Demands of a transnational public sphere: the diplomatic conflict between Joseph Chamberlain and Bernhard von Bülow and how the mass press shaped expectations for mediatized politics around the turn of the twentieth century

ABSTRACT

Scholarship on media and politics presumes a ‘mediatization’ of politics over time, which overlooks the evolution of a mediatized public sphere that shaped people’s understandings of what actually constituted politics. This article investigates the public sphere to demonstrate how it created expectations for politicians and journalists within the process of the mediatization of politics. To understand how political behaviour changed as a result of mediatization, this article focuses on the turn of the twentieth century, when politics faced an emerging mass press. It analyses one of the most violent episodes of the ‘press wars’ between Germany and Britain before the First World War. In 1901, British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain allegedly insulted the German Army, to which German Imperial Chancellor Bernhard von Bülow reacted aggressively, resulting in a media storm across Europe and the failing of the British-German alliance talks that paved the way for Britain’s Entente Cordiale with France. Part of the reason why this situation escalated was that newspapers in Britain and Germany expressed expectations for politicians to represent the angry opinions of their publics as voiced in the press. However, many newspapers also demanded that Bülow and Chamberlain moderate public opinion by influencing and censoring the press. While Bülow and Chamberlain were ahead of their time in paying attention to press opinions, seeking publicity and managing the press, they failed to meet the contradictory expectations of catering to jingoism while appeasing a foreign public. Meanwhile, newspapers reflected on their political impact on this situation, and started expecting more press responsibility, which moderated the crisis. The case shows how media and politics were not separated spheres, but interacted within a transnational public sphere in which expectations for political and journalistic behaviour were continuously being (re)shaped.

KEYWORDS:

• Mediatization
• public sphere
• media politics
• political norms
• transnational history
• new political history

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Martin Kohlrausch and colleagues of the ‘Modernity and Society 1800–2000ʹ research group at the KU Leuven for their insightful comments. In addition, he is grateful for the questions and suggestions from participants at the following conferences: ‘Continuity and Change in Political Culture and Practices in Europe, 18^th–20^th Centuries’, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen (19 October 2017); ‘The Changing Frontiers of Political History, 16^th–20^th Centuries’, Sciences Po, Paris (26–27 October 2017); ‘Diskurs und mediale Realitätskonstruktion in der Kommunikationsgeschichte’, Freie Universität, Berlin (18–20 January 2018); ‘European History Across Boundaries’, Leibniz Institut für Europäische Geschichte, Mainz (24-26 January 2018). Finally, he thanks the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their instructive feedback.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Mazzoleni and Schulz, “Mediatization' of Politics”; Meyer, Mediokratie; Bösch and Frei, Medialisierung und Demokratie im 20. Jahrhundert; Strömbäck, “Four Phases of Mediatization;” Wijfjes and Voerman, Mediatization of Politics in History; Klaus et al., Von der Politisierung der Medien zur Medialisierung des Politischen?; Esser and Strömbäck, Mediatization of Politics.

2. E.g. Goldstein, The War for the Public Mind; Piereth, “Propaganda im 19. Jahrhundert.”

3. See for example Clark, William II, 160–85; Hale, Publicity and Diplomacy, 292–326; Bösch, “Katalysator der Demokratisierung?”

4. Requate, “Öffentlichkeit und Medien als Gegenstände historischer Analyse.”

5. Hampton, “Liberalism, the Press, and the Construction of the Public Sphere;” Kaplan, “Press, Paper, and the Public Sphere.”

6. See Bösch and Domeier, “Cultural History of Politics;” Steinmetz, Gilcher-Holtey, and Haupt, Writing Political History Today.

7. Steinmetz, Das Sagbare und das Machbare.

8. Lee, The Origins of the Popular Press in England, 1855–1914, 42–72.

9. Birmele, “The Mass-Circulation Press and the Crisis of Legitimation in Wilhelmine Germany, 1908–1918,” 2–3.

10. Habermas, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit.

11. Fraser, “Transnationalizing the Public Sphere.”

12. For the argument that scholarship should move beyond pessimistic evaluations of a supposed historical deterioration of a rational public sphere, see also Ross, “Writing the Media into History.”

