Published by The Morning Post of London, Oct. 30, 1914.
The subjoined letter written to the late Lord Tweedmouth by the German
Emperor is made public for the first time. It is a literal transcript of
the original document in which occur a few slight errors in spelling.
The existence of the document was first made known to the public by the
military correspondent of The Times, who published a letter on the
subject on March 6, 1908, but its contents were not divulged.
The significance of the letter can be understood only in the light of
the naval and political situation six years ago. During the preceding
year, 1907, The Hague Conference, ostensibly convened in the interests
of international peace, had resolved itself into a committee to
determine how to diminish the severities of war. There was a section of
opinion in this country which was persuaded that the only method of
seeking peace was to reduce the navy and army. At the same time the
Imperial German Navy was making swift and steady progress, and its
menace to British supremacy aroused considerable alarm in this country.
Although the British Navy held superiority over the German Navy in ships
not of the dreadnought type, the balance in dreadnoughts was virtually
even.
Dreadnought Supremacy.
It was stated in Parliament that in the year 1916 Germany, according to
her naval law, would have thirty-six dreadnoughts, a number which would
involve the building by this country of forty-four such vessels in the
same period, toward which the Government was only providing two in the
current year. It was also stated that in the year 1911 Germany would
possess thirteen dreadnoughts and Great Britain only twelve, which
statement was founded upon reasonable assumptions. Could Germany reckon
upon the continuance of such a relative position, the advantage to her
would be very great.
It was at this critical moment that the German Emperor indited his
letter to the First Lord of the Admiralty, which is printed below. When
the fact became known there was a good deal of public feeling aroused
both in this country and abroad. Lord Tweedmouth stated that the letter
was a private letter and purely personal. Prince von Bülow informed the
Reichstag that the letter was of both a private and political character,
adding some remarks concerning the "purely defensive character of our
naval programme which," said the Chancellor, "cannot be emphasized too
frequently."
The German Foreign Office officially announced that "in his letter the
Emperor merely corrected certain erroneous views prevalent in England
regarding the development of the German fleet."
Readers are now in a position to judge for themselves the accuracy of
these statements. It should be remembered that the reduced navy
estimates of 1908-9 were followed by national alarm and the publication
of Admiral Lord Charles Beresford's shipbuilding programme and large
increase in estimates of the following year. Here is the letter:
The Kaiser's Letter.
Berlin, 14th-2, 1908.
My Dear Lord Tweedmouth--May I intrude on your precious time and
ask for a few moments' attention to these lines I venture to submit
to you? I see by the daily papers and reviews that a battle royal
is being fought about the needs of the navy. I therefore venture to
furnish you with some information anent the German naval programme,
which it seems is being quoted by all parties to further their ends
by trying to frighten peaceable British taxpayers with it as a
bogy.
During my last pleasant visit to your hospitable shores I tried to
make your authorities understand what the drift of German naval
policy is, but I am afraid that my explanations have been either
misunderstood or not believed, because I see "German danger" and
"German challenge to British naval supremacy" constantly quoted in
different articles. This phrase, if not repudiated or corrected,
sown broadcast over the country and daily dinned into British ears,
might in the end create the most deplorable results.
I therefore deem it advisable, as Admiral of the Fleet, to lay some
facts before you to enable you to see clearly that it is absolutely
nonsensical and untrue that the German naval bill is to provide a
navy meant as a challenge to British naval supremacy. The German
fleet is built against nobody at all; it is solely built for
Germany's needs in relation with that country's rapidly growing
trade. The German naval bill was sanctioned by the Imperial
Parliament and published ten years ago, and may be had at any large
bookseller's. There is nothing surprising, secret, or underhand in
it, and every reader may study the whole course mapped out for the
development of the German Navy with the greatest ease.
Thirty to Forty Battleships in 1920.
The law is being adhered to, and provides for about thirty to forty
ships of the line in 1920. The number of ships fixed by the bill
included the fleet then actually in commission, notwithstanding its
material being already old and far surpassed by contemporary types.
In other foreign navies the extraordinary rapidity with which
improvements were introduced in types of battleships, armaments,
and armor made the fleet in commission obsolete before the building
programme providing additions to it was half finished.
