THE ANGLO-FRENCH MILITARY AND NAVAL ... - UNT Digital Library/67531/metadc663445/m2/1/high_re… · Crisis, R. B. Haldane's Before the War, and Lord Newton's Lord Lans-downe, A Biography,

THE ANGLO-FRENCH MILITARY AND NAVAL

CONVERSATIONS, 1906-1912: A STUDY

IN PRE-WAR DIPLOMACY

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the North

Texas State College in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Gordon Daniel Healey, B. A.

Waxahachie, Texas

June, 1952

FOREW ORD

The period following the Treaty of Frankfort in 1871 saw the

hegemony of Western Europe pass from Paris to Berlin. To maintain

this new status, Otto von Bismarck, German Chancellor, knew that

France must be diplomatically quarantined and the remainder of his

public career was dedicated to that purpose. In France, during this

time and for more than two decades following the fall of Bismarck, there

were those leaders who were equally dedicated to undoing the work of

the Iron Chancellor and lifting the international quarantine of France.

The French nation has been prolific of consummate diplomatists

all through history, but her annals record no more brilliant achieve-

ment than that of Theophile Delcassd and Paul Cambon when they brought

Great Britain into a French alliance. Even those who disapprove the

consequences of their act must admit the skill and the pertinacity with

which the two statesmen pursued their purpose. Their difficulties were

stupendous; British governments had for years stood aloof from Conti-

nental agreements, but precedent was forced to give way before the

perspicacity and perseverance of these two French statesmen.

Delcass4 had contributed the Entente Cordiale to the French

cause in 1904. This understanding pledged British diplomatic support

iii

to France in her imperialistic venture in Morocco-nothing more; but

it also provided a foundation upon which Cambon could exercise his

talents in leading Great Britain into a trap. The result of these activi-

ties was the equivalent of an Anglo-French alliance.

The French, to accomplish their purpose, led the British into

a series of military and naval conversations as a means of working out

plans of joint operations whereby the latter could assist the former in

case of a Franco-German war. The conversations had their official

beginning in 1906 and continued until the outbreak of war in 1914, by

which time Britain was so completely obligated to France as to make

her entry into the war a foregone conclusion.

In tracing the development of the conversations the British Docu-

ments on the Origins of the War, 1898-1914, are a primary source of

information. These documents, however, have one incriminating weak-

ness: many of them relating to the conversations were found to be miss-

ing at the time of publication. The Documents diplomatiques franais,

1871-1914, provide a second primary source, but this work, published

after the British Documents , shows signs of careful editing to provide

no more information than is revealed by the British. The French

Documents do, however, provide supplementary information.

Secondary studies are numerous, although in some cases parti-

san; such accounts as Edward Grey's Twenty-Five Years, H. H. As-

quith's The Genesis of the War, Winston S. Churchill's The World

Crisis, R. B. Haldane's Before the War, and Lord Newton's Lord Lans-

downe, A Biography, are all slanted to defend the actions taken by the

British Cabinet before the war. The best account of the beginning of

the conversations is contained in The First World War, 1914-1918, by

C. A'Court Repington. And some splendid background material is

given in Charles W. Porter's The Career of Thtophile Delcass4.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD 1.. .1iii

Chapter

I. A CORDIAL UNDERSTANDING AND ITS CONSE-QUENCES .

II. THE FIRST MOROCCAN CRISIS, 1904-1906 25

III. ANGLO-FRENCH MILITARY CONVERSATIONS:FIRST PHASE . .-. 48

IV. THE AGADIR CRISIS . . . . . . 74

V. ANGLO-FRENCH MILITARY AND NAVAL CONVERSA-TIONS: SECOND PHASE . - . . . . 106

VI. CONCLUSION . - - . - - . . . . 131

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . - - - - - . . . . 143

CHAPTER I

A CORDIAL UNDERSTANDING AND ITS

CONSEQUENCES

In the spring of 1903 a pronounced spirit of friendliness was much

in evidence toward England in the French Foreign Office. This attitude

of rapprochement was under the guiding genius of Th6ophile Delcassd,

French Foreign Minister, who at this point was ready to follow the old

adage of joining an opposition that had proven too difficult to surmount. 1

In London the feeling was mutual. The British Foreign Office, under the

direction of Lord Lansdowne, mindful of the failure in 1901 of. Chamber-

lain's last attempt at an Anglo-German alliance, thought that in a Europe

divided between the Triple and Dual Alliances this was the proper time

for Great Britain to take a position on the side of France. 2

According to Eyre Crowe, the effort toward a better understanding

between these two traditional foes in the arena of foreign policy was given

its initial impetus by the British, and "it was creditable to M. Delcassd's

sagacity and public spirit that he decided to grasp the hand which the

1 Charles W. Porter, The Career of Thdophile Delcasse, p. 9.

2 R. C. K. Ensor, England, 1870-1914, p. 365.

British Government held out to him. "3 Shortly before his retirement,

July 12, 1902, Lord Salisbury discussed the matter with the French Am-

bassador, Paul Cambon, but at this time both felt that the ill feeling

created in France by the Fashoda incident and the Boer War rendered

any attempt at an understanding futile.

Soon after Lord Salisbury's retirement to private life, however,

Cambon approached Lansdowne, who now had a free hand, and told him

of his talks with Salisbury. During the conversation the Ambassador men-

tioned a number of subjects upon which he would like to negotiate an agree-

ment, and, seeing that Lansdowne was interested, promised to put his

ideas into writing in the form of a letter to the Foreign Secretary. This

letter was subsequently brought to the attention of King Edward VII and

the Prince of Wales; both of whom were entirely favorable to the idea

of an agreement with France on the subjects mentioned. 4

To expedite the policy of closer relationship between the two

governments, the King, in March of 1903, prepared to take a cruise in

the Mediterranean, after which he would visit the French capital if it

was found to be agreeable to the President, Emile Loubet. Lord Lans-

downe consulted Sir E. Monson, British Ambassador at Paris, in the

3 Memorandum by Eyre Crowe, January 1, 1907, British Docu-ments on the Origins of the War, 1898-1914, Vol. III, Appendix A,p. 398.

4 G. P. Gooch, "Continental Agreements, 1902-1907,1" CambridgeHistory of British Foreign Policy, 1783-1919, edited by Sir A. W. Wardand G. P. Gooch, III, p. 306.

matter, and on March 13 the latter advised:

The intimation of His Majesty's desire was welcomedby the President with unmistakable delight, as I had expectedwould be the case. He said that a visit from the King would,in the present temper of France, do an amount of good which isprobably not realised in England. He hoped, indeed, thatH. M. G. were already aware of the extent to which cordialityto England had increased in France, but probably the public atlarge were not to the same extent informed as to the growth ofthat sentiment in Paris and throughout the country. In thiscapital H. M. , while Prince of Wales, had acquired an excep-tional personal popularity, and his many old friends would beoverjoyed to see him again; but this statement was not confinedto his old friends and was general among all classes. 5

The visit was fixed for the beginning of May, and the King pro-

ceeded on his voyage which took him to Lisbon and Rome before reach-

ing Paris on May 1.

There was much apprehension within the French Foreign Office as

to the results of the proposed royal visit. While it was true that consid-

erable amity had resulted from the meeting of the British Chambers of

Commerce in Paris in 1900 and the consequent increase in numbers of

English visitors to the French capital, there were still those French-

men who had not forgotten the vituperative campaign which had raged in

the French and British press during the Boer War, the Fashoda Crisis,

and the Dreyfus Affair. The fears of this group were not entirely un-

founded, as was shown by the early reception given to the royal visitor;

the first reaction of the French to the visiting monarch was, if not

5 Lord Newton, Lord Lansdowne, A Biography, p. 275.

frigid, at least cool. "The first day they behaved well; the second day,

they merely displayed interest; but the third day, 'eitait attrisant-ils

ont acclamd le Roi!j"6

This change in attitude was due, at least in part, to the personal

note struck by the King in one of his early speeches:

It is scarcely necessary to tell you with what sincerepleasure I find myself once more in Paris, to which, as youknow, I have paid very frequent visits with ever-increasingpleasure, and for which I feel an attachment fortified by somany happy and ineffaceable memories. The days of hostil-ity between the two countries are, I am certain, happily at anend. I know of no two countries whose prosperity is more in-terdependent. There may have been misunderstandings andcauses of dissention in the past; but that is all happily overand forgotten. The friendship of the two countries is my con-stant preoccupation, and I count on you all, who enjoy Frenchhospitality in their magnificent city, to aid me to reach this

goal.

The King's visit and this speech had a profound effect upon French public

opinion-the effect desired by Delcass, and also by those in the British

Foreign Office who had arranged for the King to visit Paris. It is a

matter of general acceptance that Edward VII was sent to Paris as a

means of preparing the way for an entente between the two powers, and

that he did not go on his own initiative. 8 In this instance, the British

Monarch was serving in the capacity of a public relations expert for

6 Ibid. , p. 278.

7 Gooch, op. cit., p. 307.

8 Newton, 2p. cit. , pp. 279 and 293.

those who were working in the direction of better relations between

France and Britain, specifically Lansdowne and.Cambon. He played his

part, and he played it with charm and skill.

Soon after Edward's visit to Paris preparations were made for

President Loubet to visit London. The social amenities must be observed,

and the King gave assurance that "M. Loubet would be more heartily

welcomed in England than any chief of state had ever been. "9 In July,

accompanied by Delcasse, President Loubet returned the King's visit,

and on this occasion the Entente Cordiale was spoken of as having been

established. The President, lodged at St. James' Palace, became the

first French Chief of State to cross the Channel since Napoleon III.

In welcoming the French Foreign Minister to London, Lansdowne

lost no time in coming to the point and a long interview ensued. It was

decided to discuss all outstanding differences as a whole, rather than

to consider isolated problems, because "however impossible it might

appear to settle particular issues in isolation, sacrifices might be tol-

erable as items in a balanced settlement. "

Of first concern to those engaged in the conversations-the two

Foreign Ministers and Paul Cambon, with assistance from Sir Eldon

Gorst, Financial Adviser to the Egyptian Government-were the problems

of Egypt and Morocco. Great Britain wanted a free hand in Egypt, and

9 Eugene N. Anderson, The First Moroccan Crisis, 1904-1906,p. 87.

France, of course, wished to clear her path of operations in the Sherifian

Empire. Delcass6 had, in 1900, secured the benevolent neutrality of

Italy in the matter of Morocco, by recognition of Italian claims to Tripoli.

