Cross currents in Europe to-day

Contents

LECTURE PAGE

Preface v

I. Diplomatic Revelations: Franco-Russian i

II Diplomatic Revelations: English Unders Tan Dings

STUDENTS of European politics who watched the drift of English foreign policy between 1898 and 1 9 14 were well aware of certain marked tendencies. By an alliance with Japan consummated in 1902, by a treaty with France concluded in 1904, clearing up all points of controversy between the two countries, and by a treaty with Russia signed in 1907 settling disputed questions, England had removed a number of dangerous issues in foreign affairs. In defending the Japanese alliance against the advocates of isolation, Lord Lansdowne said in 1902: "What do we see on all sides? We observe a tendency to ever-increasing naval and military armaments involving ever-increasing burdens upon the people for the defence of whose countries these armaments are accumulated. There is also this — that in these days war breaks out with a suddenness which was unknown in former days when nations were not, as they are now, armed to the teeth and ready to enter upon hostilities at any moment. ... If there be no countervailing objections, the country which has the good fortune to possess allies is more to be envied than the country which is

without them." The renewal of the Japanese alliance in another form in 1907 became doubly significant, because within a period of a few months the world learned of the continuance of the Anglo- Japanese arrangements and the formation of a Franco-Japanese, a Russo-Japanese, and an Anglo- Russian agreement. There were in addition, as we now know, secret treaties and negotiations between Russia and Japan, with England's consent, which had a vital relation to the alignment of military and naval powers for the Great War. But English statesmen denied all allegations to the effect that these arrangements were connected with a deliberate policy of "encircling" Germany. They said at the time that all these agreements grew out of the laudable desire of England to be at peace with the world and clear away all possible sources of misunderstandings with neighboring powers.

SIR EDWARD GREY OF THE ANGLO-FRENCH ENTENTE

It was known in 19 14, however, that England's understandings with France had gone beyond mere cordiality, for the Moroccan crises of 1906 and 191 1 had revealed a close cooperation of the two powers in the dealings with Germany. Still the exact character of the relations between the two countries was shrouded in mystery. The naturally suspicious in England thought that some positive agreements as to cooperation in war had been secretly made. There were rumors in the press to that effect and more than once the matter came up for discussion in Parliament. In March, 19 13, for example, a responsible statesman, Lord Hugh Cecil, put the question very bluntly to the government: "There is a very general belief that this country is under an obligation, not a treaty obligation, but an obligation arising owing to an assurance given by the Ministry in the course of diplomatic negotiations, to send a very large armed force out of this country to operate in Europe. This is the general belief." To this clear-cut query the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, made a categorioal reply: "I ought to say that it is not true."

Twice during the next year the question was again raised as to ( i) whether the country was free from all obligations to engage in military operations on the continent, and (2) whether there were any unpublished agreements with Russia or France which would "restrain or hamper" the freedom of the government or the Parliament in making a decision about taking part in a European war. On both occasions the answer of the responsible ministers was emphatically in the negative. The world was given the impression that there was no obligation on the part of England to come to the aid of France on the continent and that no understandings existed with either Russia or France which in any way bound, restricted, or hampered the government and Parliament of England in case a crisis arose in Europe.

When on August 3, 19 14, the great decision had to be taken, Sir Edward Grey, in his memorable plea for the support of France, revealed for the first time the nature of the conversations and understandings that had been drawing the two countries together during the previous ten years. He explained how the French admiralty, on the basis of its belief in English friendship and the arrangements made with the English admiralty, had concentrated its fleet in the Mediterranean and left the Atlantic coast of France undefended and how the day before he had assured France that, if the German fleet came out, England would protect the defenceless ports across the channel. He explained how naval conversations extending over many years had prepared for the immediate and effective cooperation of the two powers in case of war. But, he added, it had always been understood that these consultations did not "restrict the freedom of either government to decide at any future time whether or not to assist the other by armed force." What, therefore, was the nature of the obligation? On this point, Sir Edward said: "How far that entails an obligation, let every man look into his own heart and his own feelings and construe the extent of the obligation for himself. I construe it myself as I feel it, but I do not wish to urge upon anyone else more than their feelings dictate as to what they should feel about the obligation."

