GHDI logo

Albrecht von Stosch to Count Alfred von Waldersee on Bismarck's Successor (January 30, 1890)

page 2 of 3    print version    return to list previous document      next document


time, they are subordinate to the Reich, and this subordination is endured in the Federal Council under the chancellor, not in the relationship of the monarchs to the King of Prussia, the Kaiser. If the power of the chancellor in the Federal Council, i.e., in matters of Reich governance, is not a strong one, then the authority of the Reich begins to fray there as well, and the process of dissolution begins. The Kaiser binds the monarchs externally, but they are actually bound by their ministers and their states' interests, and it is the chancellor's responsibility to render them entirely dependent on the Reich. The way in which the chancellor knew, in the past, how to support certain people and to consider the small wishes of the states, to reward and to penalize, can only be alluded to here. The introduction of protective tariffs offered ample opportunity in this respect. Just as the Kaiser heaps favors and kindness on Bismarck today and thereby forces him into a subordinate position, he must adopt the same position vis-à-vis the German princes. By offering equality, he must force them to make their own subordination as evident as possible. Applying brute force is solely up to the chancellor: in individual acts, in challenging public opinion in the press, and especially in the Reichstag.

The Kaiser's position of power can only be termed discretionary, and it may be deemed capable of positive acts only in the military sphere. As unfavorably as particularistic circles may have viewed the deployment of troops in Darmstadt, not a single voice was raised in opposition. Therefore, such military initiatives on the part of the Kaiser must always be characterized as welcome. The Kaiser's pronouncement about "my Reichslande [Alsace-Lorraine] also caused aggravation among some of the monarchs, but people shied away from complaining. The Kaiser's foundation is a strong Prussia and the complete harmony of Prussia's efforts with those of the Reich. Nothing is more dangerous for the unity of the latter than any particularism on the part of Prussia. In those days, Bismarck tried to lighten his load by allowing [Albrecht von] Roon to become Prussian minister president. Bismarck soon realized his mistake and reversed it in short order. The uncertainty as to whether the Prussian vote [in the Federal Council] was unconditionally available to the chancellor made him weak. The Reich chancellor must be Prussian minister president if he is to be the unifying force in the Reich. And the discretionary nature of the Kaiser's authority, especially, makes it imperative that the constitutionally determined strong position of the chancellor remains intact if the particularistic and revolutionary elements – with which the Center Party is attempting to ally – are to be prevented from reaching their objective: the destruction of the Reich. For that reason, too, the notion of Reich ministers is to be rejected. The enemies of German unity are much too strong to allow several heads at the top of the government. The only thing possible would be a Reich ministry of war, because in that regard the unity of the Reich is ensured by the constitution; however, if one established a Reich army supreme command, unity would be fulfilled without the individual war ministers being able to cause any damage. The independence of the foreign office is absolutely inadmissible, because this is the very place where, even during peacetime, the power and unity of the Reich are constantly exerted, not just in foreign policy but also with respect to the federal states of the Reich.

Today's position of power is a necessity for the Reich.

first page < previous   |   next > last page