemed. France has changed par surprise her head and government3 and through the amnesty opened the doors to all the worst malefactors the former people with difficulty had managed to imprison. The impulse given to the Democrats and the Revolutionary party is also to be felt here. My Reichstag4 behaves as badly as it can, swinging backwards and forwards between the socialists egged on by the Jews, and the ultramontane Catholiks; both parties beeing soon fit to be hung all of them, as far as I can see. In England the ministry5 is toddling on to its fall amidst universal derision! In short everywhere the “principe de la Monarchie” is called upon to show itself strong. That is why I am so glad at the capital speech6 you made other day to the deputations in response to some addresses for reform. It was very much to the point and made a deep impression everywhere. For the opening of our Canal7 in the end of June I have invited all European Governments to send warships to Kiel, I hope your fleet will also be represented by a ship or two? With my respects to your Mamy and many compliments to Alix, I remain Your most aff-ate friend Willy

Notes. I. A Marshal of the Kaiser’s Court, who conveyed Wilhelm’s wedding present to the Czar. 2. Nicholas de Giers was Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs since 1882. 3. M. Casimir-Périer, President of the French Republic, resigned on January Isth, 1895, when the Dupuy Cabinet was overthrown by the Chamber. M. Félix Faure was elected President on January 17th, and on January 26th, M. Ribot formed a Cabinet which introduced and carried a bill giving amnesty to political offenders. 4. On December 6th, :894, at the first sitting in the new Reichstag building, six socialists refused to rise when the president called for three cheers for the Kaiser. 5. The Roseberry government fell on June 21st, 1895. 6. The historic speech made by the young Czar on January 29th, in reply to a deputation of the Zemstvos come to plead for reforms. Nicholas II. spoke of the reforms asked by the Zemstvos as “unrealizable dreams,” concluding his speech with the memorable words, “I shall uphold the principle of autocracy tS firmly and unflinchingly as did my ever-lamented father.” 7. The Kiel Canal was opened on June 21st, 1895.

IV Kaltenbronn1 Schwarzwald 16/IV 95 Dearest Nicky As Prince Radolin,sup>2 leaves shortly for Petersburg I send these few lines by him. He is an excellent and warm friend of mine, who has been proved by the difficult task he had when beeing Papa’s Chief of the Household during his short reign he stubbornly resisted any trials of intrigue from any side. You may place full and implicit confidence in him, his discreetness is proverbial and he is burning to do everything in his power to please us both and to tighten the traditional ties which unite our families and countries since nearly a century. He hates the Poles and has no more to do with them or interest in them than with the Sandwich Islanders. I thank you sincerely for the excellent way in which you initiated the combined action of Europe3 for the sake of its interests against Japan. It was high time that energetic steps were taken, and will make an excellent impression in Japan as elsewhere. It shows to evidence how necessary it is that we should hold together, and also that there is existent a base of common interests upon which all European nations may work in joint action for the welfare of all as is shown by the adherence of France to us two. May the conviction that this can be done without touching a nations honour, take root more and more firmly, then no doubt the fear of war in Europe will dissipate more and more. The kind and most valuable messages which you sent me through Osten Sacken4 by Count Eulenburgs transmission in Vienna have given me a signal proof of your loyalty and openness towards me. I shall certainly do all in my power to keep Europe quiet and also guard the rear or Russia so that nobody shall hamper your action towards the Far East! For that is clearly the great task of the future for Russia to cultivate the Asian Continent and to defend Europe from the inroads of the Great Yellow race. In this you will always find me on your side ready to help you as best I can. You have well understood that call of Providence and have quickly grasped the moment; it is of immense political and historical value and much good will come of it. I shall with interest await the further development of our action and hope that, just as I will gladly help you to settle the question of eventual annexations5 of portions of territory for Russia, you will kindly see that Germany may also be able to acquire a Port somewhere were it does not “gęne” you. I am afraid that, as the Norwegians~6are in a state bordering on insanity I may not be able to make my summer tour there, but shall have to cruise about on the Swedish coast of the Baltic. Should that be the case, could not we have a meeting somewhere for our two yachts were it suits you and have quiet little chat between ourselves? It would be so nice. Now good bye dearest Nicky, give my best love to Alix and respectful compliments to your Mama, from Ever Your most devoted and affate friend Willy P.S. Radolin is quite “eingeweiht” in all my ideas I just developed to you.