13. Brüggemann et al., “Transnationale Öffentlichkeit in Europa,” 392.

14. See Orgill, “Different Points of View?;” Gerbig-Fabel, “Photographic Artefacts of War 1904–1905;” media had been transnational for centuries but this reached a new level around 1900, Bösch and Geppert, Journalists as Political Actors.

15. Geppert, Pressekriege; Bösch, Öffentliche Geheimnisse.

16. Bösch and Geppert, Journalists as Political Actors.

17. Geppert, Ambassadors of Democracy; Geppert, National Expectations and Transnational Infrastructure.

18. Bösch, “Transfers and Similarities;” Bösch, Mass Media and Historical Change.

19. For more on these press wars, see Geppert, Pressekriege.

20. More generally, the prominent publicist and former German ambassador to China, Herr von Brandt, had argued in an earlier article that the logical result of the aggressive German press statements would be war with Britain and other countries, see “Germany and the Boers,” Daily Telegraph, November 22, 1901, 10.

21. “Mr. Chamberlain’s Speech,” Times, October 28, 1901, 5.

22. “Aus anderen Blättern,” Neue Preußische Zeitung, January 15, 1902, morning, 6.

23. See Penzler, Fürst Bülows Reden, 241–8; Penner, “The Buelow-Chamberlain Recriminations of 1901–1902;” Winzen, Bülows Weltmachtkonzept, 370–94; Hale, Publicity and Diplomacy, 227–65; Marsh, Joseph Chamberlain, 516–18; Politische Beziehungen Englands zu Deutschland, R 5772, Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amts (PA AA); Parlamentarische Reden des Reichskanzlers Graf von Bülow und ihre Beurteilung in der Presse, R 1340, PA AA; Lepsius, Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, and Thimme, Die Grosse Politik der Europäischen Kabinette, 1871–1914, 194–8.

24. “Chamberlainisms,” Birmingham Dispatch, July 3, 1914; “Idol of the Music Halls,” Daily Sketch, July 4, 1914.

25. Penzler, Fürst Bülows Reden, 241–8; Eckardstein, Ten Years at the Court of St. James, 227–30; Gooch and Temperly, British Documents on the Origins of the World War, 1898–1914, 60–88; Penner, “The Buelow-Chamberlain Recriminations of 1901–1902,” 107; Amery, The Life of Joseph Chamberlain, 166–76; Fesser, Reichskanzler Fürst von Bülow, 100; Winzen, Reichskanzler Bernhard von Bülow, 311–19; surprisingly, these speeches were not mentioned in Viebrock and Schild, Rhetorik und Weltpolitik.

26. E.g. Winzen, Bülows Weltmachtkonzept, 370–94.

27. See also Rüger, The Great Naval Game; Deist, Flottenpolitik und Flottenpropaganda.

28. For both Britain and Germany I studied several main newspapers of different ideological and class (“quality” vs “popular”) backgrounds for a six-month period following Chamberlain’s initial speech on October 25, 1901: the Times; Daily Telegraph; Manchester Guardian; Daily Mail; Berliner Tageblatt; Neue Preußische Zeitung; Kölnische Zeitung; Vorwärts; Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger; and Berliner Morgenpost. However, in my analysis I found that the differences in reporting between “quality” and “popular” papers were not significant and that researchers tend to overemphasize these differences, sometimes anachronistically applying the “tabloid” label to newspapers around 1900. Thus, in the text of this article – I discuss it elsewhere in more detail – I refrained from stressing the supposed nature of the papers too much. For a more “neutral” and “transnational” perspective, I also structurally analysed four Belgian papers: Indépendance Belge; Peuple; Handelsblad; and Journal de Bruxelles. Moreover, I looked at illustrated and caricature magazines: Illustrated London News; Punch; Review of Reviews; Berliner Illustrirte Zeitung; Kladderadatsch; Simplicissimus; Illustration Européenne; and Patriote Illustré. In addition, for the six-month period I used the search term “Chamberlain” (as Chamberlain rather than Bülow was seen as the cause and epicentre of the media storm) to find particularly interesting articles in the digitized newspaper databases Artemis, Proquest British Periodicals, British Newspaper Archive and BelgicaPress. These databases also yielded articles from regional and local rather than national newspapers, which showed that the diplomatic controversy received attention not just in elite papers, but across different segments of the emerging mass press and thus the public. Moreover, these regional and local papers constituted an important part of the “mass” press around 1900, which before the mergers and media concentrations of the twentieth century was still characterized more by a high number of newspapers with relatively low circulations than a small number of papers with enormous circulations. While there were fewer digitized possibilities for Germany, some of my main German papers were regional, given the decentralized nature of the German press landscape as compared to the British. Finally, I used cuttings of newspapers in different archives, notably the diplomatic files at the Political Archive of the Federal Foreign Office in Berlin, and the 28 volumes of caricatures in the Bülow Papers at the Federal Archive in Koblenz. These cuttings provided additional insights, as they showed which articles the politicians and their advisors read and responded to themselves, and because they included articles from a variety of countries, which again confirmed the notion of politicians operating in a transnational public sphere.