In addition to these two problems there was the controversy in Newfound-

land, and Great Britain's desire to sweep away the "French Shore" griev-

ance. On the other hand, there were the minor territorial ambitions of

France in West Africa; ambitions which Britain could easily satisfy.

Again, there were problems in Siam, the New Hebrides, Madagascar,

Sokoto, and of the treatment of British firms in French Congo. The

French Minister stated frankly that if they could come to terms over

Morocco, "all other difficulties would disappear, or become compara-

tively easy to deal with. " Delcass4 presented a general view of the

French plans for Morocco, and indicated that what his country wished

was "a reasonable assurance that their policy would not be obstructed by

Great Britain. "10 In reply, Lord Lansdowne made three conditions for

an accord on this problem. First, British interests in the Mediterranean

seaboard of Morocco, particularly in Tangier and the neighboring coast,

must be protected. Second, Spanish ambitions must be fairly dealt with.

Third, complete equality of economic opportunity in Morocco must be as-

sured. Delcassd unhesitatingly accepted all three stipulations. Then the

British Minister proposed that they make the settlement a comprehensive

one by including the Egyptian question. The French Minister acquiesced,

1 0 Ibid. , pp. 87-88.

provided they could reach an agreement on the Moroccan question that

would be satisfactory to both nations.

The French plans in the Moorish Empire, according to Delcass6,

were not unreasonable. France had no idea of annexing Morocco or de-

posing the Sultan, nor of forcing a peace there; but, on the other hand,

in view of the chronic state of disorder in the Sultan's realm, France

thought that she, and not any other power, should undertake the task of

restoring order.

As the quid pro quo for these concessions to France, the British

would require in Egypt the lifting of the time limit to the British occupa-

tion and the French sanction of the abolishment of the caisse de la dette,

the reorganization of the railway administration, and the conversion of

the Egyptian debt. The other questions considered in the conversations,

those of Newfoundland, Siam, New Hebrides, Nigeria, Zanzibar, and

Madagascar, were less significant. Much bargaining was to follow be-

fore the final settlement was made, but in view of the partisan interests

involved, final agreement was reached.

On April 8, 1904, a Convention relating to Newfoundland and West

Africa, accompanied by four Declarations, concerning respectively

Egypt and Morocco, Siam, Madagascar, and the New Hebrides, was

signed. The most important of the agreements which collectively form

1 1 Lansdowne to Monson, July 7, 1903, B. D., II, no. 357,pp. 294-295.

the Treaty of 1904 was the declaration respecting Egypt and Morocco,

Article Nine of which provided for the means, or the extent, to which the

participating nations would go in carrying out the agreement. This Arti-

cle was as follows:

IX. The two Governments agree to afford to one an-other their diplomatic support, in order to obtain the execu-tion of the clauses of the present Declaration regarding Egyptand Morocco. 12

The declaration, as published in 1904, was an apparently harmless

understanding reached between the two nations on certain problems, some

of which had been outstanding for a considerable period of time. But the

declaration also contained four "Secret Articles, " not published until

1911, which strongly suggested that France might not intend to respect

the status quo in Morocco for very long. 13

There is little reason to doubt that the agreement reached between

the two powers was made in good faith, and that each fully intended to

carry out its obligation; each had much to gain from this cordial under-

standing. Needless to say, there were undoubtedly many motives which

did not show up in the conversations that had been carried on during the

period from the visit of Edward VII to Paris in early May of 1903, until

the final signing of the Entente on April 8, 1904.

1 2 Declaration between the United Kingdom and France respectingEgypt and Morocco, April 8, 1904, B. D., II, p. 392.

1 3 George B. Manhart, Alliance and Entente, 1871-1914, pp. 40-41.

Britain, for her part, was much concerned over the growing com-

mercial rivalry with Germany. Running parallel to this commercial ex-

pansion on the part of Germany was her spectacular growth as a colonial

power. Also, in view of these expansions, William II, Emperor of Ger-

many, had felt the need of a stronger navy, and plans had been in progress

under the able guidance of Admiral von Tirpitz pointing to the day when

England's control of the seas would be contested by Germany.

Of these various causes of tension between Great Britain and Ger-

many in the years following the Boer War, undoubtedly the main one

was the resolve of Germany to build a formidable fleet. As early as

1898, Germany had begun a program of construction to be carried out by

1904, and the German Navy League was founded. The Kaiser used

events during the Boer War--occasions on which German vessels were

stopped by the British-to secure acceptance by the Reichstag of a

greatly enlarged program of construction to be completed in 1917.

This program was the cause of considerable anxiety in Britain, even

though assurances-were given by Germany that only a defensive fleet

was contemplated. British apprehensions continued, regardless of Ger-

man assurances, and a considerable shifting of naval units to the North

Sea and the Channel was carried out during the period in which the un-

derstanding with France was negotiated. In October, 1905, the Dread-

nought, the largest and most heavily armed vessel in the world, was

laid down, which served to increase the mistrust between the two powers,

as many people in Germany now concluded that their country was threat-

ened by a sudden attack. 14 Another outgrowth of the naval rivalry had

been the signing of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance which was concluded in

February, 1902. This was an attempt by Britain to augment her position

of naval supremacy in the Far East, so that she would be in a position to

move units from that area to European waters.

These were, in brief summary, some of the underlying causes

that stimulated the British desire for an understanding with France in

the years around the turn of the century. It is now necessary to con-

sider the French position, and here the answer is obvious: the French

position derives from the career of one man, Thdophile Delcassd.

Thdophile Delcasse, whose career was so closely connected with

French policy in the years preceding the First World War, was the prod-

uct of an age that saw his beloved homeland humiliated at Sedan and re-

duced by the Treaty of Frankfort in 1871. Born on March 1, 1852, in

the Department of Ariege and educated at Pamiers and Toulouse, he had

reached his eighteenth year in 1870 when catastrophe struck the Second

Empire of Napoleon III. Meanwhile, two years before this event, the

future Foreign Minister had come under the influence of the champion

of republicanism in France, the eloquent Lhon Gambetta. Gambetta

became and remained for life his idol and his ideal. The Treaty of

1 4 Gooch, 2R. cit. , pp. 303-304.

Frankfort, which deprived France of Alsace-Lorraine, outraged his ar-

dent patriotism. Henceforth, he brooded over the frontier question and

was always profoundly distrustful of German intentions toward France. 15

In 1875 Delcasse went to Paris and embarked upon a career as a

journalist, and in 1879 became associated with Gambetta's journal, La

Republigue Frangaise. From the beginning of his newspaper career

Delcass6 specialized in foreign and colonial affairs and of this phase of

his career it has been said by his biographer:

The importance of this phase of Delcasse's career can-not be overestimated. Not only was this Delcassd's realpreparation for his life work, since it gave him an opportunityto study European diplomacy and work out a French foreignpolicy, but the paper was the oracle of Republicanism inFrance, and brought his ideas daily before a circulation offorty thousand readers. Thus, at the very time Delcasse wasformulating his later system of diplomacy, he was preparinga favorable reception for that foreign policy in the minds oftens of thousands of French people! 16

These years in the early career of Delcassd are also marked by

the writing of a political pamphlet, the primary purpose of which was a

criticism of the Freycinet government of January, 1882. It was a small

effort, some thirty-odd pages, under the title AlerteI! OuAllons -Nous ?

The last eleven pages were devoted to foreign policy, or rather a lack

of a definite policy to offset the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria,

and Italy. In Delcassd's opinion:

1 5 Porter, 2p. cit., pp. 8-9.

16Ibid., p. 16.

Another danger, without doubt the greatest of all, is thecomplete lack of a foreign policy. . . . When on the ruins of

the old balance of power a monstrous and formidable coalitionhas formed itself [the Triple Alliance], is it possible for Franceto continue to live in the isolation to which she has been re-duced by her disaster [of 18701, without worrying about the

future and without any determined purpose ?Do you not see that on all sides of you in Europe there

are [Powers with] interests identical to yours, and that the

union of these with us would not only be a strong union be-

cause there seems to be no reason for conflict between these

Powers, but, on the contrary, should form an indestructiblefasces! . . . for lack of a hand to guide them and draw them

together, these interests instead of seeking each other, dis-regard each other, flee from each other, and you remain iso-lated, living from day to day at the mercy of events beyond

your control because the strings that govern them are not in

your hands. 17

Thus, as early as May of 1882 did Delcass6 indicate his ideas of a proper

foreign policy for France; thus did he lay out a course of attack and of

action that he was to follow throughout the coming years-years that

were to give him seven years of uninterrupted tenure as head of the

French Foreign Office from 1898 to 1905.

As early as October, 1887, Delcass6 had become interested in

Morocco, and was willing to let Italy have Tripoli in order to establish

an entente with her that would facilitate French ambitions in the Sherifian

Empire. It was his opinion that if the Sultan lost control in his country,

then French ambitions were a natural consequence of the extended

western frontier of Algeria. He reasoned, at this time, that Germany,

not being a Mediterranean Power, should not be considered in any

17 Ibid. pp. 19-20.

arrangements between the Powers over the ultimate disposition of

Morocco. 18

In 1886 and 1887 steps were taken by Flourens, the French Foreign

Minister, to establish a Franco-Russian alliance. This work met with

the immediate and enthusiastic support of Delcassd, the journalist. As

he viewed the situation, the great enemy of France was Germany; the

alliance was to be directed against her for the purpose of pressing all

of the outstanding claims that had arisen since Sedan. He saw in the

Franco-Russian Alliance a chance to cripple Germany by obliging her

to fight on two sides at once and he looked upon Russia as the natural

leader of the Balkan Slavs. It is significant to note that Delcassd thought

it unnecessary to seal the rapprochement of France and Russia by a for-

mal alliance. It was his opinion that the community of interests that

brought about a well-established entente was more important than a

paper document:

. . . there is between France and Russia a community of in-terests which renders treaties superfluous and which is onehundred times preferable to the best of treaties 19

The year 1888 found Delcasse agitating for a triple entente of

France, England, and Russia. Inasmuch as he looked upon an understand-

ing with Russia as an accomplished fact, his thinking naturally turned to

Anglo-French relations, and to the historic instances of friendship be-

tween these two nations:

I~lo n o 8iUI Iil id nilnon ieilmilm1Il , p .2 5 .1 9 p .3 4 . I nlml"III I1im11. IEmmop 1 11mn1m mlii imion om I nmi sim m wIy pm o m mg om18 Ibid. , P. 25. 19Ibid. , P. 34.