To say the least, this was a most extraordinary statement. Sir Edward Grey had been carrying on secret negotiations and conversations with France for many years. Complete plans for the landing of English troops on the continent had been made and the disposal of the naval forces of the two countries had been agreed upon. In the presence of a crisis Sir Edward had to reveal them for the first time to an astounded Parliament. He pointed out that in the written records of the negotiations and understandings, full freedom of action had been reserved. Nevertheless, some kind of an obligation existed. Its extent he left to the consciences of the gentlemen who just heard of it for the first time in their lives — gentlemen who in the crisis had but one choice left to them. As for himself, he felt that England now had obligations of friendship with France that compelled cooperation in war. Still, he did not "wish to urge upon any one else more than their feelings dictate as to what they should feel about the obligation." Whatever view one takes of this amazing revelation, one must admit that it makes strange reading beside the statement, made by the same speaker earlier in that very year, to the effect that "there were no unpublished agreements which would restrict or hamper the freedom of the government or of Parliament to decide whether or not Great Britain should participate in a war."

Judgments upon Sir Edward Grey's revelations have varied. A highly critical English writer, Mr. E. D. Morel, in attacking what he regards as the bitter fruit of secret diplomacy, summarizes his opinion of the "conversations" arranged secretly under Sir Edward's management as follows: "These particular 'conversations' meant the elaboration of an entire plan of campaign, replete in every detail, affecting the disembarkation and transport over rail and road of an expeditionary force of

165,000 men — or whatever the exact number may have been — with enormous quantities of cannon, horses, motors, waggons, stores, and all the impedimenta of a modern army. As with the military, so with the naval 'conversations.'

"You may speak of an understanding whereby France concentrated her fleet in the Mediterranean and left her western and northern coast line undefended, in order to leave us freer to concentrate in the North Sea as a 'conversation' of no binding force until authorized by Parliament. But this is the sort of conversation which decides the destinies of nations, and when carried on in secret leaves the nations concerned entirely helpless to control the outcome. The secret conversations begun in 1906 and thenceforth persisted in constituted morally speaking a pledge given to France by the most powerful personalities in the British Liberal ministry to join with France in the event of a war between France and her only potential foe, Germany. Materially speaking they constituted an Anglo- French military and naval alliance. I can understand the argument which says that it was right to give that pledge. I can even understand the argument which says that it was right, having given that pledge, to deny to the House of Commons that it had been given. But I do not understand the argument which says that the moral obligation and the material fact alike meant nothing, until at the eleventh hour the House of Commons became aware of both and endorsed them."

Another English writer, at the opposite pole of opinion from Mr. Morel, namely, Lord Esher, in his book on Lord Kitchener, speaking of this curious "obligation" revealed by Sir Edward Grey on August 3, says: "To Mr. Asquith the nation owes the redemption of its honor, for although he repudiated the assumption of a definite agreement with France, he has been credited by the French ambassador, M. Cambon, with the fixed determination of fulfilling the moral obligation to that country to come to her assistance in case of an unprovoked attack when the occasion arose; for the obligation, as Mr. Asquith knew well, was the inevitable sequel to the conversations which had been carried on between the General Staffs of the two Armies for some years. Foch, then but little known in England, had been present in London at some of these conferences, where his influence permeated the discussions of the principal Staff Officers of the War Office. He also acquired even great influence over the mind of the Grand Duke Nicholas of Russia and had planned with him the opening moves of a defensive war on the Eastern battle front. . . . The German invasion of Belgium, although it made no vital difference to the resolve already taken by Asquith and Grey, preserved the unity of the nation, if not the integrity of the government."

THE ANGLO-RUSSIAN UNDER- STANDING

None of the entanglements woven in Europe during the years preceding the Great War proved to be more fateful than those uniting Russia and England. None of them was more secret. None of them seemed so unnatural. Nowhere in Europe did the Tsar's autocratic government receive such execrations as in London and nowhere were the exiles from his terrible wrath more cordially welcomed. There was of course a general rejoicing in 1907 when it was announced that England and Russia, historic enemies, had signed a treaty disposing of their quarrels in Southern Asia and delimiting their spheres of influence in Persia. Liberals, devoted to peace, retrenchment, and reform, could not do otherwise than approve. People of pacific tendencies and delusions hailed the treaty as new proof that the peaceful settlement of disputes was taking the place of the cruel arbitrament of war. Seasoned diplomats in London, Paris, Berlin, and St. Petersburg, however, knew that the treaty had an entirely different meaning and bearing.