29. In addition, Winzen indicates that there were multiple theories on why Bülow attacked Chamberlain: Bülow pursued a “Sammlungspolitik” aimed at creating national unity in order to then engage in “Weltpolitik” and thus the attack provided a way to boost this national unity, it offered a way to end the British–German cooperation negotiations which Bülow did not like, and the Kaiser had wanted him to react. Also, Bülow wanted to take advantage of the public opinion against Chamberlain to make himself and his policies, which had suffered due to his controversial tariff and agrarian policies, popular again. This final theory relates to the public sphere, but still portrays public opinion in that sphere primarily as a tool that Bülow could use rather than as creating expectations of his behaviour as will be shown in the remainder of this article. Winzen, Bülows Weltmachtkonzept, 370–94; Winzen, Reichskanzler Bernhard von Bülow, 311–19.

30. See also Thompson, The Media and Modernity, 119–48.

31. See also: Thompson, British Political Culture and the Idea of “Public Opinion”, 1867–1914; Mommsen, “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy in Wilhelmian Germany, 1897–1914;” Porter, The Origins of the South African War; Geppert, “The Public Challenge to Diplomacy;” Bayly, The Birth of the Modern World, 1780–1914, 451–87.

32. See also Frizenschaf, Die Praxis des Journalisten, 4; Mackay, Modern Journalism, 74.

33. Porter, The Origins of the South African War, vii–xiv.

34. See also Cohen, Media Diplomacy, 52–3.

35. See Thompson, British Political Culture and the Idea of “Public Opinion”, 1867–1914, 1–27; Mayer, Geheime Diplomatie und öffentliche Meinung, 9–16; Porter, The Origins of the South African War, 234–57.

36. Reichsbote, quoted in “Mr. Chamberlain and Germany,” Daily Mail, November 22, 1901, 5.

37. Berliner Tageblatt, January 16, 1902, morning, 2.

38. “Wanted, a Statement,” Daily Mail, November 22, 1901, 4.

39. “Germany and Great Britain,” Manchester Guardian, January 10, 1902, 2nd, special morning express, 3; similarly, see “Anti-Chamberlainism,” Daily Mail, November 21, 1901, 5.

40. “Our Note Book,” Illustrated London News, January 18, 1902, 78.

41. Kladderadatsch, January 19, 1902.

42. “Chamberlains Antwort,” Deutsche Tageszeitung, January 13, 1902.

43. Eckardstein, Ten Years at the Court of St. James, 143–51.

44. “Mr. Chamberlain and Germany,” Manchester Guardian, November 22, 1901, 7; similarly: “Brieven uit Berlijn,” Handelsblad, November 30, 1901, 5.

45. “Two Character Sketches,” Review of Reviews, March 1902, 273.

46. “Anti-Chamberlainism,” Daily Mail, November 21, 1901, 5.

47. “Duitschland en Engeland,” Handelsblad, January 15, 1902, 1.

48. See review of British press reactions in “England und die Proteste gegen Chamberlain,” Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger, November 22, 1901, evening, 1.

49. “Germany and the Boers,” Daily Telegraph, November 22, 1901, 10.

50. “Der Wasserstrahl nach England,” Berliner Blatt [?], January 10, 1902.

51. Radolin to German Foreign Office, January 9, 1902, in Parlamentarische Reden des Reichskanzlers Graf von Bülow und ihre Beurteilung in der Presse, R 1340, PA AA.

52. “Die Regierung und die öffentliche Meinung,” Vossische Zeitung, November 23, 1901.

53. “Germany and Mr Chamberlain,” Aberdeen Journal, November 25, 1901, 6.

54. “La presse anglaise et le discours de M. de Bulow,” Indépendance Belge, January 10, 1902, 1.

