¹ Fieldhouse, D. K., Economics and empire, 1830–1914 (Ithaca, 1973), p. 374.Google Scholar

² Peters, Carl, Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Frank, W., i (Munich, 1943), 150–8Google Scholar; Kurtze, B., Die deutsch–ostafrikanische Gesellschaft (Jena, 1913), pp. 2–4Google Scholar; Büttner, K., Die Anfänge der deutschen Kolonialpolitik in Ostafrika (East Berlin, 1959), p. 38.Google Scholar

³ Frank, i, 145–6; Peters, C., Wie Deutsch–Ostrafrika entstand! (Leipzig, 1940), p. 23.Google Scholar

⁴ von Hagen, M., Bismarcks Kolonialpolitik (Stuttgart and Gotha, 1923), p. 515Google Scholar; Müller, F. F., Deutschland-Zanzibar-Ostafrika: Geschichte einer deutschen Kolonialeroberung 1884–1890 (East Berlin, 1959), p. 111.Google Scholar

⁵ Peters to the Foreign Ministry, 13 Aug. 1884, R[eichs]k[olonial]a[mt] 390, Deutsches Zentralarchiv, Potsdam.

⁶ Frank, i, 158, 159 n. 1.

⁷ Peters, , Wie Deutsch-Ostafrika entstand!, p. 25.Google Scholar

⁸ Frank, i, 160.

⁹ Ibid. pp. 159–63.

¹⁰ Müller, p. 113.

¹¹ Frank, i, 161.

¹² Peters to the Foreign Ministry, 20 Aept. 1884, Rka 390.

¹³ Peters began his letter of 20 September by announcing that the society's plans for an expedition to the hinterlands of Portuguese Angola had been dropped and that within the next few days an exploring party would leave for east Africa with the object of claiming territory in the district of Usagara. He went on to say the GfdK was confident of receiving the protection of the Reich for its acquisitions in view of ‘the words of His Highness the Chancellor and the hints confidentially given us’ (‘den uns selbst vertraulich gemachten Fingerweisen’). But in a letter posted from Zanzibar on 6 November Peters explained that his allusion to ‘confidential hints’ had stemmed from a conversation he had held on 19 August with a Geheimrat Hahn. On that occasion Hahn allegedly made reference to a published statement of late June by Bismarck to the effect that the German government would be willing to grant protection to the overseas interests of its nationals so long as those interests did not infringe on the recognized sovereign rights of other powers, Hahn supposedly indicated at the same time that the chancellor's assurances applied as well to the colonizing efforts of the GfdK (Peters to the Foreign Ministry, 6 Nov. 1884, Rka 390). But the idea of establishing a claim in Usagara had not occurred to Peters until 16 September, almost a full month after his conversation with Geheimrat Hahn, and Peters' dating of the interview suggests that Hahn's remarks concerned the plan for the staking out of claims in the neighbourhood of Portuguese Angola that was presented the same day to an assembly of shareholders and subsequently rejected by the German government. It is perhaps significant, moreover, that a question mark has been pencilled in the margin of Peters' letter next to his reference to Hahn. Peters' confidence in Hahn's assurances of governmental support may well have been a source of puzzlement at the Foreign Ministry given the fact that Hahn, a privy councillor in the Ministry of the Interior, had retired two years earlier.

¹⁴ See Coupland, R., The exploitation of East Africa, 1856–1890 (London, 1939), pp. 4–6, 77–81, 319–23Google Scholar; and Gray, J. M., ‘Zanzibar and the Coastal Belt 1840–1884’, in Oliver, R. and Mathew, G., eds., History of East Africa, i (Oxford, 1963), 212–52.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Jantzen, G., Ostafrika in der deutsch-englischen Politik 1884–1890 (Hamburg, 1934), p. 7Google Scholar; Gray, p. 235.

¹⁶ Foreign Ministry Memorandum, 23 June 1880, Rka 8891; Müller, p. 195. There were two types of German consulate in the nineteenth century, the Wahlkonsulat and the Berufskonsulat. The former was administered in the name of the Reich by prominent representatives of German merchant interests in the countries where they did business; the latter was an official governmental agency staffed by professionals.