The obsolete fleet had to be struck off the list, thus leaving a
gap, lowering the number of ships below the standard prescribed by
the bill. This gap was stopped by using the finished ships to
replace the obsolete ones instead of being added to them as
originally intended. Therefore, instead of steadily increasing the
standing fleet by regular additions it came to a wholesale
rebuilding of the entire German Navy. Our actual programme in
course of execution is practically only the exchange of old
material for new, but not an addition to the number of units
originally laid down by the bill of ten years ago, which is being
adhered to.
It seems to me that the main fault in the discussions going on in
the papers is the permanent ventilating of so-called two to three
or more power standard and then only exemplifying on one power,
which is invariably Germany. It is fair to suppose that each nation
builds and commissions its navy according to its needs and not only
with regard to the programme of other countries. Therefore, it
would be the simplest thing for England to say: "I have a
world-wide empire and the greatest trade of the world, and to
protect them I must have so and so many battleships, cruisers, &c.,
as are necessary to guarantee the supremacy of the sea to me, and
they shall, accordingly, be built and manned."
That is the absolute right of your country, and nobody anywhere
would lose a word about it, and whether it be 60 or 90 or 100
battleships, that would make no difference and certainly no change
in the German naval bill. May the numbers be as you think fit,
everybody here would understand it, but the people would be very
thankful over here if at last Germany was left out of the
discussion, for it is very galling to the Germans to see their
country continually held up as the sole danger and menace to Great
Britain by the whole press of the different contending parties,
considering that other countries are building, too, and there are
even larger fleets than the German.
Fears German Retaliation.
Doubtless, when party faction runs high there is often a lamentable
lack of discrimination in the choice of weapons, but I really must
protest that the German naval programme should be only one for her
exclusive use, or that such a poisoned view should be forged as a
German challenge to British supremacy of the sea. If permanently
used mischief may be created at home, and the injured feeling
engendering the wish for retaliation in the circle of the German
Naval League as a representative of the nation which would
influence public opinion and place the Government in a very
disagreeable position by trying to force it to change its programme
through undue pressure, difficult to ignore.
In a letter which Lord Esher caused to be published a short time
ago he wrote that every German, from the Emperor down to the last
man, wished for the downfall of Sir John Fisher. Now I am at a loss
to tell whether the supervision of the foundations and drains of
royal palaces is apt to qualify somebody for the judgment of naval
affairs in general. As far as regards German affairs, the phrase is
a piece of unmitigated balderdash, and has created immense
merriment in the circles of those here who know. But I venture to
think that such things ought not to be written by people who are
high placed, as they are liable to hurt public feelings over here.
Of course I need not assure you that nobody here dreams of wishing
to influence Great Britain in the choice of those to whom she means
to give the direction of her navy or to disturb them in the
fulfillment of their noble task. It is expected that the choice
will always fall on the best and ablest, and their deeds will be
followed with interest and admiration by their brother officers in
the German Navy.
It is, therefore, preposterous to infer that the German authorities
work for or against persons in official positions in foreign
countries. It is as ridiculous as it is untrue, and I hereby
repudiate such calumny. Besides, to my humble notion, this
perpetual quoting of the German danger is utterly unworthy of the
great British Nation, with its world-wide empire and mighty navy.
There is something nearly ludicrous about it. The foreigners in
other countries might easily conclude that Germans must be an
exceptionally strong lot, as they seem to be able to strike terror
into the hearts of the British, who are five times their superiors.
I hope your Lordship will read these lines with kind consideration.
They are written by one who is an ardent admirer of your splendid
navy, who wishes it all success, and who hopes that its ensign may
ever wave on the same side as the German Navy's, and by one who is
proud to wear a British naval uniform of Admiral of the Fleet,
which was conferred on him by the late great Queen of blessed
memory.
Once more the German naval bill is not aimed at England and is not
a challenge to British supremacy of the sea, which will remain
unchallenged for generations to come. Let us all remember the
warning Admiral Sir John Fisher gave to his hearers in November,
when so cleverly he cautioned them not to get scared by using the
admirable phrase "if Eve had not always kept her eye on the apple
she would not have eaten it, and we should not now be bothered with
clothes."