55. “Le discours de M. de Bulow et le gouvernement britannique,” Indépendance Belge, January 12, 1902, 1.

56. “Revue politique,” Indépendance Belge, January 18, 1902, 2nd morning, 1.

57. “Sensitive and Ill-informed,” Daily Mail, November 23, 1901, 4.

58. “M. Chamberlain et l’Allemagne,” Meuse, November 25, 1901, evening, 1.

59. “Hij zal maar liever thuis blijven,” Handelsblad, November 23, 1901, 1.

60. “Lord Salisbury’s Speech,” Daily Telegraph, November 12, 1901, 9.

61. “Summary of News,” Manchester Guardian, January 13, 1902, 4.

62. “Ein Jahr Bulow,” Hamburger Correspondent, October 17, 1901, morning, 1.

63. Parlamentarische Reden des Reichskanzlers Graf von Bülow und ihre Beurteilung in der Presse, R 1340, PA AA.

64. Fremden-Blatt, January 11, 1902; Parlamentarische Reden des Reichskanzlers Graf von Bülow und ihre Beurteilung in der Presse, R 1340, PA AA.

65. E.g. “The Retort Discourteous,” Pall Mall Gazette, January 9, 1902.

66. “Bülows Extratouren,” Vorwärts, January 10, 1902, 1.

67. Münchener Allgemeine Zeitung, quoted in “Aus anderen Blättern,” Neue Preußische Zeitung, January 14, 1902, morning, 2.

68. Pollex, “A Bismarck en Pantoufles,” Fortnightly Review, February 1902, 209.

69. Neue Preußische Zeitung, quoted in “Germany and England,” Times, January 14, 1902, 3.

70. Karl Peters, “Mr. Chamberlain als Staatsmann,” Tägliche Rundschau, November 30, 1901.

71. “Die auswärtige Politik der Volksvertretungen,” Arbeiter-Zeitung, January 11, 1902.

72. Berliner Tageblatt, described in “Germany’s Awakening,” Daily Mail, November 25, 1901, 5.

73. “Germany and England,” Times, November 22, 1901, 3; “Semi-Official Comment,” Daily Telegraph, November 22, 1901, 9.

74. “Chamberlain der Ruhestörer,” Kladderadatsch, December 1, 1901.

75. Reichstag Minutes of 10 January 1902, in Parlamentarische Reden des Reichskanzlers Graf von Bülow und ihre Beurteilung in der Presse, R 1340, PA AA.

76. “Reichstag,” Vorwärts, January 11, 1902, 6.

77. “L’Allemagne et le discours de M. Chamberlain,” Indépendance Belge, November 23, 1901, 1.

78. “England and the Continent,” Times, November 23, 1901, 7.

79. “Die Regierung und die öffentliche Meinung,” Vossische Zeitung, November 23, 1901.

80. J.L. Bashford, “Is Anglophobia in Germany on the Decline?,” Fortnightly Review, April 1902, 621–2.

81. Lerman, The Chancellor as Courtier, 116–26; Fesser, Reichskanzler Fürst von Bülow, 87–8; Wilke, “Medialisierung der Politik?”; Koss, The Rise and Fall of the Political Press in Britain, 453–91; Bösch, Öffentliche Geheimnisse, 247–63.

82. Parlamentarische Reden des Reichskanzlers Graf von Bülow und ihre Beurteilung in der Presse, R 1340, PA AA; see also Politische Beziehungen Englands zu Deutschland, R 5678, PA AA, 145–47; Lepsius, Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, and Thimme, Die Grosse Politik der Europäischen Kabinette, 1871–1914, 194–5; Englische Staatsmänner, R 5927, PA AA, 174.

83. Reichskanzler Graf von Bülow, R 1323, PA AA; Zeitungsartikel mit Randbemerkungen S. M. – Zeitungsausschnitte, R 19829, PA AA, 7; Parlamentarische Reden des Reichskanzlers Graf von Bülow und ihre Beurteilung in der Presse, R 1340, PA AA.

84. Geppert, Pressekriege, 29–90.

85. For a report on reactions to the Edinburgh speech, see, for example: Colonial Office person to Chamberlain, November 13, 1901, in South Africa: Colonial Office minutes, chiefly relating to South Africa, 1900–1903, GALE|ANATMF072606965 [JC 13/2/3/1–58], University of Birmingham Library (UBL), 102–3.