¹⁷ Hatzfeldt to Wilhelm Bismarck, 5 Aug. 1884, Rka 8891; Jantzen, pp. 26–9; Zimmermann, A., Geschichte der deutschen Kolonialpolitik (Berlin, 1914), p. 116.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Wehler, H.-U. (Bismarck und der Imperialismus [Cologne and Berlin, 1969], p. 335)Google Scholar, states that Bismarck suddenly returned to the idea of establishing a Berufskonsulat at Zanzibar in May of 1884 and that he urged Rohlfs to accept the post of consul-general at that time ‘since we are preparing bigger things in Africa’. The quoted material is from Guenther, K., Gerhard Rohlfs (Freiburg, 1912), p. 329Google Scholar, but Rohlfs' biographer says nothing of a discussion between Bismarck and Rohlfs concerning Zanzibar in May of 1884. In the conversation to which Wehler refers, Bismarck alluded specifically to the Congo only and asked for Rohlfs' assistance only in a general way: ‘…und in Zukunft hoffe ich, da wir grössere Dinge in Africa vorbereiten, werden Sie mir Ihren Beistand leihen, in Afrika oder hier’. There is no evidence that Bismarck offered Rohlfs the post of consul-general at Zanzibar before the end of September 1884 or that the idea of creating such a post had occurred to him before the end of the summer.

¹⁹ Instructions to Rohlfs, 3 Oct. 1884, Rka 8895; Jantzen, p. 29.

²⁰ Busch to H. Bismarck, 30 Sept. 1884, Rka 390. Müller (p. 107) refers to the ‘steady contact between the executive committee of the GfdK and the Foreign Ministry’ during the summer of 1884. But from March through September the contacts between the GfdK and the Foreign Ministry were in fact sporadic and infrequent. During that six-month period the Foreign Ministry rejected an earlier plan submitted independently by Peters, received and denied support to a second scheme, and was notified of a third. There is no evidence of any further communication between the GfdK and the German government within that period of time. Müller further asserts (p. 119) that following Peters' announcement of his east African scheme there occurred ‘confidential discussions between Peters and representatives of the Foreign Ministry concerning conditions for the declaration of a German protectorate in east Africa’. It is impossible to determine the basis for that statement in view of the fact that even among the documents cited by Müller himself there is no evidence that Peters or any other member of the GfdK ever discussed the question of an east African protectorate with Foreign Ministry officials prior to the successful completion of Peters' expedition. Peters' letter of 20 September appears to have been the only communication on the subject that he made to the government before his departure from Berlin.

²¹ Hatzfeldt to the Imperial Consulate in Zanzibar, 3 Oct. 1884, Rka 390. Because the start of Peters' expedition and the appointment of Gerhard Rohlfs as consul-general at Zanzibar correspond in time so closely, it is tempting to assume a causal relationship between the two events, but there could not have been one. Peters was not privy to Bismarck's plans, and Rohlfs' assignment cannot be seen as a response to the news of Peters' expedition since the installation of a German consul at Zanzibar had been under consideration for several weeks prior to the arrival of Peters' letter to the Foreign Ministry. Bismarck, moreover, was not informed of Peters' activities until after Rohlfs' appointment had been made. Nor was Gerhard Rohlfs informed of Peters' plans. This was probably an oversight. Hatzfeldt had noted that Rohlfs was to be apprised verbally of the Usagara expedition (minute by Hatzfeldt on draft dispatch to the Imperial Consulate in Zanzibar, 3 Oct. 1884, Rka 390). Rohlfs' later assertion that he had received no word of Peters' doings ‘even verbally’ before he arrived at his post suggests there had been some misunderstanding (Rohlfs to Bismarck, 21 Sept. 1885, Rka 8902).

²² In the initial draft of this communication Peters was cautioned with regard to annexations anywhere in east Africa (draft to Busch to Bismarck, 30 Sept. 1884, Rka 390). In the second draft, to which Bismarck gave his approval, it was indicated that the government's stricture applied specifically to the territories claimed by the sultan of Zanzibar (Busch to Bismarck, 30 Sept. 1884, Rka 390). The wording of the draft now clearly allowed for the possibility that there were areas in east Africa opposite the island of Zanzibar that were not under the control of the sultan or of any other recognized power. But in order to avoid giving the impression that any claims to African territory beyond the limits of the sultan's realm would necessarily be endorsed in Berlin, Hatzfeldt penned in one final emendation, making the operative clause read ‘especially within the domain of the Sultan of Zanzibar’ (my italics).