. . . [ He I found in the past ample argument for Anglo-French cordiality. He cited the "fraternitie anglo-frangaisellchampioned in 1791 by Mirabeau and pursued by Talleyrandduring his mission to London in 1792, and said that Mirabeauand Talleyrand were right in declaring that England had everyreason for drawing closer to France and that "what was trueat the end of the eighteenth century" was "still more true to-day. 120

At this time he discounted any idea of war between the two nations as be-

ing utterly frivolous, saying, with some humor:

But, after all, why should we make war on the English?To take a strip of territory from them? But we acquired ournatural frontiers on the northwest centuries ago, and it is noton the Channel that we have been mutilated. To take away theircolonies ? But the exploitation of those we already possess willkeep us employed for a long time to come. 21

This line of reasoning was to appear again at a later date, and at

a time when it represented the official attitude of the French Foreign Of-

fice. It was to be used by Cambon in his negotiations with Lansdowne in

August, 1902, which laid the basis for the Anglo-French Entente. Nor

was it forgotten by Delcassd when, on July 7, 1903, the now Foreign

Minister was conversing with Lansdowne. 22

These few excerpts are characteristic of the writings of Delcass6,

and indicate that years before he entered the Foreign Office he was work-

ing earnestly for a rapprochement with Italy and a triple alliance between

France, Russia, and England. It seems superfluous to add that, as the

2 0Ibid. , p. 35. 2 1Ibid., p. 36.

2 2 Lansdowne to Monson, July 7, 1903, B. D., II, no. 357, p. 294.

disciple of Gambetta, there was always present in the thinking of Del-

cass4 the desire to regain the lost provinces-Alsace and Lorraine.

On July 15, 1888, Delcasse made his entry into formal politics

when elected to the Conseil General of the Department of Ariege, and

in September of the following year, at the general election for the Cham-

ber of Deputies, he was selected to represent the city of Foix in that

body. Once admitted to the Chamber, he immediately asked permission

to express himself on foreign policy and announced that he would like to

be a minister. This ambition led to his appointment as Under Secretary

of State for the Colonies on January 17, 1893.

This assignment soon involved Delcasse in foreign affairs, and it

was a logical step that placed him in the Quai d'Or say some years later,

in June, 1898-placed him in a position to direct the foreign affairs of

France along the road that led to the signing of the Entente Cordiale with

Great Britain in 1904. It was a long and devious road; a road he trav-

elled by way of Fashoda, a point at which it seemed that his goal of se-

curing the friendship of Britain would never be reached. Yet, it was

a goal that proved eminently worth-while in the light of events that the

coming decade was to produce.

On coming to the Quai d'Orsay, the new Foreign Minister trans -

ferred Paul Cambon from Constantinople to London, there to serve as

French Ambassador. Cambon was considered by Delcass6 to be one of

the ablest men in the French diplomatic service; a man who possessed all

of the characteristics becoming an outstanding diplomatist. With the pas-

sage of time, Paul Cambon became one of the chief mentors upon whom

Delcass6 relied for advice in carrying out his projects. Although the

main lines of his foreign policy were clearly fixed in his mind when he

came to power, he needed the advice of seasoned diplomats for its execu-

tion. The appointment of the elder Cambon to the London Embassy pays

tribute to the high priority given the understanding with England in the

plans of Delcass6. The Ambassador was known to be a warm friend of

England whose tact and experience promised to dissipate the persistent

misunderstandings between the two countries. 23

While it would seem that the appointment of Cambon to fill the

position in London was a calculated move on the part of Delcasse, there

are those who contend that the Ambassador, rather than the Foreign

Minister, was the architect of the Entente Cordiale. Sir E. J. Monson,

British Ambassador at Paris, writing to Lord Lansdowne in December,

1902, said:

It is difficult to ascertain Cambon's exact relations withDelcass(", but I believe that he plays very much for his ownhand and counts upon being approved and supported without

waiting for any definite instructions. I am assured that thereis no definite intimacy or sympathy between the two men. 24

2 3 Porter, 2P. cit. , p. 134,

2 4 Newton, 22. cit., p. 270.

Also, Swain, in his excellent survey of the period, concludes that "a

more important person than Delcass6 was Paul Gambon, the French

Ambassador at London from 1898 to 1921, " and goes so far as to say

that the idea of securing British aid for France's plans in Morocco was

initiated by Gambon.

Probably the more accurate conclusion would be that the understand-

ing with Britain had the wholehearted and active support of both. Later

events, however, would seem to indicate that while Delcasse was satis-

fied for the time being with a static agreement with Britain, Cambon

worked diligently in the direction of a closer relationship between the

two Powers. Out of this constant, and often subtle, effort on the part

of the Ambassador was to come the military and naval agreements be-

tween Britain and France which, by 1912, had the two Powers so in-

volved as to make British participation in a war between France and

Germany a foregone conclusion.

The next logical step, after the conclusion of the Anglo-French

Entente in 1904, from the point of view of the French Foreign Office,

would be a rapprochement between her new friends and Russia, her old

ally. Desirable as such an arrangement would have been, however, the

differences separating the Czar's foreign policy from that of the British

Empire were too great. The matter of an agreement with Russia was

2 5Joseph Ward 1Swain, Beginning the Twentieth Century, p. 262.

given serious consideration during the period of the Anglo-French nego-

tiations, but the points of conflict between the two countries were too

numerous and the gulf that separated their interests was too wide at this

time. Anglo-Russian interests collided in Persia, in Afghanistan, and

in Tibet, and to the British it seemed that the Russian government was

unwilling to take a position that would make any attempt at an under-

standing plausible. Furthermore, as Russia was at war with Britain's

Far Eastern ally, Japan, it was decided that the time was not appro-

priate for an understanding between the two governments. 26

On the other hand, the Russo-Japanese War constituted a force

which might ultimately lead to an Anglo-Russian entente. It was a para-

doxical situation, in that France's ally was at war with the ally of her

new friend. This made for a rather tense situation-naturally one in

which Russia sought the neutrality of Britain, and in which France used

her good offices to assist in bettering relations between the two. During

the war the help of a third Power was needed to maintain peace between

Russia and England. Particularly was this true at such times as Rus-

sia's interception of British shipments of contraband to the Far East,

and on the occasion of the Dogger Bank affair. Likewise, the war served

to establish an understanding between England and Russia by its out-

come. When Russia was torn by revolution, after her unexpected defeat

2 6 Lansdowne to Spring Rice, April 22, 1904, B. D., IV, no. 183,p. 188, and Newton, o cit. , p. 332.

by the Japanese, it became imperative that the Czar should make as

many friends as possible and thereby strengthen his weakened govern-

ment. This course of action was to lead ultimately to the Triple Entente,

but numerous events were to occur before this agreement was reached.

In 1904, with the signing of the Entente Gordiale, Delcassd could

view with a measure of pride his accomplishments to that date. He had

suffered losses, it was true; he had lost Egypt at Fashoda, and by sign-

ing the Entente with Britain he had acknowledged that loss. His settle-

ment of the Newfoundland controversy had not met with unanimous ap-

proval in France; especially in those provinces in which the fishing

rights in the territory were of value. To offset these losses he had ac-

quired the friendship of Britain, and he had received a measure of ap-

proval from that nation for his designs on Morocco. Of added value in

this connection was the prestige given to France in her dealings with

Spain in regard to Morocco. When Britain acquiesced to French plans

in the Sherifian Empire, Spain's role in the area was established for her;

regardless of provisions in the Entente for the protection of Spain, she

could only expect to get such territory as France and Britain saw fit

to give her. Thus, Delcassd, with the bold and able assistance of Jules

Gambon, lost no time in reaching a formal agreement with Spain in rela-

tion to Morocco.

Delcass6, by the time he reached manhood, was a man with a mis-

sion in life. His mission was to restore his douce France to her former

position of eminence in the affairs of Europe-a position from which she

had fallen at Frankfort in 1871. As the disciple of Gambetta, his life's

work was dedicated to the erasure of the achievements of Bismarck, who

had sought to quarantine France after the Franco-Prussian War by iso-

lating his victim from the Powers of Europe. In Delcasse's view, France

had taken a step in the right direction by the signing of the Dual Alliance

with Russia in 1894. True, his agreement with England was not an al-

liance; England had limited her support of France to diplomatic aid, but

it was a "foot in the door, " which by careful manipulation in skillful

hands might eventually lead to better things. Equally true, the agree-

ment dealt only with questions which had arisen in the past, with but a

limited promise of things to come-to the extent that France intimated

a limited penetration of Morocco in exchange for her withdrawal from

Egypt. It was to be a small-scale colonial venture. But the French

Foreign Minister was well aware, as he had already admitted, that

colonial affairs would have to be settled on the battlefields of Europe. 27

In the opinion of Delcasse, Germany had been able to make her rapid

advance as a colonial power due to the preponderance which she asserted

in Europe. In recognition of this principle, it may well be assumed that

the French Minister proposed to make use of the friendship of England

to its fullest extent in enhancing the power of his government in dealing

with the European colonial powers.

2 7 Porter, 2J_. cit., p. 69.

Now, in what instance could this newly acquired asset be used?

Italy had been placated in 1900 by France's invitation and suggestion that

she take Tripoli. Spain had agreed to work hand-in-hand with France in

Morocco to a degree that would render the possibility of friction remote.