86. Kennedy, The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism, 1860–1914.

87. Bülow to Holstein, November 25, 1901, in Rich and Fisher, Die geheimen Papiere Friedrich von Holsteins, 216; Bülow to Metternich, November 26, 1901, in Lepsius, Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, and Thimme, Die Grosse Politik der Europäischen Kabinette, 1871–1914, 196.

88. Chirol to Holstein, November 23, 1901, in Correspondence, GBR/0014/CASR/I/1/14, Churchill Archives Centre (CAC); Lascelles to Chirol, November 24, 1901, in Correspondence, GBR/0014/CASR/I/1/23, CAC, 37–39.

89. Quoted in: Mayer, Geheime Diplomatie und öffentliche Meinung, 14.

90. Lascelles to Lansdowne, November 9, 1901, in Gooch and Temperly, British Documents on the Origins of the World War, 1898–1914, 262; see also Bülow to Kaiser, December 26, 1904, in Spectator [Adolf Henle], Fürst Bülow und der Kaiser, 144–6; Bülow, Deutsche Politik, 141.

91. A UK paper even criticized Bülow for pandering to public opinion when he was not responsible to that opinion, but to the emperor in the German political system: “A Swaggering Pharisee,” St. James’s Gazette, January 9, 1902.

92. Ph. Goldschmied, “Count Von Bülow,” Pall Mall Magazine, March 1902, 405.

93. “Englische Tachteln für deutsche Staatsmänner,” Neue Bayerische Landeszeitung, January 15, 1902.

94. Review of Belgian press, in “Count von Bülow and Mr. Chamberlain,” Times, January 11, 1902, 5; “Revue politique,” Indépendance Belge, January 10, 1902, 1.

95. Metternich to Bülow, November 19, 1901, in Rich and Fisher, Die geheimen Papiere Friedrich von Holsteins, 214; Chirol to Holstein, November 23, 1901, in Rich and Fisher, Die geheimen Papiere Friedrich von Holsteins, 215; Holstein’s diary entry on January 11, 1902, in Rich and Fisher, Die geheimen Papiere Friedrich von Holsteins, 220; Hammann to Bülow, January 5, 1902, in Schriftwechsel A – Z.- Bülow, Bernhard von, Reichskanzler, N2106/7, Bundesarchiv (BArch), 7–8; 2. Publizistische Tätigkeit, dienstliche Laufbahn und persönliche Angelegenheiten.- Artikel von Hammann, N 2106/43, BArch, 5–11; Chirol to Spring-Rice, January 17, 1902, in Correspondence, GBR/0014/CASR/I/1/10, CAC; more generally, the correspondence between Chirol and Lascelles/Holstein, in Correspondence, GBR/0014/CASR/I/1/14, CAC, 46–78; Hammann, Zur Vorgeschichte des Weltkrieges, 92–3; Otto Hammann, Deutsche Weltpolitik 1890–1912, 95–6; Hale, Publicity and Diplomacy, 227–65; Winzen, Bülows Weltmachtkonzept, 377; Winzen, Reichskanzler Bernhard von Bülow, 312–13.

96. Bülow to Hammann, January 5, 1902, in Schriftwechsel A – Z.- Bülow, Bernhard von, Reichskanzler, N2106/7, BArch; Lerman, The Chancellor as Courtier, 118; Winzen, Bülows Weltmachtkonzept, 382.

97. “Die offiziöse Note,” Deutscher Michel, November 28, 1901.

98. Jay, Joseph Chamberlain, 339; Porter, The Origins of the South African War, 258–76.

99. Münz, Von Bismarck bis Bülow, 240–2.

100. Hammann, Zur Vorgeschichte des Weltkrieges, 70–1.

101. Quoted in Jay, Joseph Chamberlain, 9.

102. “Bülow gegen Chamberlain,” Berliner Morgenpost, November 22, 1901, 1; Daily Telegraph, November 22, 1901, 8.

103. “Germany and England,” Times, November 22, 1901, 3; “Das Ausland und die Rede Bülows,” Berliner Tageblatt, January 10, 1902, evening, 1.

104. “Sensatienieuws,” Handelsblad, December 25, 1901, 1.

105. “Politische Uebersicht,” Vorwärts, January 12, 1902, 1.

