Russia's foreign relations during the last half century

Front matter

THE INSTITUTE OF POLITICS PUBLICATIONS, WILLIAMS COLLEGE, WILLIAMSTOWN, MASS.

DURING

THE LAST HALF CENTURY

Contents

CHAPTB31 PAGE

I Fkance 1

II England , . 27

I

I BEGAN the preparation of my lectures for the Institute of Politics with some apprehension. In the j&rst place I felt that we were too far from the most valuable sources of information, namely the European archives of the foreign ojfices, especially the Russian Foreign Office, that still contain untold historical treasures.

Another difficulty that confronted me is the fact that the events of the last half-century are too recent, and it is very difficult to remain absolutely impartial. Yet the contemporary has one great asset, his personal observations, and these are particularly valuable in portraying personal characteristics.

Russia's role during these last decades has been very important. Little can be understood of the modem tangle of European affairs if one does not know or consider Russia's foreign relations.

In analyzing the latter one must keep in mind not only the social forces that move nations to certain ends and achieve national aims, but also tbe role played by the various personalities, the statesmen at the helm of their countries. It is possible that a time will come when democracies and public opinion will direct foreign affairs, as they govern and influence other domains of public life, but with this great modem problem I will deal separately later on. At present one must acknowledge that very much still depends on personalities; on the character, the ideals and very often even on the moods and proclivities of foreign secretaries, heads of states or ambassadors.

In Russia and eastern Europe this was very much the case up to the time of the armistice of 1918, and we cannot yet be sure that this state of affairs has vanished forever. Take as an example the role which the Russian Tsars played in shaping the fate of their country! How much Russia's foreign policy depended on the likes and dislikes of her Emperors! We might instance the strong feelings of dislike of Alexander III towards Republican France, Bismarck's arrogance or the tactlessness of Alexander of Bulgaria; the stubborn lack of understanding of Japan by Nicholas II, hia alarming weakness when dealing with the Kaiser, which led first to the Bjorko Treaty in direct contradiction to the French Alliance and later to the Great War; or again his treacherous demeanor toward the Duma, when he left his ministers to disentangle the snarled thread of his policy, without his moral support. The same indictment must be brought against the ministers of foreign affairs. In a large measure Russia's fate depended on their personalities. Take for example Prince Lobanoff and Count Muraviev with their limited intellects and their crass ignorance in some matters (especially the Far East) ; or Count Lamsdorff, the typical bureaucrat, with a splendid French style and no knowledge of Russia; the honest but weak-minded Iswolsky, who suffered much from constant intrigue and was no match for foreign diplomats; and finally the erratic and capricious Sazonoff, acting often as a spoiled child, with no great intellect, but with clear nationalistic purposes, a seeming liberal among reactionaries only because he was so very honest and simple.

I do not want to convey the impression that these men were not fitted for their ofl&ce merely because they were the devoted servants of dying autocracy. We know quite well that the Parliamentary regime ipso facto does not necessarily improve matters and that the western countries cannot always boast of having intellects of the highest order directing their foreign affairs. My purpose is simply to point out how much Russia's fate did depend on the men in power from the Tsars downward.

In analyzing the history of the foreign relations of Russia I met with another difficulty well known to all students of history, from what date to start the narrative. The history of a nation being a continuous evolutionary process, all periods are equally important and It is hard to make up one's mind to begin with certain events. Moreover, the history of Russia in the nineteenth century does not have clearly defined periods, dividing the epochs of her social and political development.

After some hesitation, I chose for a starting point the events of the Berlin Congress of 1878, because of their disastrous influence on the subsequent foreign relations of Russia. She entered the following period deeply disappointed and hurt by the treatment accorded her at the Berlin Congress. After having achieved great military victories, notwithstanding the evident shortcomings of her army organization, after having lost many thousands of lives of her citizens in order to liberate her Slav brothers in the Balkans from the bloody rule of the unspeakable Turk, after having herself lived through a period of national uplift, when the Slavophile movement had set so many Russian hearts aglow for the Slav cause, she was now forcibly thwarted in her national aims, most of her ideals were shattered and she was thoroughly disillusioned at home and abroad. Europe did her utmost to muzzle the Russian bear, and foremost among its enemies stood, not vanquished Turkey, but glorious and self-reliant England, led by Beaconsfield, the great comedian. No wonder Russia came out of the Berlin Congress discouraged and dissatisfied, cherishing ill feelings toward the other great powers, England in particular.