Austria was without pronounced colonial ambitions. The Entente Cor-

diale, as a diplomatic weapon, could be directed only against Germany

-- the arch foe of France in Delcassd's over-all foreign policy-and a

motivating influence in Britain's desire to enter an agreement with

France in the first place.

It must have been obvious to the Wilhelmstrasse that these diplo-

matic moves on the part of the French and British Foreign Offices held

a future threat for Germany. What, then, was Germany's reaction to

the forming of the Anglo-French Entente? Oddly enough, in the begin-

ning, the idea of an understanding between the two Powers was looked

upon with favor in Germany. That an agreement between the two was

being considered was reported by Count von Metternich, German Am-

bassador in London, as early as January 30, 1902-a fact that Lord

Lansdowne promptly denied. The first inclination in Germany was to

think of the proposal in terms of an understanding between England,

Russia, and France; and, Anglo-Russian differences being what they

were at the time, such an achievement was not considered likely by

Berlin. As the understanding progressed, during the next several

months, and Germany saw that it was headed toward a satisfactory con-

clusion, it was still looked upon as no cause for alarm. Metternich, in

London, writing to the Chancellor in June, 1903, closed his dispatch by

saying:

I am convinced that the British Government, by the pro-gressive reconciliation with France which has fallen so neatlyinto their lap, means no contrary implication as regards Ger-many. They have the satisfactory feeling of having one rivalthe less, without any sacrifice involved. Their prestige isincreased at home and to some extent abroad also. Recon-ciliation with one opponent does not necessarily imply enmitywith another. 28

An Anglo-French alliance was considered in Berlin as "music of the fu-

ture, " and it was believed that the Franco-Russian Alliance was slowly

breaking under the strain of conflicting interests in the Balkans. Count

Bulow and Baron von Holstein had the international situation carefully

figured out and were not alarmed at what the future held in store for

Germany. The Chancellor was of the opinion that,

Delcass6's coquetting with England would become seri-ous for us only in case he should also succeed in bringingabout a rapprochement between England and Russia. . . .Otherwise his wooing of England will . . . strengthen CountLamsdorff in the thought that the former League of the ThreeEmperors is, all things considered, the best combination forRussian autocracy. But the present grouping will change soon,and in my opinion, we cannot take things too cooly. 29

2 8 Metternich to Bulow, June 2, 1903, German Diplomatic Docu-ments, 1871-1914, selected and translated by E. T. S. Dugdale, Vol.III, no. 591, p. 175.

2 9 Anderson, 2po. cit., p. 135.

This opinion was shared by the Kaiser, who, asserting that Germany

was not interested in Morocco, went so far as to speak to the British

Ambassador, Sir Frank Lascelles, who reported the conversation to

Lansdowne, of his desire for an Anglo-German understanding similar to

that between France and Britain. On this occasion, however, the Kaiser

was not given much encouragement that such an understanding was pos-

sible in the immediate future. 30

On May 10, 1903, the German complacency regarding the Anglo-

French situation received its first jolt in the form of a report from Baron

Eckardstein, formerly first secretary of the German embassy in London.

It was the Baron's belief that the Entente not only would be concluded,

but that it would not cause a breach in the Dual Alliance. Instead, as

Eckardstein saw the situation,

. . . A new Triple Alliance is being formed, which, althoughit may assume no written form and perhaps may endure onlyfor a number of years, will for a time cause us everywhereat least economic and political difficulties. 31

In September, German uneasiness was further aggravated by the news

that the Anglo-French settlement was already far advanced and that

France and Spain were also negotiating over Morocco.

At this point Germany decided to intervene. The German Ambassa-

dor at Madrid, Joseph von Radowitz, was instructed to make every

3 0 Lascelles to Lansdowne, May 18, 1904, B. D., III, no. 1, p. 1.

3 1 Anderson, L. cit., p. 136.

effort to protect the economic interests of Germany in Morocco, either

"through direct negotiations with Spain, through breaking the way for

participation in the negotiations of the most interested states, or through

proposing a conference. "32 At this time, it appears that the German

government began to see the decline of its diplomatic position and the

improvement in the position of France; consequently, Germany now

hoped to divide Morocco with Great Britain, France, and Spain.

This interest of Germany in the division of the territory covered

by the Entente Gordiale was destined to lead to the First Moroccan Crisis

which provided the necessary stimulus in making the Entente Cordiale

something more than a mere understanding between the two Powers.

Actually, this crisis precipitated Anglo-French military and naval

conversations, which represent a French attempt to turn the under-

standing with England into an alliance.

3 2 Ibid., p. 137.

CHAPTER II

THE FIRST MOROCCAN CRISIS, 1904-1906

The year 1904 was to be one of the high-water marks in the career

of Theophile Delcasse. The understanding reached with Britain held im-

plications of inestimable value to a man of vision and purpose; it also

contained concrete term -, open and secret, which, if carried out with

dexterity, would result il French domination in the Sherifian Empire.

French public opinion considered that in the Fashoda incident the home -

land had suffered a staggering colonial loss. Consequently, there had

been outspoken criticism, of the policies of the Foreign Minister. Now,

with the Entente Cordiale concluded, Delcass6 set to work to recoup

French losses.

Morocco, the prize in case Delcasse's aspirations were realized,

was a country which would make a considerable effort worth-while.

Much of the land is fertile and, thanks to the protection of the Atlas

Mountains, the climate in the western and northern parts of the country

is both pleasant and healthful. It is an African land in which Europeans

can live in comfort. In addition to the advantages of soil and climate,

it was thought, in 1904, that the country held a tremendous mineral

potential. Then again, its location made it desirable from the standpoint

of the French. Located at the western end of the north-African coast,

just south of Gibraltar, its eastern boundary is for many miles con-

terminous with Algeria. Just as it had once become necessary for

France, according to imperialistic logic, to acquire Tunis on the east

of Algeria, Morocco, on the west, now became equally indispensable.

It is perhaps odd that such a prize would be available at this late date

in European imperialistic affairs.

Regardless of the attractions of the country and its strategic im-

portance, it was one of the last parts of Africa to be appropriated by

European imperialism. The reasons for this anomaly are two: First,

the war-like qualities of its inhabitants, the Berber tribesmen of the

mountains and the Arabs and Moors of the plains, who gave but little

allegiance to the Sultan who headed the central government, were of

sufficient strength to discourage European encroachments. Second, and

perhaps the better reason, "is the fact that too many European powers

were interested in preventing any one empire from swallowing up the

Sultan Ts realm.

In partial disregard of this second reason, Delcasse prepared to

move in 1904. He had assiduously prepared the way in all important

quarters except one-Germany. This mistake was to prove his un-

doing.

1 Parker T. Moon, Imperialism and World Politics, pp. 197-198.

The program which the French Foreign Minister sought to follow

in Morocco was one of pacific penetration. To make this action possi-

ble, the French Parliament voted to provide a fund of 600,000 francs.

The next step was the sending of a mission to Fez under the Count de

Saint-Aulaire, First Secretary of the legation in Tangier. It was the

purpose of this mission to make known to the Sultan the friendly inter-

est of France; to state the need of progressive reforms in his domain;

and to acquaint him with the terms of the Anglo-French agreement of

April 8, 1904. 2

News of the plans which France and Britain had agreed upon for

Morocco must have been disquieting to the Sultan. Far-reaching plans

had been worked out among the Powers, and he had not been consulted.

Practically all elements among his people were opposed to foreign con-

trol of any kind, and if he submitted, his actions might well lead to a

revolt which would endanger his position as ruler. Fortunately for the

Sultan's peace of mind, he did not know at this time of the secret pro-

visions of the Anglo-French treaty. Nevertheless, since the Count de

Saint-Aulaire took particular pains to explain the situation in such a way

as to hide the full significance of the accord, the holder of the "Um-

brella" soon calmed down, and began to think of ways in which the new

status of affairs would be of profit to himself.

2 AcAnder son, ogp. cit. , p. 128.

The first possible benefit which occurred to the Sultan was a

loan; the Moroccan ruler was without funds. And because of this diffi-

culty he could not collect taxes nor maintain an army. 3 Earlier in the

year he had begun negotiations with the Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas

for a loan. In seeking this loan he had asked the help of the French gov-

ernment. Delcasse had readily promised his support. In this situation

the Sultan could only show favor toward the Anglo-French agreement. In

June he was able to conclude the transaction for the loan. 4

This was not the first venture of the Sultan, Abdul Aziz, in the

field of borrowing from European sources. He had received funds on

previous occasions from France, England, and Spain, but they had been

of relatively small amounts and had not led to serious consequences. It

should be said of Abdul that he had not always spent his money in a very

judicious manner, as most of the proceeds had gone for such things as

bicycles and player-pianos for his harem, and fireworks for the enter-

tainment of his court. 5 In 1904, however, the loan was much larger

and the provisions were more involved.

On June 12, 1904, a consortium of eleven French banks headed by

the Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas, fulfilled political as well as eco-

nomic purposes by granting the loan, for it was backed by the French

3 Lansdowne to Monson, April 12, 1904, B. D., III, no. 26,pp. 27-28.

4Anderson, o cit., pp. 129-130. 5Moon, op. cit. ,P. 202.

government and its provisions were suitable for the purpose of carrying

out the pacific penetration of Morocco. The loan has been described as

follows:

The amount was 62,500,000 francs (Art. X), of which 80per cent was actually to be credited to the Sultan (Art. XXIV).The interest was set at 5 per cent (Art. III). The loan was tobe redeemed within thirty-six years, but the schedule ofamortization was fixed and could not be hastened during thefirst fifteen years (Arts. IV, VII). The loan, guaranteed bythe customs duties in all the ports of Morocco, was to havepreference and priority over all other loans which might besimilarly guaranteed (Art. XI). Sixty per cent of the customsrevenue were reserved for the repayment of the obligation.If the necessary amount was not obtained thereby, the Moroc-can government was to make up the deficit (Art. XVII). Twomillion francs were left in the bank at Paris to cover short .payments; if withdrawn, this amount was to be re-establishedimmediately by the Sultan's government (Art. XXI). The re-mainder, after the Sultan's outstanding loans were liquidated,was placed at the ruler's disposal to be drawn upon at will(Arts. XXV, XXXV). By Article XIV the existing customstreaties and arrangements of Morocco with the Powers wereguaranteed. Article XXXII prohibited the Sultan from usingthe customs receipts at his disposal to guarantee any otherloan without a previous agreement with the French banks.By Article XXXIII those banks were given the right of prefer-ence in contracting new loans, coining money, or buying andselling gold and silver for Morocco, provided the conditionsthey offered were equal to those offered by others. The col-lection of the customs was to be supervised by a specialgroup of French officials under the protection of the Frenchlegation. Their director should communicate with the Moroc-can government through the French Minister at Tangier.Furthermore, if the stipulated funds were not turned over tothe supervisors, the agents could appeal to the French Minis-ter; and, with his consent and with due notification to the Sul-tan, they could collect the sums themselves. Thus, when bythe last of July those officials were installed, the control ofthe customs was practically lost to the Sultan. 6

6Anderson, 2R. c it. , p. 130.