Notes I. Shooting box in Black Forest near Wildbad. 2.. German ambassador in Constantinople, 1892-1895; in Petrograd, 1895-1901; in Paris, 190I-I910. He succeeded General von Werder at Petrograd. 3. The protest of Russia, France and Germany made on April 24th against the Chinese-Japanese Treaty of Shimonoseki of April 17th, which forced Japan to give up the Liao-tung peninsula and Port Arthur. 4 Count Nicholas Osten-Sacken, Russian ambassador in Berlin. 5. These annexations were Germany’s seizing of Kiao-Chau, Russia’s seizing of Port Arthur and England’s seizing of Weihai-wei in 1898. 6. Norway was in the midst of a great political crisis. Ten years later the separation of Norway and Sweden took place. V Stora Sundby I0/VII 95 Dearest Nicky My journey in Sweden and along its shores bring me opposite to your shores and to your buen retiro and I cannot let this moment pass, when I am only a short cruize away from you, without sending you a 1ine as I shall not unhappily be able to meet you on the salty brine. Let me once more thank you with all my heart for the sending of those splendid ships1 of yours, which so ably and powerfully represented the Russian Navy at Kiel. Alexei2 was kindness and joviality itself and did everything in his power to make intercourse with our Russian comrades everything that could be wished for. Your kind permission to place him ŕ la suite of our navy made my officers very proud and seemed to have given him pleasure. I had the opportunity of some serious talk about Eastern Asian Affairs with Alexei and also his good old Baron Schilling who was a very great friend of my Grandfathers. He will I suppose already have reported to you about it. I was glad to be able to show, how our interests were entwined in the Far East, that my ships had been ordered to second yours in case of need when things looked dcubtful. That Europe had to be thankful to you that you so quickly had perceived the great future for Russia in the cultivation of Asia and in the Defense of the Cross and the old Christian European culture against the inroads of the Mongols and Buddhism, that it was natural that if Russia was engaged in this tremendous work you wished to have Europe quiet and your back free; and that it was natural and without doubt that this would be my task and that I would let nobody try to interfere with you and attack from behind in Europe during the time you were fullfilling the great mission which Heaven has shaped for you. That was as sure as Amen in Church! One incident took place of which I think I ought to tell you as I am quite certain that it happened without Alexei’s knowledge, but having become known among our officers created a very painful impression. On board the Grossiaschtschy — the vessel which I invited Admiral Skrydlow3 and his Captains to pass the Canal with — two Engineer Officers were secretly embarked which had not been announced to our Authorities. The Eldest was Colon. Buhnow. These in conjunction with a lieutenant who is specially trained for the purpose and who had a large apparatus took photographs of our Forts and batteries made notes and sketches all along the road and finally when Skrydlow saw that my Naval Attaché was rather astonished to see quite strange people on the ship — were introduced to him as two directors of waterworks and waterways! At Kiel Bubnow’s bearing became so “suspecte” that Police and Gendarmes followed him. He went about in plain clothes and was prowling about the fortifications, which was strictly forbidden to strangers! Now I think this is not quite fair, if you are invited as guest at such a fęte in a foreign country which without reserve throws open its gates to you and lets you into its war harbour, to abuse of hospitality in this manner, to try to spy out your friend and that even under assumed character! The consequence is that this will make people very careful with Russian warships and creates uneasy feelings which I so deplore and hope to overcome. Pray excuse my mentioning this matter, but I thought it better to tell you directly instead of making diplomatic notes etc. as you know how I feel for you and Russia. But I do wish to have every difficulty which could arise in the work of drawing our countries closer together, removed before it strikes root. Goodbye dearest Nicky my best love to Alix and to you, with wishes for a quiet summer and a nice little boy to come believe me dear Nicky Ever your most affectionate friend and cousin Willy

Notes 1. The “Imperator Alexander II” and the “Rurik.” 2. Grand Duke Alexei, an uncle of the Czar, was for many years the Commander in Chief of the Russian Navy. 3. Commander of the Russian Squadron at Kiel. Later Skrydlow became Chief of the Russian Admiralty.

Created: Friday, November 28, 1997, 14:43 Last Updated: Friday, November 28,

1997, 14:43