It seemed to many Russians at the time that their country had absolutely failed in her entire foreign policy. And this feeling of disappointment was coupled with the realization that Russia's own house was badly out of order. All through the 70's social dissatisfaction was constantly gaining in strength, the government unfortunately not knowing how to meet it otherwise than by coercion and repression. The climax came with the assassination of the Tsar in 1881.

His son and successor, Alexander III, for these obvious reasons preferred for Russia a position of isolation, cleverly called by a Russian historian the "cold storage theory." After the emancipation of her serfs Russia had tried an expansive and ambitious foreign policy, fostering the Pan-Slav movement, interfering in western affairs, spreading her influence into central Asia, and so forth, and had conspicuously failed. Now, it was thought, Russian autocracy ought to concentrate all its attention on internal affairs, dealing exclusively with the social discontent and leaving Europe to its own fate.

Yet the plan of Alexander III to keep Russia entirely out of European affairs could never have been carried through systematically; Russia could not extricate herself, however much she tried. There were too many European interests at stake, and further, the Balkan trouble was not settled, but on the contrary, the Berlin decisions were bound to call forth new complications; we know only too well that the Balkans remained the storm center of Europe till 1914. Further, Russia could not withdraw her claims concerning the Straits of the Bosphorus. Finally, even if Russia could have succeeded in cutting off her interests westward, the other countries had no intention of leaving her unmolested. There was first the restless Bismarck, his watchful eye constantly on his eastern neighbor; then came France seeking Russia's friendship and willing to pay millions to secure it; and lastly there was the steadily increasing enmity of England, suspicious of Russia's activities in central Asia. All this tended to thwart Alexander's plans for keeping out of trouble.

II

The relations of Russia towards France during the first years of Alexander's reign were cool, though not inimical. Alexander III did not like the French Republic, he did not approve of her republican institutions, he hated her growing radicalism and socialistic influences, and considered republicanism the chief source of her political weakness and instability. The character of the French people was not to his taste. The past history of France's relations towards Russia also was not conducive to great friendship; for many years France had been opposing Russia in various ways. She was Russia's enemy in the Crimean War, she openly supported the Pohsh aspirations for independence, she was not on Russia's side at Berlin in 1878, and finally there existed certain political reasons for dissatisfaction, for Alexander looked askance at the French revolutionary sympathies abroad and at the growth of her socialism at home.

Thus the first years of this reign were a period of aloofness between the two countries and of ill-disguised suspicions on the part of the Tsar. And in that atmosphere of suspicions and personal dislikes, the least incident was bound to be magnified into enormous proportions. For instance, the rather insignificant fact of the recall of the French ambassador, General Appert, from St. Petersburg for purely personal reasons, seemed to Alexander an insult. He Uked Appert, who was a military man of very conservative views, whose wife was of Danish extraction and intimate with the Empress, herself from Denmark. The Tsar became so infuriated at this action on the part of France that he recalled his own ambassador, Mohrenheim, from Paris and informed the French that he did not want any ambassador from them at all. The diplomatic representation of both countries remained for a long time in the hands of secondary charges d'affaires, and very naturally Germany used this incident to further her own purposes. Bismarck saw with joy how these two countries were drifting apart, thus greatly diminishing the chances of any French aggressiveness against Germany.

The ill feeling of Alexander III was increased at this time by two other events: first, by the publishing in France of the law which exiled the Royal princes and pretenders, Alexander considering it an unwarranted blow to his beloved monarchical principles; second, by the cases of the two prominent Russian revolutionaries, Hartmann and Kropotkine. They were both implicated in plots to assassinate his father, Alexander II, and had fled to France, where they found refuge, the French government not being willing to extradite them to Russia notwithstanding the insistence of the Russian authorities. Kropotkine was first convicted of murder by the French courts, but later pardoned by the French, and this act aroused the Tsar's ire. Alexander took it as a personal offense against himself and his rule.