The execution of this loan was, of course, a pronounced step forward

in the plans of the French Foreign Office. As already stated, the loan

had received the blessing of Delcassd, and it was ably assisted by Saint-

Aulaire in Fez at the time of its negotiation.

The pacific penetration of France in Morocco in 1904 was to be as-

sisted by other means. On May 18, an American citizen, Ion Perdicaris,

and his English son-in-law, Varley, were kidnapped from the home of

the American near Tangier. This outrage, committed by the Moroccan

bandit, Raisouli, convinced public opinion everywhere that it was high

time that reforms were carried out in the realm of the Sultan. The

objectives of the bandit were threefold. First, he wanted a large ran-

som. Second, he demanded the dismissal of certain of the Sultan's

officials who were his enemies. And third, he demanded that the

Sultan appoint him as pasha for the district around Tangier. Abdul

Aziz had to accept the bandit's terms.

On June 24, the two victims were released by Raisouli. The

release was brought about by the French government, working through

some of its Algerian religious leaders with connections in Morocco.

The kidnapping led the foreigners living in Tangier to request protec-

tion. Heeding this request, the French government sent two warships

to Moroccan waters and secured the appointment of French and Algerian

officers over the police of Tangier. French plans in the Sherifian Em-

pire were well under way.

During the summer French plans went steadily forward. Private

interests began to move into Morocco and plans were made for the sys-

tematic exploitation of resources there. But in the fall the outlook for

peaceful penetration began to darken. Border incidents in which French

troops became involved were reported with increasing frequency, and

the Paris press found it necessary to advocate the establishment of

French military posts in Morocco in an effort to "overawe the neigh-

bouring tribes, " and "to bring the tribes under some scheme of taxation

as has been done in Tunis. "7

In December the Sultan dismissed all foreign employees at Fez

and Rabat. On this occasion Monson, British Ambassador at Paris,

reported the situation as follows:

The news of the dismissal by the Sultan of Morocco ofhis foreign advisers and employsd, " including the FrenchMilitary Mission, has attracted, as is natural, great atten-tion in France. It has been.hailed by the prophets of evilin respect of the responsibilities undertaken by France inMorocco, under the Anglo-French Understanding of the 8thof April last, as an early confirmation of their warnings.The Government Press however is not yet ready to admitthat the policy of "pacific penetration" will have to be aban-doned. It agrees with the Opposition newspapers in declar-ing loudly that the slight put upon the Power which is to behenceforward the predominant one in Morocco must be re-sented and punished. But it holds that the measures to betaken with this end in view must be such as not to impairthe Sultan's authority, which is still to be the main instru-ment of the French pacific advance into the country. . .

Either the Oujda district may be annexed, or the eight ports

7 Monson to Lansdowne, October 7, 1904, B. D., III, no. 63,pp. 54-55.

open to foreign commerce may be seized and held pendingcompliance with the French demands . . . .

. . . Meanwhile there is general approval of M. Del-cass6's action in withdrawing all the French citizens residingin Fez. 8

Events were not shaping up well for the French in Morocco toward

the end of 1904. It was apparent through incidents that had occurred up

to this time that the Sultan would prove a difficult obstacle to Delcass6's

new African venture. He was to discover an even more serious opposi-

tion in the near future. Failure to secure the approval of Imperial Ger-

many proved to be the greatest shortcoming of his policy; this weak-

ness proved dangerous for France and disastrous for the Foreign Min-

ister.

As early as September 24, 1903, Germany had decided to inter-

vene in the Moroccan dispute. On that date the government instructed

the Ambassador at Madrid as follows:

By virtue of our political international position andespecially by virtue of the great significance of our economicinterests in Morocco, we must seek to be considered also ina division of the land by obtaining territorial compensation,for example in the region' of the Sus, or elsewhere in thecolonial world, perhaps by the cession of Fernando Po.Your excellency should weigh thoroughly the means by whichwe should best reach that goal, whether through direct nego-tiations with Spain, through breaking the way for participa-tion in the negotiations of the most interested states, orthrough proposing a conference. 9

8 Monson to Lansdowne, December 26, 1904, B. D., III, no. 64,p. 55.

9 Richthofen to Radowitz, September 24, 1903, quoted in Anderson,op. cit. , p. 137.

This diplomatic correspondence was to prove singularly prophetic of

the manner in which the German Foreign Office was to deal with the

Moroccan question in the years to come.

By the time the period under discussion was reached, Germany

had made rapid strides as a commercial nation. Although her trade

with the Sherifian Empire was not as great as that of England, France,

or Spain, it was of such volume as to make it a matter of serious con-

cern to the German government. 10 Certain elements within Germany

were particularly interested in the economic potential of Morocco, no-

tably the Pan-German League. The Chancellor was not especially

alarmed by early events during France's pacific penetration in Morocco,

but he was gravely disturbed by the prospect of sacrificing the future of

German economic interests in Africa. He did not propose to sit idly

by while the interests of his nation were being jeopardized. 11

As early as April 5, 1904, before the Anglo-French understand-

ing was formally signed, the German Minister at Tangier, Baron von

Mentzingen, had suggested to Bulow that "as France has not advanced

further than at present in extending her influence in Morocco, she would

feel less mortified now, supposing we occupied a point on the coast-

1 0Saint Rene Taillandier to Delcassd, January 27, 1903, Docu-ments diplomatigues frangais, 1871-1914, series 2, Vol. III, no. 44,pp. 56-59.

1 1Ima C. Barlow, The Agadir Crisis, p. 41.

9069W I - -44WM

say, Agadir. "12 In June of the same year Baron von Holstein, in the

German Foreign Office, had raised the issue of the effect of the French

actions on German prestige, and concluded that "in order to protect her

prestige, Germany must protest against France's intention to acquire

Morocco. " In his memorandum, the Baron goes on to say:

. . . The point to be made good is as follows: France's evi-dent scheme to absorb Morocco finishes the free competitionof foreign countries and involves sensible injury to the inter-ests of third Powers, especially Germany, for now and later.For long we have clung to the belief that France would seekan understanding with the Powers interested. This howeverhas not happened as far as Germany is concerned. There-fore the German Government finds itself forced to take theinitiative in favour of German interests, which the Em-peror summed up to the King of Spain as follows: "We de-mand freedom to trade and do business in Morocco. " Butthe fact of the French acquisition annuls this programme;

vide Tunis, Tonkin, Madagascar, etc. . .. 0

As the German government saw the situation, Delcasse had obtained the

permission of all the Powers with an interest in the Sultan's realm ex-

cept Germany; this was a direct affront to that nation's prestige. If

Germany allowed such a high-handed action to take place in this in-

stance, it might well lead to similar actions at some future date. Fur -

thermore, the plans of France, which the Anglo-French entente seemed

to indicate, were in strict violation of the terms of the agreement re-

lating to Morocco which had been reached at Madrid in 1880 between

1 2 Mentzinger to Bulow, April 5, 1904, Dugdale, op. cit.,

no. 202, pp. 219-220.

1 3 Memorandum by Baron'von Holstein, June 3, 1904, ibid.no. 207, pp. 220-221.

fourteen nations. By a treaty in 1890 Germany had obtained a guaran-

tee of commercial rights equal to those of the "most favoured nation"

14as defined by the Madrid Conference. Again, Germany refused to

concede that the position of France in Algeria gave her any legitimate

rights in Morocco simply because the two African states were neigh-

bors. Too, at this late date in European imperialistic affairs, the

areas in which a Power with colonial ambitions might expect to expand

were rapidly diminishing. Morocco was one of the last, and the German

government was unwilling to see its future possibilities there eliminated

without compensation for the losses sustained.

All of these reasons seem valid, in view of the situation in Morocco

at the close of 1904, but some have thought that Germany had still an-

other motive for her actions; that is, the idea-given wide acceptance

by those contemporary to the period, especially in France and Britain

-that the German government used the situation to test the Anglo-

French understanding. . Eyre Crowe, writing in 1907, said that "the

German view on this subject cannot be better stated than was done by

Herr von Tschirschky, now Foreign Secretary at Berlin, then Prussian

Minister at Hamburg, in speaking on New Year's Day, 1906, to His

Majesty's Consul-General at that place. " He said:

Germany's policy always had been, and would be, totry to frustrate any coalition between two States which mightresult in damaging Germany's interests and prestige; and

1 4 Moon, op.L cit., p. 198.

Germany would, if she thought that such a coalition was being

formed, even if its actual results had not yet been carried

into practical effect, not hesitate to take such steps as she

thought proper to break up the coalition.

In the same memorandum, Crowe continues:

In pursuance of this policy, which, whatever its merits

or demerits, is certainly quite intelligible, Germany waited

for the opportune moment for taking action, with the view of

breaking up, if possible, the Anglo-French entente. When

Russia was staggering under the crushing blows inflicted byJapan, and threatened by internal revolution, the German

campaign was opened. The object of nipping in the bud the

young friendship between France and England was to be at-

tained by using as a stalking-horse those very interests in

Morocco which the Imperial Chancellor had, barely a year

before, publicly declared to be in no way imperilled. 15

The German decision in the matter most likely resulted from the

more practical reasons given. If actions taken to prevent the pre-

emption of Morocco by France led to the destruction of that nation's

agreement with England, so much the better.