Between 1907 and 19 14 Anglo-Russian friendship was made manifest by the usual exchange of visits and speeches of felicitation on ceremonial occasions. Still it was not believed in England, outside of the government group at least, that any commitments had been made. Indeed the hatred of English Liberals for autocratic Russia was so marked that intelligent observers did not dream that the English government would favor Russia rather than Germany in the ordinary course of events. In the spring of 19 14, however, persistent rumors were afloat to the effect that some kind of an understanding or alliance had been concluded with Russia involving commitments of a military character. These rumors seemed so well authenticated that direct questions were put to Sir Edward Grey in the House of Commons. With diplomatic correctness, Sir Edward replied cautiously that "there were no unpublished agreements with European powers apt to restrain or hamper the free decision of the Government or Parliament as to whether England was to participate in a war or not." This was, in a formal sense of the word, accurate, but, of course, it meant one thing to Sir Edward and quite another thing to the minds of people who knew nothing about the diplomatic operations of the British government during the previous ten or fifteen years. Such was the state of public knowledge in England on the very eve of the mighty cataclysm.

Although the English government has not seen fit to publish any documents on Russian relations similar to those issued by the French government in the Yellow Book of 19 18, a great deal of light has been thrown upon Anglo-Russian relations by the new materials made public from the Belgian and Russian archives. In these it is possible to trace with a certain degree of accuracy the policies and understandings of Russia and England between 1906 and 1914. In the documents of the first group we have the expert opinions of Belgian diplomats stationed in Berlin, Paris, and London as to the nature and significance of the new entente. These papers are, of course, neither Russian nor English, but they give us the sober and official judgment of informed neutrals. They show how persons accustomed to deal with affairs of state looked upon the new understanding. They are in part founded upon rumor, but rather authentic rumor.

The first among them is a letter of May 7, 1906, from the Belgian ambassador at Paris, which throws light upon the events that led up to the Anglo- Russian treaty of 1907. It reads: "The king of England left Paris to-day a'fter having spent five days here. . . . Some are pleased to ascribe to the presence of the king of England in Paris another object and there is reason for believing that he wishes by the mediation of France to bring about a serious rapprochement between Great Britain and Russia. That new triple arrangement, fortified by the Anglo-Japanese Alliance and by the friendship which Italy shows more and more for France and England, is already viewed, by those who love to prophesy, as an event soon to be realized and one which will assure for a new and long period the peace of Europe because Germany, in spite of the bad spirit which she may feel, cannot oppose effectively the current of ideas which now move toward that new political combination. If it is regarded as a certain pledge of peace by some, it is viewed by others as such an evident manifestation of the desire to isolate. Germany that she cannot fail to search for all possible means with which to break the iron circle drawn about her."

The second document is from the Belgian ambassador at Berlin and bears the date of June 8, 1906. It reflects the diplomatic rumors and beliefs of the German capital and gives an impression of the opinion current at that strategic centre. The language of the paper runs as follows: "In spite of the friendly discourses of English statesmen, the visit of the German mayors, and the correctness of official relations, the attitude of the British government does not appear to have changed since the advent of the Liberal ministry. Sir Edward Grey assures the public that there is no arrangement between England and Russia, but evidently a rapprochement is being prepared, and is already half accomplished. Otherwise what would be the significance of the announcement of the visits of the English and Russian fleets? Is it on account of the soundness of Russian credit that the English market, hitherto closed to Russian loans, has just been opened? What can England hope or fear from a country paralysed by long years of military disaster and by a revolution the outcome of which cannot be foreseen? As has been said with reason the dominant thought of the English statesmen favorable to a rapprochement with Russia seems to be to complete and to maintain the isolation of Germany." 1

As to the early operations of the Anglo-Russian entente, which grew out of the treaty of 1907, the

1 An economic background is given in this extract from a letter written by the Belgian ambassador in London on April 28, 1906: "The English portion of the Russian loan has been covered in London without difficulty by the aid of the house of Baring Brothers. It is learned from a well-informed source that the minister of foreign affairs, semi-officially, has urged high finance in the capital to sustain the loan for a political object with a view to improving relations with Russlia. The Anglo-Russian en-> tente is in the air. There is talk of mutual assurances to be exchanged between London and St. Petersburg."

documents published from the Russian archives do little more than illustrate what was well known in 19 14. A note written by the Russian ambassador in London on January 28, 1909, while the Bosnian crisis was distracting Europe, contains a statement that Sir Edward Grey "has declared to Cambon that he wishes to inform the French government that the London cabinet has promised the Russian government its diplomatic support in the question of the compensation of Serbia and Montenegro. Grey tells me that he has taken this step in order to clear the situation of every misunderstanding. . . . The Serbian demand's must be limited as much as possible in the interests of peace."