This tension, however, was unexpectedly relieved, notwithstanding Alexander's strong predilections, which were so characteristic of the man. The great and noteworthy change, dating from about the year

1887, was born exclusively of the aggressiveness and clumsiness of the German policy. Bismarck seemingly misreckoned and counted too much on Alexander's reactionary tendencies. Only the many and consecutive mistakes of Berlin can explain the drastic change of Russia's policies.

It came about through the rapprochement of Germany and Austria, which alarmed Alexander extremely and caused him to make concessions to France. The latter country, contrary to the policy of Germany, was now making every effort to enlist the friendship of Russia, and took the initiative in making advances. First came the reestablishment of ambassadorial relations; Mohrenheim was permitted to return to Paris, and France on her part sent Laboulaye, a remarkably gifted man, to St. Petersburg. Then came a Bulgarian incident. A Bulgarian deputation was travelling in Europe, enlisting the sympathies of the various governments with the cause of Prince Alexander; they were cordially received in London, but when they came to Paris, they found to their amazement a very cold reception, due exclusively to the desire of the French to please the Tsar, who disliked the Battenberg prince; this incident can rightly be looked at as one of the very first landmarks in the path of the Franco-Russian friendship.

At a later date Flourens, who was at the time foreign minister, asserted that the idea of a Russo-French alliance first originated with him. We overlook his mistake. When Laboulaye was sent to Russia there was no idea in France of any possible alliance with Russia; all the French government could hope for was to reestablish friendly relations. It was very gradually, after his arrival in St. Petersburg, that Laboulaye became convinced of the opportunity of much closer relations with Russia, and only later did he conceive the possibility of some sort of agreement as a common defence against Germany. This was due in great measure to Bismarck's erroneous tactics when he hoped to force the hand of the stubborn Tsar, and yet further to the great wisdom and diplomacy of the French ambassador, who in a short space of time succeeded in endearing himself to the Russian people and winning the unquestionable sympathies of the Emperor.

By that time the French ministry had changed and the portfolio of foreign affairs was in the hands of the able Freycinet, who saw at once the great advantages and new vistas opened to France by her farsighted ambassador. Moreover, President Carnot had succeeded Grevy, and being convinced of the advantages of an understanding with Russia, energetically seconded the prime minister, Ribot, to bring it about. Thus we have a number of French statesmen who were literally grasping the opportunity of approaching Russia and making her a friend and an ally. There must have been very serious reasons indeed for Alexander to thus change his policy. As we have seen, his personal predilections had previously drawn him in an exactly opposite direction ; he was strongly inclined towards a friendship with monarchical Germany and personally disliked the French people and their political institutions.

The main cause for this change was the increasing arrogance of the German chancellor, whose conduct antagonized the Tsar. Then too, Alexander gradually became convinced that the internal troubles of his own country were not as dangerous as they had at first seemed, after the assassination of his father. The police .measures of his government succeeded in driving the leaders of the revolutionary movement to cover, and outwardly quiet seemed to dominate. This created very serious troubles later on, during the reign of his son, but Alexander had not the slightest realization of it. Finally, much of the success of the French policy must be attributed to the great skill and tact of Laboulaye. He worked at it so carefully, paved his way so cautiously, and approached the Russian government so gradually that Alexander might have been easily fooled, and not have noticed during the first months that any change was really coming. Certainly neither his ministers nor the general public realized such a change.

Least of all did Alexander expect to alter his personal relations with the old Kaiser; he openly admired Wilhelm I and loved him as a grandfather, resenting the brusque way Bismarck was treating his master. Perhaps this was also a remote cause of the Tsar's dislike of the chancellor.

There happened in 1887 a very unfortunate personal incident. The Tsar was returning home in the autumn of that year, via Berlin, from a holiday trip to Denmark, and had a stormy interview with the German chancellor, during which he violently accused Bismarck of interfering with Russian affairs by supporting Prince Alexander of Bulgaria, and also of having written a disagreeable letter to the English government with which at the time Russia's relations were strained. This letter proved later a forgery, though itsi author was never known. The whole incident made a bad and lasting impression on Alexander, whose angry feelings towards Bismarck continued unabated to the end of the Tsar's life.