The plan of action decided upon by Bulow and the German Foreign

Office was to encourage the Sultan to resist the plans of Delcass6. In

the spring of 1905 the German Emperor, William II, took a yachting

trip in the Mediterranean. The Chancellor and Holstein decided that

this would be an excellent opportunity for him to visit Tangier and try

to convince the Moors that in his opinion their ruler was a sovereign,

and must be considered as such by all nations. The Emperor was not

in favor of the visit, but his advisers, by announcing the forthcoming

1 5 Memorandum by Eyre Crowe, January 1, 1907, B. D., III,

Appendix A, p. 400.

event in the press, placed him in such a position that he had little choice

in the matter. Bulow explained to the Emperor as follows:

Your Majesty's visit to Tangier will embarrass M. Del-cass6, traverse his schemes, and further our business inter-est in Morocco. (The Emperor: "Tant mieux. ")16

On March 31, William II landed at Tangier and was enthusiastically

greeted by the Moors.

Herbert E. White, British Consul at Tangier, reported the Em-

peror's visit to Morocco as follows:

I have the honour to report that when the German

Emperor landed on the pier he was warmly greeted by MulaiAbdelmalek [the Sultan's representative] , who saluted him inthe Sultan's name and stated that His Shereefian Majesty's joyat receiving the visit was not only on His Majesty's own ac-

count but also on that of his subjects.The Emperor replied that it gave him great pleasure and

satisfaction to salute a near relative of the Sultan, and he re-quested him to convey to the Sultan his thanks for having sentthe special embassy to greet him, and also for the magnificentpreparations made for his reception. His Imperial Majestyadded that he was deeply interested in the welfare and pros-perity of the Moorish Empire. It was to the Sultan as an inde -pendent sovereign, that he was paying a visit and he trustedthat, under His Shereefian Majesty's sovereignty, Moroccowould remain free, and open to the peaceful competition of allnations without monopolies or exclusion.

When later on at the German Legation Mulai Abdelmalekhanded to the Emperor the Sultan's letter, his Highness said:

"His Shereefian Majesty, recalling the friendship which hasalways existed between His Majesty's illustrious ancestors andthe German Government, is animated by the desire to strength-en and extend that friendship by all means as far as possible.I fulfill the orders I have received in conveying to Your Maj-esty the message with which I have been charged by the Sultan.

1 6 Bulow to William II, March 20, 1905, Dugdale, op.cit.,no. 262, p. 223.

mime" -01-

His Shereefian Majesty's friendship with Your Imperial Majestyis already well known to all. I beg Your Majesty to receivethis message with gracious clemency in accordance with thebonds of strong friendship. "

The Emperor in reply thanked Mulai Abdelmalek moreespecially for the expressions of sincere friendship containedin the message. He entirely concurred in the Sultan's senti-ments. It proved emphatically the omnipotence of the divinewisdom, which, as the Ambassador knew, directed the fate ofnations. He personally most sincerely wished the developmentand the prosperity of the Moorish Empire as much as for thegood of His Shereefian Majesty's own subjects as for that ofthe nations of Europe trading in this country, as he hoped, ona footing of perfect equality.

His Imperial Majesty added that he had visited Tangierresolved to do all that lay in his power to efficiently safe-guard German Interests in Morocco. He considered the Sul-tan an absolutely independent Sovereign and it was with HisMajesty that he desired to come to an understanding as to ameans of safeguarding those interests.

I am informed that the foregoing account of the speechesexchanged between Mulai Abdelmalek and the German Emperorwas furnished to a Journalist by the German Charge d'Affaires.17

Of his visit to Tangier the Imperial tourist was to say at a later

date:

I went to Tangier for the express purpose of telling theFrench Minister what my views were. I said, "I know nothingof any agreement between France and Morocco. For me, theSultan is an independent sovereign. I am determined not tohave a repetition of what happened in Tunis. ,,18

The Emperor's speech, prepared for him by the Chancellor and

the Foreign Office, clearly stated Germany's attitude regarding French

plans for pacific penetration in the realm of the Sultan. The British

1 7 White to Lansdowne, April 2, 1905, B. D., III, no. 72, p. 63.

1 8 Newton, 2p. cit., p. 333.

were considerably provoked by the turn of events. The characteristic

ebullience with which his nephew was proclaiming German foreign pol-

icy was especially exasperating to Edward VII. The always ardent

Sir John Fisher, First Sea Lord, at this point was impressed by the

"golden opportunity" of a war with Germany, and in writing to Lans-

downe on April 22, the Admiral predicted "we could have the German

Fleet, the Kiel Canal, and Schleswig-Holstein within a fortnight. "119

The turn of events brought about by the Emperor's visit now

forced Delcass6 to seek an understanding with Germany in the Moroccan

question. He stated publicly that France was ready to correct any mis-

understanding on the part of Germany, and denied that any member of

the French diplomatic corps had ever told the Sultan that the French had

a mandate of Europe for their penetrations into his land. The Foreign

Minister contended that freedom of commerce for all nations had been

completely safeguarded in the Anglo-French understanding, as well as

in the Franco-Spanish agreement. Unfortunately for Delcasse, he did

not have the loyal support of his nation in this controversy with Ger-

many. As the quarrel with Germany continued, French opinion, both

inside the government and out, became more and more alarmed. Rou-

vier, the French Prime Minister, came to the assistance of Delcass6,

to the extent that he was retained in the Cabinet, but the former assured

19 Ibid., p. 335.

the Chamber that in the future all of the actions of the Foreign Minister

would be under his supervision. Delcasse would have resigned atthis

time had it not been for appeals from President Loubet, Paul Cambon,

and Barrere, French Ambassador at Rome. French public opinion

feared a war with Germany and was yielding to such a threat. 20

After the visit of William II to Tangier, the German government

decided that the best way to handle the Moroccan question would be by

holding an international conference. The calling of a conference was

justified on the grounds that Germany, along with other Powers, such

as the United States and Austria, had not been consulted in the matter

at the time it was being considered by France, Italy, Britain, and

Spain. Furthermore, since the status quo, or the "open door" policy

in Morocco had been established by the Madrid Conference, any change

in that policy would have to come, Germany insisted, as the result of

another such conference. 21 In addition to the logic of this conclusion,

the German Foreign Office was of the opinion that handling the matter

in this way would prove to be quite embarrassing to France; this, too,

would serve Germany's purpose. The German government immediately

set to work to line up support for such a conference.

The French government was at a loss as to just what Germany

wanted. They failed to understand how Germany could accept the

20Anderson, 2p. cit., p. 201.

2 1 Bulow to William II, April 4, 1905, Dugdale, 2p. cit., no. 301,

pp. 224-225.

Egyptian clauses of the Anglo-French agreement and at the same time

protest so vigorously the French penetrations into Morocco. 22 Gould it

be that Germany merely wanted to get rid of Delcass or, was Germany

using the Moroccan question as a cause for war with France?

For his part, Delcassd did not think that war was likely; rather,

he thought that Germany was bluffing. If he were wrong, however, he

claimed that France had the unqualified support of Britain at this time,

and in case war did come, the assistance of the English Fleet would be

invaluable to France. This fact has never been admitted by the Brit-

ish, but the Foreign Minister persisted in contending that France

should not yield to the German demand for a conference. Defending his

position before the Council of Ministers on June 6, Delcass' said:

Weigh carefully the decision that you are about to make.Today, England boldly espouses our cause. But tomorrow,if she sees us weaken or tremble, . . . she will no longertake any stock in us. And, turning around her batteries, shewill negotiate a reconciliation with Berlin at the expense ofour Colonial Empire. . 23

To prove his point that France could count on British help, he read from

Lansdowne's note of the twenty-fifth to Cambon. This note had been

written when it was suspected that Germany would try to obtain a port

in Morocco. According to Lansdowne's version, the note read as fol-

lows:

2 2 Anderson, op. c it. , p. 203.

2 3 Porter, op cit., p. 259.

fflkWAwv-MwwaNm - I- -- -NRAOSO

. 0. .The French and British Governments should con-tinue to treat one another with the most absolute confidence,that we should keep one another fully informed to everythingwhich came to our knowledge, and so far as possible discussany contingencies by which we might in the course of eventsfind ourselves confronted. 24

The French version of the note was considerably more emphatic in its

terms than that of the British. According to the French Foreign Office,

the note read:

Le Gourvenement de Sa Majeste britannique serait preta se joindre au Gourvenement de la Republique pour s'opposerfortement a une telle proposition, et prie M. Delcasse dans lecas ou la question surgirait, de donner au Gourvenement de SaMajesty britannique toute occasion de concerter avec leGouvernement fransais les mesures qui pourraient 8te prisespour aller a l'encontre de cette demande. 25

There is a considerable discrepancy in the terms used in the two notes,

but as the British version is based on the content of a subsequent note

from Lansdowne to Cambon, it may well be that the British Minister's

memory was a bit hazy.

These notes seem to constitute the origin of the offensive and de-

fensive alliance between the two Powers and later to the story that,

in 1905 when the German Government first took an ag-gressive tone about French projects of reform in Morocco,the British Government promised military assistance toFrance if she were attacked by Germany, including a landingof an expedition of 120,000 men in Schleswig.

2 4 Lansdowne to Cambon, May 25, 1905, B. D., III, no. 95, p. 77.

2 5 Aide-Memoire de L'Ambassade de Grande-Bretagne, avril 24,1905, D. D. F., 2nd series, VI, no. 347, pp. 414-415.

WAMMM~

Lansdowne categorically denies making such an offer and agrees with

Sir T. H. Sanderson, Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign

Affairs, who said:

I think I am justified in affirming that no such promisewas made-and that we went no farther than warning the Ger-man Government that if Germany attacked France in connexionwith the Entente we could not undertake to remain indifferent.