Supplementing this note are important documents which show how Russian diplomats looked upon the Balkan problem and especially the stroke of Austria-Hungary in annexing Bosnia and Herzegovina. Minutes of the grand civil-military conferences in St. Petersburg from 1908 onward prove that nothing but the low state of Russian military forces after the Japanese war prevented the Tsar's foreign office from adopting an intransigent Balkan policy at once. English support had already been offered in that connection. As weakness compelled Russia to accept, with a wry face, the outcome of the Austrian maneuver in the autumn of 1908, her diplomats decided that better preparations should be made for future exigencies. On April 1, 1909, the Russian ambassador in Paris wrote home : "German and Austrian journals have emphasized the success of Austrian diplomacy and the predominant position of the Dual Monarchy in the Balkans. In consequence of this, public opinion, in France as well as in England, demands more and more a greater rapprochement between Russia, France, and England as they have already acted in common during the Austro-Serbian conflict. Foreseeing the further development of the JEuropean situation, many newspapers come to the conclusion that precisely as Germany and Austria have now achieved a brilliant victory, so must the two Western powers, together with Russia, now pay their attention to the systematic development of their forces in order to be able, once they are in a position not to fear a challenge of the Triple Alliance — and in this case Italy would separate herself from the Triple Alliance — to set up on their part demands that would restore the political balance which has now been displaced in favour of Germany and Austria. The experience of the last five years has shown that a policy of this sort need not necessarily lead to war."

In suggesting a closer agreement with England, the same ambassador gave cogent reasons of a practical kind for such a program. In a report of the same date as the above note he said: "The movement of the Central European states towards the Mediterranean is contrary not only to our own intentions but also to the interests of our allies and friends, the French and the English. The latter are particularly concerned with protecting the road from the Suez Canal to India and deem it necessary to oppose every effort to interfere with this route. ... In view of Germany's position at Constantinople, the presence of the German fleet in the Mediterranean would be just as dangerous to Russia as was the predominant position which England occupied in Turkey, until the agreement which you have concluded with London eliminated the causes of possible conflicts between Russia and England. All these circumstances show how necessary it is for us to bind ourselves still more closely to France and England in order to oppose in common the further penetration of Germany and Austria into the Balkans."

The policy outlined in these notes expressed very precisely the opinions cherished in Russian Imperial circles. While huge sums of money were borrowed in England and France for the reconstruction of the Russian army and navy, diplomats redoubled their efforts to seal more firmly Anglo-Russian friendship. In 1912, the year that M. Poincare was installed as prime minister at Paris and M. Isvolski began his remarkable negotiations with the French premier, another Russian diplomat, M. Sazonov, undertook a delicate mission to England to discover the temper and opinion of the English government. The results of his inquiries he reported to his home government with full knowledge that they would be the basis of serious and momentous steps in St. Petersburg. In one of these reports to the Tsar, M. Sazonov thus sums up his findings in England:

"As a general indication of the feeling respecting Russia which I have observed in England, I must mention that the leader of the opposition, Mr. Bonar Law, was also a guest at Balmoral for several days at the same time as myself. I expressed to him, amongst other things, my satisfaction at the speech he had recently made in the name of the opposition in the House of Commons in which he approved of Sir Edward Grey's policy in the sense of a closer approach to Russia. In the presence of Grey, Bonar Law confirmed the words mentioned and in fact stated that this was the only question upon which there existed no difference of opinion between the Conservatives and the Liberals in England.

"Making use of the favorable circumstances, I thought it advantageous during one of my conversations with Grey to acquire information as to what we might expect from England in case of an armed conflict with Germany. The statements which I myself thereupon heard from the responsible leader of the English foreign policy as well as afterwards from the lips of King George himself appear to me to be worthy of notice.

"Your Imperial Majesty is aware that Poincare during his visit to Petersburg last summer expressed to me the wish that I should ascertain the extent to which we could depend upon the assistance of the English fleet in case of such a war.

"After I had confidentially initiated Grey into the contents of our naval agreement with France and pointed out the fact that according to this settled compact, the French fleet would be concerned with the safeguarding of our interests in the southern scene of war in that it would prevent the Austrian fleet from breaking through into the Black. Sea, I asked the Secretary of State whether England on its part could not render us a similar service in the north, by diverting the German squadron from our coast in the Baltic.

"Without hesitating, Grey stated that should the conditions under discussion arise, England would I stake everything in order to effect the most serious blow to German power. . . .

"Arising out of this, Grey, upon his own initiative confirmed, what I already knew from Poincare, namely, the existence of an agreement between France and Great Britain, according to which England engaged herself, in case of war with Germany, not only to come to the assistance of France on the sea, but also on the continent by landing troops.

