1L - Government and opposition: Kaiser Wilhelm II and his chancellors
Learn how changing Chancellors, organised interests and a growing electorate shaped government under Wilhelm II, and why greater participation did not establish parliamentary government before 1914.
Wilhelm II and Caprivi's New Course
After Wilhelm I died in March 1888, Frederick III reigned for only 99 days before Wilhelm II succeeded him. Wilhelm II wanted an active public role and believed strongly in monarchical and military authority. His energetic speeches and ambitions could attract patriotic support, but his interventions also made government less predictable. Personality operated through institutions: his power to appoint and dismiss a Chancellor gave disagreements practical consequences.
Wilhelm dismissed Bismarck in March 1890 after growing conflict over political control and policy towards workers. Their disagreement mattered because Bismarck's long experience and prestige had previously given government continuity. Removing him did not, however, transfer power to the Reichstag. Leo von Caprivi, Chancellor from 1890 to 1894, was another imperial appointee.
Caprivi's New Course aimed to broaden cooperation. The Anti-Socialist Law expired in 1890, and labour legislation in 1891 restricted some working hours and forms of child and Sunday labour. Trade treaties reduced some tariffs to encourage foreign access for German exports. These policies could make the state appear less confrontational and meet the needs of an industrial economy, while leaving its constitutional basis intact.
Reform also created losers. Grain producers disliked lower protection and organised through the Agrarian League, founded in 1893. The League's later programme confirms its demands to preserve agricultural tariffs and the monarchical order. Caprivi obtained military legislation only after opposition and a new election in 1893. His fall in 1894 shows the difficulty of reconciling court, landed interests and parliamentary support rather than the simple failure of every reform.
Hohenlohe, Bülow and national mobilisation
Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, Chancellor from 1894 to 1900, was an elderly aristocratic conciliator. His tenure preserved institutional continuity but allowed other figures, including the emperor and specialist ministers, substantial initiative. Wilhelm's desire for a more assertive international role increasingly found expression in Weltpolitik: the pursuit of world power through diplomacy, colonies and naval strength.
The naval programme associated with Alfred von Tirpitz required Reichstag legislation, notably the Navy Laws of 1898 and 1900. The Navy League, founded in 1898, promoted expansion outside parliament. Supporters connected ships to national prestige, commercial security and employment. Such mobilisation could unite sections of the middle classes and industrial interests behind the state. It did not prove that social or religious divisions had disappeared, or that every German accepted the costs.
Bernhard von Bülow, Chancellor from 1900 to 1909, cultivated public support and worked with shifting parliamentary alliances. The 1902 tariff increased protection for agricultural producers. When the Reichstag refused funds connected with the colonial war in German South West Africa, the 1907 election was fought around patriotism and opposition to the Centre and socialists. Bülow then assembled a bloc of conservatives and liberals. National issues had helped government manage parliamentary divisions, but the coalition joined groups with incompatible views on taxation and reform.
The Daily Telegraph affair of 1908 exposed the risks of Wilhelm's personal interventions. Published remarks intended to explain his attitude towards Britain instead provoked criticism abroad and at home. The published interview gives contemporary evidence of his claims; these should not be accepted as a neutral account of German policy. Bülow's handling of the affair damaged imperial trust in him.
In 1909 the bloc fractured over financial reform, including proposals that threatened landed wealth. Bülow's departure demonstrated both parliamentary leverage and continuing imperial discretion. A Chancellor could lose political viability through opposition without the constitution establishing a cabinet chosen by Parliament.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account