106. Thompson, Northcliffe.

107. Bülow to Metternich, January 24, 1902, RAV London 1325–1327, PA AA; Note by Bülow, July 11, 1902, Die belgische Presse, R 4413, PA AA, 135–37.

108. Parlamentarische Reden des Reichskanzlers Graf von Bülow und ihre Beurteilung in der Presse, R 1340, PA AA; “Count von Bülow and Mr. Chamberlain,” Times, January 11, 1902, 5; “Reichstag,” Vorwärts, January 11, 1902, 6.

109. “England and Germany,” Daily Telegraph, November 23, 1901, 9; “Anti-Chamberlainism,” Daily Mail, November 21, 1901, 5; “Germany and the Boers,” Daily Telegraph, November 22, 1901, 10.

110. Bülow to Hammann, end of March 1902, in Schriftwechsel A – Z.- Bülow, Bernhard von, Reichskanzler, N2106/7, Barch.

111. Politische Beziehungen Englands zu Deutschland, R 5678, PA AA, 143.

112. Stöber, Pressepolitik als Notwendigkeit, 23–83.

113. “England und die Proteste gegen Chamberlain,” Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger, November 22, 1901, evening, 1; “Anti-Chamberlainism,” Daily Mail, November 21, 1901, 5.

114. Buchanon to Lansdowne, November 20, 1901, Miscellaneous, 1900–1902, GALE|SC5109392276, UBL.

115. Reuter, quoted in “England and Germany,” Daily Telegraph, November 25, 1901, 9.

116. See also: Stöber, Pressepolitik als Notwendigkeit, 23–83; Chalaby, The Invention of Journalism, 32–54, 71–126; Kohlrausch, Der Monarch im Skandal; Bösch, “Katalysator der Demokratisierung?”; Porter, The Origins of the South African War, 1–26, 27–48; Mommsen, “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy in Wilhelmian Germany, 1897–1914.”

117. See also Gadamer, Truth and Method, 235ff; Thompson, The Media and Modernity, 10–43; Short, “Everyman’s Colonial Library;” Corey Ross also noted that the relative neglect of the audience in historical media studies is the result of a scarcity of good sources, in Ross, “Writing the Media into History,” 309.

118. See for example: “England and Germany,” Daily Telegraph, January 15, 1902, 10; Pollex, “A Bismarck en Pantoufles,” Fortnightly Review, February 1902, 208; Amery, The Life of Joseph Chamberlain; “Die Rede des deutschen Reichskanzlers,” St. Petersburger Herald, January 10, 1902; see also Holstein’s diary entry on January 14, 1902, in Rich and Fisher, Die geheimen Papiere Friedrich von Holsteins, 223.

119. Daily Chronicle, as summarized in “Meldungen nach Schluß der Redaktion,” Neue Preußische Zeitung, January 13, 1902, evening, 3.

120. Ph. Goldschmied, “Count Von Bülow,” Pall Mall Magazine, March 1902, 405; “Two Character Sketches,” Review of Reviews, March 1902, 274.

121. Unattributed, quoted in Jeyes, Mr. Chamberlain, 456.

122. See also Geppert, Pressekriege, 233–98; Hale, Publicity and Diplomacy, 227–65; and a similar analysis based on Kaiser Wilhelm II in Clark, William II, 160–85.

123. Karl Peters, “Mr. Chamberlain als Staatsmann,” Tägliche Rundschau, November 30, 1901.

124. “A Teutonic Rebuke,” Daily Mail, January 9, 1902, 4.

125. “Germany and the Boers,” Daily Telegraph, November 22, 1901, 10; see also “Germany and England,” Times, January 14, 1902, 3; “Count von Bulow’s Speech,” Daily Telegraph, January 10, 1902, 10.

126. Wemyss Reid, “Last Month,” Nineteenth Century, February 1902, 335.

127. “Bülows Extratouren,” Vorwärts, January 10, 1902, 1.

128. See also Steinmetz, Das Sagbare und das Machbare.

129. Rosebery, quoted in “Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman and Mr. Chamberlain,” Times, December 23, 1901, 6.

130. “The Retort Discourteous,” Pall Mall Gazette, January 9, 1902.