In 1888 came the death of the old Kaiser, and after Frederick's reign of three months young Wilhelm II ascended the German throne. At the beginning of this reign there was seemingly much sympathy between Wilhelm and Alexander. Wilhelm tried to be very respectful and subservient, which pleased Alexander immensely. Possibly the feelings Alexander had towards Bismarck counted much in the latter's dismissal. Alexander's opinion of the autocratic chancellor probably helped to convince Wilhelm that he ought to rule without such a "nurse" behind his back. I rather think that this fact does not receive sufficient attention from the historians of the epoch, especially from those who deal with Bismarck's resignation.

To sum up the policies of these years — 1886-1890 — we can say that Germany constantly irritated Russia — a policy most detrimental, chiefly to Germany herself — by the personal methods of Bismarck which antagonized the Tsar, and by her growing friendship with Austria. The aims of that friendship were never well disguised and it was known at St. Petersburg that they were directed primarily against Russia.) Germany was relying too much on her former friendship with Russia and the family relations of the two courts. France, on the other hand, led by clever men, especially

Laboulaye, carefully paved her way to the building up of an understanding with Russia, clearing away all former causes of friction. Meanwhile Russia's own policy, planned by Alexander, was to remain absolutely neutral between France and Germany and to try to withdraw as much as possible into a position of isolation, which the Tsar deemed was the best guarantee of peace for Russia.

III

Thus a sort of equilibrium was achieved in the mutual relations of these great powers, Russia holding the balance between Germany and France. In 1918 the German government published some Belgian documents, which they had taken from Brussels during their occupation of Belgium (Schwertfeger vol. V). These documents contain the reports to Brussels of different Belgian diplomatic agents. They unanimously state that they knew that Russia during this period was standing for permanent peace and directed all her endeavors towards establishing peaceful relations between France and Germany, notwithstanding the pressure brought upon her by France.^

This was, however, not at all what France wanted. She had set her mind on getting Russia on her side. The next, obstacle that she had to put aside was the influence of the reactionary surroundings of the Tsar. Among these there was great discontent, not only

^Schwertfeger, Zur Europaischen Politik, 1885-1914, Berlin, 1918. Hansen, Ambassade a Paris du Baron de Mohrenheim, Paris, 1907. Cyon, Histoire de I'Entente franco-russe, Paris, 1895. de Freydnet, Souvenirs, vol. 1-2, Paris, 1913.

with French republicanism in general, but with the French policy towards the Russian revolutionaries in particular. The police of the Tsar succeeded in combing out the revolutionary movement from Russia, but it became all the stronger abroad for that very reason ; many of the young Russian revolutionaries found a haven in Paris, where their circles and meeting-places were well known to the Russian gendarmes. The reactionaries in Russia constantly urged the government to take drastic steps and make representations to France concerning these revolutionaries, and looked askance at the French for their seeming lack of desire to support such foolish pretensions. And very naturally this was bound to impede the progress of the movement towards a closer alliance.

Knowing this the French government opened in 1890 one of the darkest pages of the history of this alliance by starting persecutions against the Russian revolutionaries. The first one to take active measures against these Russians was Constans, then minister of the interior. This proved to be a terrible mistake, and remained to the very end the inner cause of weakness of the Russo-French alliance, for it could not be supported by the majority of educated and enlightened Russians as long as it had such foul political motives. They could not sincerely trust a republican France upholding an autocratic regime, which they were so devotedly fighting. Many of the misfortunes of Russia during the Great War must be ascribed to this potent cause of decay, that was eating away the very core of the alliance. It was certainly a heavy price France paid for Russia's official friendship, not realizing evidently how much it estranged the bulk of the Russian educated people.

The Tsar and his government, on the contrary, were filled with satisfaction and gratitude for such friendly help on the part of the French. A short while after the police persecutions against the Russians had started in Paris and elsewhere, there began the secret transactions between the two governments to reach a definite agreement.