"The king who touched upon the same question during one of his conversations with me, expressed himself still more decidedly than his minister. With visible emotion, His Majesty mentioned Germany's aspirations toward naval equality with Great Britain and exclaimed that in case of a conflict it would have disastrous consequences not only for the German fleet but also for German commerce as the English 'would sink every single German merchant ship they got hold of.'

"The last words probably not only reflect the personal feelings of His Majesty but also the prevailing mood in England with regard to Germany."

Delighted with this report on the state of affairs in England, Russian and French diplomats, as the great crisis approached, set systematically about the task of turning the understanding between Russia and England into something like a fighting agreement. Hearing of an impending visit of King George V and Sir Edward Grey to Paris in April 19 14, the Russian foreign office suggested to the French government that the latter take advantage of the occasion to propose a naval understanding between England and Russia, one similar to that existing between France and England. The design worked to perfection, for the architects of the enterprise found Sir Edward Grey quite prepared to entertain the proposition and to enter heartily into the arrangement. A letter written home by the Russian ambassador in Paris on April 29, 19 14, gives a full account of the transaction from the inside:

"The exchange of opinion between the English and the French statesmen dealt above all with the relation between England and France. Before entering into the exchange of opinions it was recognized by both parties that the existing agreements between the two countries required no kind of formal modification or supplement and that France and England by continuing a consistent and loyal practice of the so-called 'entente cordiale' in all political questions that might arise, would strengthen and develop the bonds uniting them from day to day. Thereby it was also acknowledged that Russia entered in the closest manner into the union between England and France as to their joint policy. This thought has been very clearly expressed in the press notice published here and in London after the above mentioned conference. M. Doumergue told me that each word of this notice, which was edited by M. Cambon, had been carefully considered and revised not only by himself but in fact also by Sir Edward Grey who had completely approved of the mention of Russia contained in the notice, as well as the reference to the fact that the aim of the three powers was not only the maintenance of 'peace,' but also, of the 'balance of power.' 1

"After the conclusion of the discussion on different questions of the current policy that were on the program, M. Doumergue proceeded to the question of the relations between Russia and France and laid before Sir Edward the plans he and I had agreed upon. He particularly referred to two arguments in favor of a closer Anglo-Russian agreement: (1) The efforts of Germany to divert us from a triple agreement as being merely an insecure and weak political combination, and (2) the possibility of freeing a part of the English naval forces for energetic action not only in the Baltic and North Sea, but also in the Mediterranean. ( M. Doumergue pointed out, among other things, to Sir Edward that we would have a powerful Baltic squadron of dreadnoughts in two years.)

"Sir Edward replied to M. Doumergue that he personally completely sympathized with the thoughts which had been expressed to him and that he was quite prepared to conclude an agreement with Russia similar to the one that existed between Eng-

1 See above, p. 18, in connection with the Russo-French alliance.

land and France. He did not conceal from M. Doumergue, however, that not only among the government parties but also among the members of the cabinet, elements were present that were prejudiced against Russia and that were little inclined toward a closer approach to that power. He expressed hope, however, that he would succeed in inclining Mr. Asquith and other members of the cabinet to his standpoint and suggested the following modus procedendi : In the first place the cabinets both in London and Paris after mutual agreement could inform the St. Petersburg cabinet of the agreement existing between France and England as follows : ( i ) The military and naval convention worked out by the General and Naval staffs, which as you are already aware, has, so to speak, a conditional character, and (2) the political agreement which is formally sealed by the letters exchanged between Sir Edward Grey and the French ambassador; it is stated in these letters that in case England and France decide upon a joint active step, according to the course of events, the above mentioned conventions 'would be taken into account.' Simultaneously with giving this information, the cabinets in London and Paris could ask us what our attitude was toward the proposal relative to this action, which in turn could give us occasion to enter into an interchange of ideas with England concerning the settlement of a corresponding Anglo-Russian agreement. In the opinion of Sir Edward Grey only a naval and no military convention could be drawn up between us and England as the land forces of England are allotted in advance and obviously could not operate conjointly with Russian military forces. Sir Edward Grey added that immediately upon his return to London he would place the above represented plan of action before Mr. Asquith and his other colleagues for their judgment. . . .

"All three of those present at the conference, MM. Doumergue, Cambon, and de Margerie told me that they were astonished at the clearly stated and definite readiness to enter upon a closer approach to Russia, which Sir Edward Grey had expressed. According to their conviction, the reservations made by him concerning Mr. Asquith and the other members of the cabinet have a purely formal character and had he not been convinced in advance of their agreement he would have abstained from making such concrete suggestions."