131. “Reichstag Opens Quietly,” Daily Mail, November 27, 1901, 5; also “Count Bulow’s Difficulty,” Daily Mail, December 10, 1901, 5; however, rather than postponing a reaction, Winzen argues that Bülow had hoped for an earlier Reichstag interpellation that would allow him to speak against Chamberlain and when this opportunity did not arise, he orchestrated the January interpellation himself, Winzen, Bülows Weltmachtkonzept, 382.

132. Shields Daily Gazette, January 9, 1902, 2.

133. “Lettre de Londres,” Indépendance Belge, December 2, 1901, 2nd morning, 1.

134. Prince von Bülow, Memoirs, 548–9.

135. “Mr. Chamberlain at Edinburgh,” Daily Telegraph, October 26, 1901, 9.

136. “Aus Inland und Ausland,” Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger, January 16, 1902, 2nd, 1.

137. For examples of these diplomatic communications, see: Miscellaneous, 1900–1902, GALE|SC5109392276, UBL; Gooch and Temperly, British Documents on the Origins of the World War, 1898–1914, 83, 266–71; Lepsius, Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, and Thimme, Die Grosse Politik der Europäischen Kabinette, 1871–1914, 194; Politische Beziehungen Englands zu Deutschland, R 5772, PA AA; Bülow, Memoirs, 545–50.

138. E.g. “Mr. Chamberlain and Germany,” Daily Mail, November 22, 1901, 5.

139. “Germany and the Boers,” Daily Telegraph, November 22, 1901, 10; “Bulletin politique,” Vingtième Siècle, November 21, 1901, 1; “Germany,” Times, November 7, 1901, 6; “England and the Continent,” Times, November 23, 1901, 7; “Germany,” Times, September 26, 2016, 5.

140. “Maoris and German Slanders,” Daily Telegraph, January 28, 1902, 9.

141. “England and Germany,” Daily Telegraph, January 14, 1902, 9.

142. “Allemagne,” Avenir du Luxembourg, January 16, 1902, 2; “Revue politique,” Indépendance Belge, January 16, 1902, 1; “Brieven uit Berlijn,” Handelsblad, January 17, 1902, 1–2.

143. “Chamberlain et de Bulow,” Indépendance Belge, January 15, 1902, 1.

144. “Revue politique,” Indépendance Belge, December 14, 1901, 2nd morning, 1; “Revue politique,” Indépendance Belge, December 10, 1901, 2nd morning, 1.

145. Daily Mail, described in “Die Regierung und die öffentliche Meinung,” Vossische Zeitung, November 23, 1901; “Germany and England,” Times, January 16, 1902, 5.

146. E.g. “Germany and Great Britain,” Manchester Guardian, January 10, 1902, 2nd, special morning express, 3; for a more general reflection based on the contemporary Russian situation, see Scott to Lansdowne, February 5, 1902, Gooch and Temperly, British Documents on the Origins of the World War, 1898–1914, 272.

147. Reuter, quoted in “England and Germany,” Daily Telegraph, November 25, 1901, 9.

148. Bashford, “Is Anglophobia in Germany on the Decline?,” Fortnightly Review, April 1902, 615–16.

149. See for example: “Engeland en Duitschland,” Handelsblad, January 11, 1902, 1; “Angleterre et Allemagne,” Temps, January 21, 1902.

150. Marsh, Joseph Chamberlain, 516–18.

151. “City of London and Mr. Chamberlain,” Manchester Guardian, February 14, 1902, 10.

152. “Mr. Chamberlain in the City,” Times, February 14, 1902, 8.

153. National-Zeitung, described in “Deutschland,” Neue Preußische Zeitung, January 11, 1902, evening, 1.

154. Reuter, quoted in “German Anglophobes,” Western Daily Press, November 25, 1901, 8; “England and Germany,” Daily Telegraph, November 25, 1901, 9; “Feeling in Germany,” Daily Telegraph, November 25, 1901, 10.

155. Frankfurter Zeitung, paraphrased in “Feeling in Germany,” Daily Telegraph, November 25, 1901, 10.

156. National-Zeitung, described in “Germany and England,” Times, January 13, 1902, 5.

157. “Der Krieg zwischen England und den Buren,” Neue Preußische Zeitung, October 26, 1901, evening, 2.

158. “Der Krieg zwischen England und den Buren,” Neue Preußische Zeitung, October 28, 1901, evening, 2.