Just at that time there took place an incident which broke the ice. At the instigation of the Kaiser, his mother, the widow of Friedrich, went incognito to Paris. It is supposed by some that Wilhelm really hoped for some unfriendly demonstration against the poor woman. This would have given him his chance at France. The French government, however, took all necessary measures to prevent any demonstration. A possible crisis was thus avoided, but it was the first practical test of the new poUcy of friendship with Russia. Would the latter country side with France in a case of distinct German aggression? The French did not hesitate to apply the test, and quickly found that Alexander was wilhng to back them up ; his sense of justice was deeply hurt by such methods of the Kaiser and he showed sympathy with France, which was enough to warn Germany.

Thus the former equilibrium had disappeared and Russia began to incline to one side.

Events developed rapidly after that. First came the mission of General Boisdeffre to Russia, where he was allowed by Alexander to attend the manoeuvers of the Russian army near St. Petersburg in the presence of German officers only, to the dismay of the latter. During his visit to Russia Boisdeffre had long talks with General Obroutcheff, Chief of Staff, concerning the equipment of the Russian army. A short time previously the Russian army had adopted the French Lebel rifle and Boisdeffre was anxious to know if it had proved satisfactory. The order was placed with the French in 1889 at the time of a visit of the Grand Duke Vladimir to Paris, where he used to enjoy himself at the theatres and musicales. This was one of the most subtle means the French used to give Russia "friendly" assistance.

Then, on July 25, 1891, came the visit of the French fleet under the command of Admiral Gervais to Kronstadt. The reception accorded the French was quite exceptional, due to the special effort of the Russian government. The Russian reactionaries beheld to their horror the Tsar standing at attention and saluting while the revolutionary Marseillaise was being played by French and Russian military bands. This action of the Tsar was afterwards cited by some as an exceptional token of friendship, and by others as a terrible mistake; how could an autocratic Tsar salute a revolutionary hymn, asked the latter?

In August, 1891, during the talks between Generals Boisdeffre and Obroutcheff, the question of a possible military convention between the two countries came up. The first text of an agreement, dated August 22, 1891, was rather "platonic." However, this was really the beginning of an alliance.

Next came the visit in the autumn of 1891 of the Russian foreign minister, de Giers, to Paris, when he discussed the same matters, but on a broader plane, with Ribot the prime minister and Freycinet the French foreign secretary. Finally in December, 1891, there took place formal transactions at St. Petersburg between the French ambassador, Count Montebello, General Boisdeffre, Colonel Moulin, on the one side, and the foreign minister, de Giers, the minister of war. General Vannowsky, the chief of staff. General Obroutcheff, on the other.

On June 6, 1892, came the visit of the Grand Duke Constantine to the French President Carnot. He was magnificently received. A second text of an agreement is dated August 30, 1892, but the Panama scandal deferred the transactions. (This agreement was the final text of the military convention, since published by the Bolsheviki, Paris, 1919.)

In October, 1893, a Russian squadron commanded by Admiral Avellan paid a return visit to France at Toulon, and was received most cordially by the French government. A great effort was made to please the Russians. Finally, on June 10, 1895, Ribot formally announced the conclusion of the Franco-Russian alUance.

IV

Parallel to her political transactions, France endeavored to strengthen Russia's bond of friendship by other, more subtle means, namely, by loans for her industrial development. One must remember in this respect that beginning with €he '80's there was started in Russia a great industrial expansion, two consecutive Russian finance ministers, Vishnegradsky and Witte, trying by all sorts of means to foster and further the industrial development of their country, and one must say that notwithstanding the fact that much of it was artificial, unnatural and of hothouse growth, they still succeeded in achieving very remarkable results. In two decades (the '80's and '90's) Russia in that respect was unrecognizable; towards the year 1900 she possessed a well-developed industrial movement.

But such development demands capital, and Russia had none of her own to spare. France and Belgium, on the other hand, had abundance of surplus money, the savings of their thrifty populations, ready to invest in any enterprise that would pay them a fair percentage. The statesmen on both sides, realizing these conditions, set to work to make the supply and the demand meet to their mutual satisfaction. Their motives, however, were very different; the Russians wanted the capital for their young and promising industries and were quite ready to pay a handsome percentage; the French and Belgian people simply looked for a secure investment, whereas the French government, assuring the people of such a security by government guarantees, sought political advantages by establishing financial bonds tying Russia down to an alliance with France.