There were no doubt preparations by our military au-thorities for defending Belgium in case of an attack by Ger-many through Belgian territory, and these preparations musthave been known to the French military attache in London.There was also a good deal of loose talk in naval circles andin some high quarters of a possible expedition to Schleswigin the possible event of war. I do not believe such a measurewas ever seriously entertained, and I looked upon the reportas put about for the purpose of a warning. 26

Despite this denial, it is interesting to note that Delcassd maintained un-

til his death that Britain had offered him military and naval assistance

at this time.

When Delcasse appeared before the Council of Ministers to defend

his policy, the issue was clearly drawn. It was either a continuation of

French demands for reform by the Sultan as proposed by the Foreign

Minister, or the submission to the German proposal for an international

conference. The latter proposal had the support of Rouvier at the time.

The Sultan had, by this date, rejected the French demands and adopted

the German proposal. Rouvier was of the opinion that if he consented

to drop Delcass4 from the Cabinet, a very critical situation would be

2 6 Written opinion by Lord Sanderson, August 17, 1922, B. D.,III, no. 105, p. 87.

relieved and that Germany would not prove too difficult to deal with at

the time the conference assembled. By unanimous decision, the Cabi-

net voted to support the Prime Minister. On this date, June 6, Delcasse

ended his long term as Foreign Minister and Rouvier succeeded him. 27

For seven years the disciple of Gambetta had held the portfolio

of Foreign Minister. During this period he had labored tirelessly to

improve the position of France and carry on the ideal of revanche. He

had become the architect of the Entente Cordiale and had tried to give

a far more potent meaning than that expressed in Article IX of the agree-

ment. Delcass6, on his last clay as Foreign Minister, had told the

Council that Britain offered military and naval support to France in case

of war with Germany. In effect, the understanding of April 8, 1904,

had become a military alliance between the two countries on June 6,

1905. The fact that Delcasse was dropped from the Cabinet seems am-

ple proof that he failed to convince the Council that such an alliance was

a reality.

There is no documentary evidence extant which corroborates the

claim made by Delcasse on June 6. There are documents indicating

certain British "guarantees" to France made during the period from

April to October, however. For example, "in the 'Communications to

French Government from Sir F. Bertie' exists one endorsed as follows:

187.

2 7 Sidney B. Fay, The Origins of the World War, Vol. I, pp. 186-

Draft M. Delcasse', Aide Memoire, Paris 24 April.

Morocco. H. M. Government promise their support to FrenchGovernment against possible demand by Germany for a port. 1

Still another communication was that "le Gouvernement de Sa Majeste

Britannique trouve que les procede's ce l'Allemagne dans la question

du Maroc sont des plus deraisonnables." This attitude led to the Brit-

ish desire of concerter with the French in the Moroccan question. 28

The terms used are, of course, somewhat vague, as is the case in dip-

lomatic intercourse. It is probable that the meaning of these communi-

cations was much more exact to the principals at the time than their

meaning would be at a considerably later date.

The substance of the British "guarantees" to France were made

known to the French public in two articles written in le Matin by Stdphane

Lauzanne. In these accounts of the "guarantees, " Lauzanne reported

the statements made by Delcasse before the Council of Ministers on

June 6. 29 These articles, one published on October 6 and a second on

the following day, in addition to informing the French public, infuriated

certain elements in Germany. The German hostility was now divided

between France and England, and considerable effort was necessary to

placate this animosity; this was achieved, however, due to the efforts

2 8 Draft by Sir F. Bertie, April 24, 1905, B. D. , III, no. 91,pp. 73-74.

2 9 Note du Directeur du Cabinet du Pr('sident du Conseil, October 6,1905, D. D. F., 2nd series, VI, no. 20, pp. 34-35.

of Rouvier and the British Foreign Office, and plans went forward for

the conference demanded by Germany.

William II was well pleased with the outcome of the situation. The

day following Delcass's forced resignation the Kaiser rewarded Bulow

with the title of Prince. The Emperor thought that the lesson to be

learned on this occasion was: " Hurrah! for dry powder and well-

sharpened swords. ,30

The Kaiser was mistaken. The outcome of the Algeciras Confer-

ence, which convened in January, 1906, revealed that German designs

to create an atmosphere of crisis and tension had been a mistake, and

that Bulow would have been wise to have halted with the fall of Delcasse.

"Instead of effecting a breach in the Entente, the insistence on a Confer-

ence welded it. "31

Balfour resigned office in December, 1905, and the Liberal leader,

Henry Campbell-Bannerman, became Prime Minister. A general elec-

tion was held in the following year in which the Liberals sustained an

overwhelming majority. In the new government Edward Grey became

Foreign Minister, and lost no time in indicating that he would support

the Anglo-French understanding of 1904. "Campbell-Bannerman, in

his first official statement after the Liberal victory at the polls,

3 0 Nicholas Mansergh, The Coming of the First World War, p. 96.

31Ibid., p. 97.

emphatically reaffirmed the solidarity of the Entente Cordiale, 132 Grey,

in conversation with Cambon, stated that in the event of a war between

France and Germany, it was his personal opinion that England would be

strongly moved in favor of France.33

The favorable attitude of the new government was to produce the

Anglo-French military and naval conversations. The French case, as

presented by Gambon, demanded that immediate attention be given to an

understanding between the General Staffs of the two nations if British

assistance was to be of value in the event of a Franco-German war.

3 2 Ibid., p. 97.

3 3 Edward Grey, Twenty-five Years, Vol. I, pp. 133-136.

CHAPTER III

ANGLO-FRENCH MILITARY CONVERSATIONS:

FIRST PHASE

On the day of his fall from power, Thdophile Delcassd laid before

the French Cabinet certain papers which he contended were evidence

that England had promised to come to the assistance of France in case

of war with Germany. The evidence was lacking to convince the Cabi-

net, and the Rouvier government sacrificed its foreign minister to Ger-

man demands and agreed to the Algeciras conference to settle the

Moroccan question. The experience was one of humiliation to the French

nation; it was a tragic hour in the career of Delcass .

In the light of documentary evidence revealed since the First World

War it would seem that Delcasse' was mistaken in his interpretation of

the British offer of assistance in France's hour of need. Apparently,

the Foreign Minister had confused the obiter dicta of certain high of-

ficials in the government of Britain with the official attitude of that gov-

ernment. Delcassd knew what he wanted, and the wish is father to the

thought; possibly he wanted an alliance with Britain so strongly that a

minimum of encouragement sufficed to convince him that such was ac-

tually the case.

With the passing months the name Delcasse took on a new signifi-

cance. Now it stood not for the man Delcass6 but for a policy. Paul

Cambon in London at this point became the leading French figure in the

perpetuation of the policy which called for the securing of British as-

sistance to France in the event that Germany again tried to oppose her

will. From what had taken place in the immediate past, Cambon must

have known that a declared alliance with Britain would not be forth-

coming. He would have to accept a substitute. He would have to accept

the nearest approach to an alliance which he could obtain from the Brit-

ish Foreign Minister and labor in the direction of making the British

proposition tantamount to an alliance.

Edward Grey, British Foreign Secretary, and the principal figure

with whom Cambon in his machinations was to deal, has been likened by

one authority to Louis XVI. "Nature made Louis XVI for a farmhouse.

Fate tossed him into a revolution. " Likewise, "nature made Lord Grey

for a country gentleman. Fate placed him, in a time of unexampled

importance, at the head of the Foreign Office. "' The administration

of Grey might have been something entirely different had he not come

under the influence of Cambon, whose will was considerably stronger

than his own. In this regard, it has been said:

Paul Gambon, the French Ambassador, could not havefound a fitter object than Edward Grey for his arts of suggestion.

'Algernon Cecil, British Foreign Secretaries, 1807-1916, p. 317.

Very gradually and with the finest of threads, Grey was stead-ily enmeshed, always believing that it all really amounted tonothing, committed him to nothing, and was the most naturaland most harmless thing in the world. 2

Cambon, realizing the possibilities of the situation, set to work

to improve the position of France. Lansdowne, Grey's predecessor,

had given the French vague assurances that under certain circ*mstances,

in the event of a Franco-German war, England would come to the aid

of her Entente partner. England would "concert" with France. Since

this sort of assistance had proven ineffective in June of 1905, Cambon

now thought that he must secure a more concrete agreement from the

British. France did not want sympathy; she wanted action, in the event

of a situation which presented dangerous aspects. 3

France must know the attitude of the new British Foreign Minis -

ter on the subject. To ask the question point-blank would, no doubt,

result in an evasive answer, as Grey was hardly in a position to com-

mit the new government to a military alliance at this point. Perhaps

for this reason the French Ambassador appears to have gone about

getting the desired information by rather devious means.

In December, 1905, Cambon was aware that there was an ele-

ment in England which favored a military alliance with France as a

means of halting the ever-increasing hegemony of Germany in European

2 Theodor Wolff, The Eve of 1914, pp. 85-86.

3 Editor's note, B. D. , III, p. 169.

affairs. This group saw in Germany a threat to the future well-being of

the British Empire. Its leading spokesman was Colonel Repington,

military correspondent of the London Times, who at this time believed

that Germany was prepared to take advantage of the international situa-

tion, in which France's ally, Russia, was in "temporary eclipse" be-

cause of the Russo-Japanese War. As Repington saw the situation, "Ger-

many showed an evident disposition to pick a quarrel with France. " He

also regretted the fact that "we [England] had done nothing whatever to

prepare joint military action and to gain close touch with French mili-

tary circles. " The Colonel had even gone so far as to warn Germany,

in the Times, "that she would endanger her vital interest if she staked

upon a doubtful hazard the results achieved by the great founders of

German unity. " The article was concluded with the statement "that a

war might unchain animosities in unexpected quarters. "4

Here was a golden opportunity for France and it was not over -

looked by the industrious Major Huguet, French Military Attache at

London. Huguet had been appointed to his position in December, 1904,

and immediately on his arrival in England he had begun a careful ap-

praisal of the British army in terms of effectiveness in continental

warfare. 5 In November, 1905, the Attache had submitted a report to

4 G. A'Gourt Repington, The First World War, 1914-1918, Vol. I,pp. 1-2.

5 General Huguet, L'Intervention Militaire Britannique en 1914, p. 1.

Itienne, French Minister of War, on the probable length of time which

would be required for mobilization and the number of troops Britain

would be able to land on the continent. One month later he was able to

report to his superior that he had checked his figures with Major-General

J. M. Grierson, Director of Military Ope rations, British War Office,

who had agreed in substance with Huguet's earlier report. In this lat-

ter conversation Grierson had told the Major, "non 'a titre officiel, mais

simplement a titre priv6, de camarade 'a camarade, " that the co-opera-

tion of the English army with the French had been seriously studied by

the War Office. Furthermore, the General thought that if war came,

public opinion in favor of English co-operation would be so strong that

the government, whether Liberal or Conservative, would not be able to

"escape it. " He went on to say that this fact must be known to the Ger-

man Emperor, and that it would be sheer folly on his part to undertake

a war against France in which English participation was certain with all

her forces.