²³ Peters, C., Lebenserinnerungen (Hamburg, 1918), p. 69.Google Scholar

²⁴ Lange to the Foreign Ministry, 23 Dec. 1884, Rka 382; Kusserow to Lange, 28 December 1884, Rka 382; Memorandum by Kusserow, 2 Jan. 1885, Rka 382.

²⁵ Peters to the Foreign Ministry, 8 Jan. 1885, Rka 390.

²⁶ Behr-Bandelin to Bismarck, 30 Jan. 1885, Rka 390.

²⁷ Behr-Bandelin to Bismarck, 12 Feb. 1885, Rka 390.

²⁸ Memorandum by Busch, 15 Feb. 1885, Rka 390.

²⁹ Bismarck to Rohlfs, tel., 19 Feb. 1885, Rka 8892.

³⁰ Rohlfs to the Foreign Ministry, tel., 22 Feb. 1885, Rka 8892; Bismarck to the embassies in London, Washington and Paris, 22 Feb. 1885, Rka 8892.

³¹ Memorandum by Kusserow, 23 Feb. 1885, Rka 390.

³² Memorandum by Peters, n.d., Rka 390.

³³ Minutes by Bismarck on memorandum by Kusserow, 23 Feb. 1885, Rka 390.

³⁴ Bismarck to Wilhelm I, 26 Feb. 1885, Rka 359; Schutzbrief für die Geselschaft für deutsche Kolonisation, undated draft, Rka 359.

³⁵ Brunschwig, H., L'Expansion allemande outre-mer (Paris, 1957), p. 144.Google Scholar

³⁶ Hammann, O., Zur Vorgeschichte des Weltkrieges (Berlin, 1918), p. 29.Google Scholar

³⁷ Hallgarten, G. W. F., ‘War Bismarck ein Imperialist? Die Aussenpolitik des Reichsgründers im Licht der Gegenwart’, Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, xxii, no. 5 (1971), 261.Google Scholar

³⁸ Taylor, A. J. P., Germany's first bid for colonies 1884–1885 (London, 1938), p. 6.Google Scholar

³⁹ Robinson, R. and Gallagher, J., ‘The partition of Africa’, in Hinsley, F. H., ed., The New Cambridge Modern History, xi (Cambridge, 1962), 612.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Müller, pp. 135–6; Darmstaedter, P., Geschichte der Aufteilung und Kolonisation Afrikas seit dem Zeitalter der Entdeckungen, ii (Berlin, 1920), 83Google Scholar; Hallgarten, G. W. F., Imperialismus vor 1914, i (Munich, 1951), 199.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Turner, H. A., ‘Bismarck's imperialist venture: anti-British in origin?’, in Gifford, P. and Louis, W., eds., Britain and Germany in Africa (New Haven, 1967), pp. 47–82.Google Scholar

⁴² Rich, N. and Fisher, M. H., eds., The Holstein Papers, ii (Cambridge, 1957), 159.Google Scholar

⁴³ Economics and empire, pp. 374–5.

⁴⁴ Bismarck und der Imperialismus, pp. 113–93.

⁴⁵ Ibid. pp. 339–40.

⁴⁶ Ibid. pp. 446–9.

⁴⁷ Ibid. pp. 342, 449.

⁴⁸ Crowe, S. E., The Berlin west African Conference 1884–1885 (London, 1942), pp. 112–13.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Königk, G., Die Berliner Kongo-Konferenz 1884–1885 (Essen, 1938), 130–1Google Scholar; Protocol no. 3, meeting of 27 November 1884, ‘Protocols and General Act of the Berlin West African Conference’, F[oreign] O[ffice] 84/1826, Public Record Office, London.

⁵⁰ Protocol no. 6, meeting of 22 December 1884, ‘Protocols and General Act of the Berlin West African Conference’, F.O. 84/1826.

⁵¹ Wehler, pp. 373–5.

⁵² On the background of the Berlin West African Conference see Crowe, pp. 11–91, and Louis, W., ‘The Berlin Congo Conference’, in Gifford, P. and Louis, W., eds., France and Britain in Africa (New Haven, 1971), pp. 167–92.Google Scholar

⁵³ Crowe, pp. 110–13. Despite its avowed commitment to the principles of free trade, the British government at first opposed any discussion of the extension project in Berlin. But the British ambassador urgently requested new instructions on that point when it became apparent that only Turkey would support the British in what the ambassador characterized as ‘an inversion of England's natural mission’. Malet to Granville, 26 Nov. 1884, in Knaplund, P., ed., Letters from the Berlin Embassy (Washington, D.C., 1944), p. 358.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The Times, 27 Oct., 13 Nov. 1884.