Germany was not willing to participate in Russian loans; all her money in those days was being invested in her new colonial enterprises.

The French money on the contrary came to Russia in great quantities; enormous Russian loans were floated on the French money market, constantly increasing in size. In 1890 three loans were concluded, in 1891 two; later other loans succeeded these; 1893, '94, '96, 1901 and 1904 saw others, and finally in 1906 the largest and politically the most important, which Witte calls the loan "which saved Russia," or, we may add, the Russian autocracy. Then government loans were succeeded by municipal, provincial (the Finland loans), metallurgic, mining, manufacturing, transportation loans of various character and qualifications, amounting to the enormous sum of 12 billions, or nearly one quarter of all the investments abroad of the French nation.^

In the early history of the financial policy of France there took place an incident, little known abroad, but very characteristic. It was during the negotiations of the first loan of 1891 ; the banking house of Rothschilds in Paris suddenly interrupted the transactions and declined to proceed with them, giving as a pretext the Jewish persecutions which were then going on in Russia. As a matter of fact there was more back of this stand by the bank. These transactions coincided with the friction that ensued between Paris and Berlin on account of several incidents. France then inquired if Russia would uphold her in her policy against Germany. Russia answered that she would certainly come to the aid of France if Germany attacked her, but not otherwise. This qualification alarmed the French government, who forced the Rothschilds to withdraw from the transactions in order to put pressure upon *See A. Tardieu, France and the Alliances, N. Y., 1908.

Russia. The details of that story are still unknown, and perhaps there is some exaggeration in it, but the spirit of it is undoubtedly true. Such was Russia's position during those years; she would not back any aggression on either side, and still endeavored to hold the balance as even as possible. France, on her side, was working for much more and against the will of the Russian people, the Russian government, and especially the Tsar, she forced the alliance upon Russia, and willingly employed financial means to exert such pressure.

The real test of the Franco-Russian alliance came during the Japanese war. One cannot doubt the motives of France in any way; she was honestly trying to help Russia in her difficult situation, the more so because Germany was endeavoring to establish friendly relations and assist the Russian government, too, as best she could. There exist many proofs of French sincerity; her help to Rojdestvensky's fleet at Madagascar and at other ports and her continued financial support are but a few of the many instances that might be cited.

There was one thing wrong, however, in the Franco- Russian alliance, and the events of the Japanese war ought to have been a warning to France: first, the Russian army was in no way as strong as the outside world thought; the organization was poor, the command was deficient, the system of supplies was not working well, and what was more the army had not the whole-hearted backing of the nation; second, the internal policy of Russia was absolutely unsatisfactory, for it was undermining her strength and creating social discontent, which had already burst forth in a revolutionary movement in 1905. Seething with dissatisfaction and revolution, Russia could not give France the support she expected from her. There came a moment when France ought to have realized this, namely, 'in the spring of 1906 when Witte was conducting the transactions concerning the loan "which saved Russia*" but that really only helped to defer the revolution for another ten years. The factors for this last huge loan from France were as follows: For the loan were the already j5rmly established alliance and the strategic plan of the two countries, bound to each other, France depending absolutely on the military assistance of Russia; the mercantile hopes for profits on the part of French investors, who were expecting big percentages on their investments, the French government constantly arousing their hopes by all sorts of artificial means and promises; and some elements of the ruling classes on both sides, hoping to find support from such a policy of backing Russia and her autocratic government, though one cannot say that it was the whole of these classes, as there were among them farsighted persons who realized the precariousness of the political condition in Russia.

Witte's parleys concerning this loan were started with the Rouvier government, but the following winter it fell, and was succeeded by the Sarrien government, which concluded the negotiations, Poincare having unfortunately the finance portfolio, — thus carrying the heaviest responsibility for the loan, — while Clemenceau had the portfolio of the interior, which enabled him to control the police and deal with the question of Russian revolutionaries. These were the forces that Witte, the Russian government, the French capitalists and some French statesmen were relying on to carry the loan.