159. Pollex, “A Bismarck en Pantoufles,” Fortnightly Review, February 1902, 206; in response, Bülow instructed his personnel to place in the press a discussion of this article’s characterization of him and the argument that it merely showed that Bülow did not place German politics in the service of the British, which was then published in the Post on February 28, 1902 and the Allgemeine Zeitung on March 1, 1902. See Bülow’s note of February 24, 1902, Reichskanzler Graf von Bülow.

160. “Ein englischer Angriff auf den Deutschen Reichskanzler,” Post, February 28, 1902; Reichskanzler Graf von Bülow.

161. Star, quoted in “Qu’il s’en aille!,” Journal de Charleroi, November 24, 1901, 1.

162. “Reichstag,” Vorwärts, January 11, 1902, 6.

163. Requate, Journalismus als Beruf; Chalaby, The Invention of Journalism.

164. See also Geppert, Pressekriege, 351–86; Geppert, “Ambassadors of Democracy,” 54.

165. “England and Germany,” Daily Telegraph, November 25, 1901, 9.

166. Kölnische Zeitung, in “Germany,” Times, November 14, 1901, 5; “Germans and the War,” Daily Mail, November 21, 1901, 4.

167. Calchas, “The Crisis with Germany,” Fortnightly Review, December 1901, 934.

168. “Brieven uit Londen,” Handelsblad, January 21, 1902, 1–2.

169. “Notes of the Week,” Saturday Review, January 18, 1902, 66.

170. “England and the Continent,” Times, November 23, 1901, 7.

171. “Feeling in Germany,” Daily Telegraph, November 25, 1901, 10.

172. Frankfurter Zeitung, quoted in ibid., 10.

173. Kölnische Zeitung, quoted in “The War,” Times, November 18, 1901, 3.

174. See also Bösch, “Volkstribune und Intellektuelle;” Brake et al., W.T. Stead.

175. “Exciting Hatred Against Germany,” Review of Reviews, February 1902, 154.

176. “The Progress of the World,” Review of Reviews, February 1902, 122.

177. Fremden-Blatt, January 11, 1902; see also: Frankfurter Zeitung, described in ‘La campagne anglophobe en Allemagne,’ Indépendance Belge, November 24, 1901, 1.

178. Schriftwechsel mit einzelnen Persönlichkeiten. Holstein, Friedrich von, N 1016/91, BArch, 252–56; Correspondence, 52–53.

179. “Anglo-German Relations,” Times, January 15, 1902, 7.

180. Daily Telegraph, November 22, 1901, 8.

181. Frankfurter Zeitung, quoted in “England and the Continent,” Times, November 23, 1901, 7.

182. Wemyss Reid, “Last Month,” Nineteenth Century, February 1902, 338.

183. J. L. Bashford, “Is Anglophobia in Germany on the Decline?,” Fortnightly Review, April 1902, 615–16.

184. J.L. Bashford, “Is Anglophobia in Germany on the Decline?,” Fortnightly Review, April 1902, 615–16; see also Geppert, “Ambassadors of Democracy.”

185. “Exciting Hatred Against Germany,” Review of Reviews, February 1902, 155.

186. “Germany’s Awakening,” Daily Mail, November 25, 1901, 5.

187. “Deutschland und England,” Berliner Neueste Nachrichten, November 23, 1901.

188. Politische Beziehungen Englands zu Deutschland, R 5678, PA AA.

189. See for example the review of the Berlin press in “England and Germany,” Daily Telegraph, January 14, 1902, 9.

190. “German Anglophobes,” Western Daily Press, November 25, 1901, 8.

191. See also Jones, Powers of the Press, 28–46.

Additional information

Funding

This work was partly supported by the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO) under Grant 165396 SVDS;

Notes on contributors

Betto van Waarden

Betto van Waarden is working on the PhD project ‘Politics in Public: Celebrity Politicians and the Emerging Mass Press around the Turn of the Twentieth Century’, under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Martin Kohlrausch at the KU Leuven. In the project, he investigates how the development of the mass media changed politics by analysing the interactions between five political leaders and the mass press in Belgium, Germany and Britain in the decades around 1900. He concentrates on the evolution of a new communicative space, in which the emerging mass press enabled a more direct relationship between public personae and the mass public that constituted an informal type of democratization. Van Waarden holds a B.A. from Lewis & Clark College and an M.Phil. from the University of Cambridge.