⁵⁵ Livonius, O., Colonialfragen (Berlin, 1884)Google Scholar. According to Livonius (p. 68) the British were anxious to hold east Africa in reserve against the day when the Russians would finally succeed in expelling them from India.

⁵⁶ The Times, 14 Nov. 1884, p. 5.

⁵⁷ Malet to Granville, tel., 28 Nov. 1884, F.O. 84/1672; von Poschinger, H., Fürst Bismarck und die Diplomaten 1852–1890 (Hamburg, 1900), p. 425Google Scholar. Cf., however, Townsend, M. E., The rise and fall of Germany's colonial empire 1884–1918 (New York, 1930)Google Scholar, where it is asserted (pp. 105–6) that Bismarck had already decided to establish a German protectorate in east Africa on the basis of treaties that Carl Peters was then in the process of accumulating, and that his denials to the British ambassador were therefore less than candid in view of the fact that the limits of the Zanzibar dominions had never been defined. See also Hagen, pp. 523 ff., and Galbraith, J., Mackinnon and east Africa 1878–1895 (Cambridge, 1972), p. 89Google Scholar. There is no evidence, however, that Bismarck had the slightest interest in Peters' activities at this point except in so far as they posed a possible danger to the successful accomplishment of Rohlfs' mission.

⁵⁸ Hatzfeldt to the German consul-general at Capetown, tel., 10 Dec. 1884, Rka 8892. It has been argued that Bismarck agreed to endorse Peters' treaties because the British had succeeded in sabotaging Rohlfs' mission to Zanzibar by the end of February 1885. See, for instance, Büttner, pp. 52–3 and Schramm, P. E., Deutschland und Übersee (Braunschweig, 1950), pp. 347–8Google Scholar. But the British had in fact done nothing of the kind, and Rohlfs reported on the 22nd that the representatives of other foreign powers at Zanzibar were co-operating with him fully (Rohlfs to the Foreign Ministry, tel., 22 Feb. 1885, Rka 8892).

⁵⁹ Malet to Hatzfeldt, 16 Jan. 1885, Rka 8892.

⁶⁰ Bismarck to Münster (draft), 4 Feb. 1885, Rka 8892.

⁶¹ Malet to Hatzfeldt, 20 Feb. 1885, Rka 8892.

⁶² Bismarck to Wilhelm I, 30 Apr. 1885, Rka 8893. The head of the British delegation to the Berlin West African Conference had been specifically instructed to make certain that the sultan's claims would be covered by the reservations adopted with regard to the eastward extension of the Congo free-trade zone (memorandum by Anderson, 3 Jan. 1885, F.O. 84/1722; Malet to Granville, 23 Dec. 1884, Sessional Papers, House of Commons, lv, 1885Google Scholar, Africa, no. 2: C. 4284).

⁶³ See Turner, ‘Bismarck's imperialist venture’, and Aydelotte, W. O., Bismarck and British colonial policy: the problem of South West Africa 1883–1885 (Philadelphia, 1937).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Wehler, p. 281, n. 5; Malet to Granville, 24 Jan. 1885, British and foreign state papers, 1884–1885, lxxvi (London, 1892), 786–8Google Scholar; Bismarck to Münster, 25 Jan. 1885, Die Grosse Politik der europäischen Kabinette, iv (Berlin, 1922), no. 758, 96–9.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Rudin, H., Germans in the Cameroons 1884–1914 (New Haven, 1938), 46–7.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Granville to Malet, 7 Feb. 1885, British and foreign state papers, lxxvi, 798–803.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Kohl, H., ed., Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck, x (Aalen, 1970), 395, 403.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Wehler, p. 314; Geffcken, F. H., ‘Deutsche Colonialpolitik’, Deutsche Rundschau (10. 1884), p. 130.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See Wehler, pp. 46, 282–6, and Robinson, R. and Gallagher, J., Africa and the Victorians, pp. 203–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Research on which this essay is based was partially supported by grants from the American Philosophical Society and the Rutgers Research Council.