Huguet immediately reported this interview to Cambon. The Am-

bassador was "very struck" by the actions and sentiments of the British

War Office; he conveyed this news to the French Prime Minister and ob-

tained official permission to begin conversations with the British

6 Huguet to Etienne, November 18, 1905, D. D. F., 2nd series,VIII, no. 137, pp. 197-198.

7 Huguet to Etienne, December 20, 1905, D. D. F., 2nd series,

VIII, no. 256, pp. 351-354.

government on the subject of a definite military understanding between

the two Powers. 8

This ground-work which had been carried on by the Attach6 had its

beginning, of course, in the routine duties of Major Huguet. As the

military representative of the French government he was obliged to

make a careful appraisal of the British army. The knowledge that the

British General Staff was studying means of aiding France in the event

of war with Germany was something else, however. Here was another

opportunity for Cambon. Now he had two possibilities which might serve

to secure an alliance between France and Britain. First, there was the

sentiment of the group favoring joint military action between the two

governments, whose spokesman was Colonel Repington. Second, was

the same sentiment now found to exist within the General Staff as ex-

pressed by General Grierson. It was clearly the duty of the Ambassador

to convert these sentiments into official British policy. Military con-

versations between the two General Staffs, with the permission of the

two governments, could be the opening wedge which would lead to an al-

liance. The French representatives immediately set to work to obtain

this permission.

On December 28, 1905, Huguet dined with his close friend of long

standing, Colonel Repington. They soon found that they were in agree-

ment on the subject of Anglo-French military co-operation, but the

8 Huguet, op. cit., p. 15.

French Attache expressed concern because Grey, who had just taken

over the Foreign Office, had not renewed the assurances given by Lord

Lansdowne. Repington asked why the Councillor of the Embassy did not

go to the Foreign Office at once "to clear the air. " Major Huguet replied

that the Ambassador was out of town and in his absence a matter of

such grave consequences could not be handled by a subordinate, but

that if Grey would broach the subject at the next diplomatic reception,

the French Embassy would be much relieved. The French were afraid

that the Germans might attack suddenly, and probably through Belgium.

According to the Attache, France wanted the British to stiffen the Bel-

gians if war came.

Repington "communicated the purport of the conversation on the

morning of the 29th by express letter to Sir Edward Grey. " The For-

eign Secretary was away from London at the time because of the Gen-

eral Election,. which was in full swing, but the letter was forwarded to

him at Northumberland. On the following day Repington saw the First

Naval Lord, Admiral Sir John Fisher, at the Admiralty, and was told

by him that he, Fisher, was "prepared, on his own responsibility, to

order our fleets to go wherever they might be required. " Fisher said

that he had seen on paper Lord Lansdowne's assurances to Cambon,

and that they were "quite distinct in their tenor. " He had shown them

to Grey, and declared that they were part of the engagements taken over

from the last Government, and would hold good until denounced.

, '.1" - , ; ,; A ", ,, - -- '.A I, I -

On January 1, 1906, Repington received Grey's reply from Fallo-

don, dated December 30. Grey said:

I am interested to hear of your conversation with theFrench Military Attach6. I can only say that I have not re-ceded from anything which Lord Lansdowne said to the French,and have no hesitation in affirming it. 9

Repington was of the opinion that at this time, due to the elections, there

was a wide separation between "responsibility and the executive. " But,

as the situation was acute, he thought it imperative that action be taken

immediately in the direction of military co-operation between the two

nations. Now that he knew Grey's position, he assumed the initiative

in bringing a measure of co-operation into being. To begin with, the

Colonel, acting as a "free lance,1" submitted eleven questions to the

French government through Major Huguet. These questions were of a

general nature and the French reply was of a nature calculated to meet

with the approval of the British. On January 17 Major Huguet informed

Repington that General Grierson had opened relations with him that

morning. Believing that this constituted official action in the matter,

the Colonel withdrew from the negotiations. 10

After this beginning was made, Cambon, who had returned to Lon-

don from Paris, approached Grey directly. This interview took place

on January 10, and the Ambassador, acting on instructions from Paris,

9 Repington, 2_. cit. , pp. 3-4.

Ibid. , pp. 6-11.

wanted to know just what Britain would do to assist France in the event

of a rupture between France and Germany which might result from the

conference at Algeciras. The Foreign Secretary reported the inter-

view as follows:

M. Cambon said that he did not believe that theGerman Emperor desired war, but that His Majesty was pur-suing a very dangerous policy. He had succeeded in incitingpublic opinion and military opinion in -Germany, and there wasa risk that matters might be brought to a point in which a pa-cific issue would be difficult. During the previous discussionson the subject of Morocco, Lord Lansdowne had expressed hisopinion that the British and French Governments should franklydiscuss any eventualities that might seem possible, and by hisinstructions your Excellency had communicated a Memoran-dum to M. Delcasse to the same effect. It had not been con-sidered necessary at the time to discuss the eventuality ofwar, but it now seemed desirable that this eventuality shouldalso be considered.

M. Gambon said that he had spoken to this effect to M.Rouvier, who agreed in his view. It was not necessary, nor,indeed, expedient that there should be any formal alliance;but it was of great importance that the French Governmentshould know beforehand whether, in the event of aggressionagainst France by Germany, Great Britain would be preparedto render France armed assistance.

I replied that at the present moment the Prime Ministerwas out of town, and that the Cabinet were all dispersed seeingafter the elections; that we were not as yet aware of the senti-ments of the country as they would be expressed at the polls;and that it was impossible therefore for me, in the circum-stances, to give a reply to his Excellency's question. I couldonly state as my personal opinion that, if France were to beattacked by Germany in consequence of a question arising outof the Agreement which our predecessors had recently con-cluded with the French Government, public opinion in Englandwould be strongly moved in favour of France.

M. Cambon said that he understood this, and that hewould repeat his question after the elections.

I said that what Great Britain earnestly desired was thatthe Confer-ence should have a pacific issue favourable to France.

His Excellency replied that nothing would have a more pa-cific influence on the Emperor of Germany than the convictionthat, if Germany attacked France, she would find England al-

lied against her.

I said that, as far as a definite promise went, I was notin a position to pledge the country to more than neutrality-a benevolent neutrality, if such a thing existed. M. Cambon

said that a promise of neutrality did not, of course, satisfyhim, and repeated that he would bring the question to me againat the conclusion of the elections.

In the meantime he thought it advisable that unofficialcommunications between our Admiralty and War Office and theFrench Naval and Military Attachds should take place as towhat action might advantageously be taken in case the twocountries found themselves in alliance in such a war. Somecommunications had, he believed, already passed, and might,he thought, be continued. They did not pledge either Govern-

ment.

I did not dissent from this view. . . .

This interview is a clear demonstration of the influence of Cam-

bon upon Grey. On the day before, January 9, Grey had written to

Campbell-Bannerman as follows:

It is unfortunate that the Election clashes with the approachand meeting of the Morocco Conference, for I should like tohave been in more frequent communication with you. But thiscannot be helped. All that has passed has been sent to you,but I may sum it up as follows:

With the French matters stand as Lord Lansdowne leftthem. I have promised diplomatic support in accordance with

Article IX, and have let it be known that we shall give this.I have not said a word of anything more, and the French haveasked no inconvenient questions. 12

1 1 Edward Grey, op. cit., I, pp. 70-72. Also Grey to Bertie,January 10, 1906, B. D. , III, no. 210, pp. 170-171, and J. A. Spender,The Life of the Right Honorable Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Vol.II, pp. 249-251.

IzSpender, 2R. cit., II, p. 249.

On the following day, when the Ambassador thought that conversations

should take place between the Admiralties and the War Offices of the

two countries, Grey reported that he "did not dissent from this view.

By the middle of January, 1906, in view of what had taken place

during the past month, the French had apparently decided that the best

substitute possible for an alliance with Britain would be a military

agreement between the two governments. Delcass4 had said several

years before that when two friendly nations understood one another, a

formal alliance was not necessary. Now we find Cambon telling Grey

that "it was not necessary, nor, indeed, expedient that there should

be any formal alliance. " All France wanted was assurance that Britain

would be prepared to "render to France armed assistance in the event

of aggression against France by Germany. " Such an agreement would

obviously be a fair substitute for an alliance, if it could be had. Cambon

now set to work to get the agreement.

At this point the British Foreign Office raised the issue of whether

or not the conversations which had taken place had official sanction.

When questioned in the matter, General Grierson had been forced to

admit that his actions in entering into a discussion with Major Huguet

had not been authorized. 13 Consequently, the next move on the part of

Cambon was in the direction of getting a more definite commitment from

1 3 Minute by Lord Sanderson, January 11, 1906, B. D. , III,

pp. 171-172.

Grey. The Foreign Secretary had maintained an evasive attitude thus

far in the proceedings, awaiting the outcome of the elections. He main-

tained that under the circ*mstances it would have been difficult for him

to get the consent of his fellow Cabinet members because of their wide

dispersal in seeing to their own re-election. But one of his colleagues

has since criticized this excuse by saying:

There was no difficulty whatever in summoning the Cabi-net during the Election to consider so grave a matter. A good.many members of the Cabinet were in London or within anhour of it, while those whom he consulted [Sir Henry Camp-bell-Bannerman, Lord Haldane, who was then Secretary ofState for War, and Mr. Asquith, who was then Chancellor ofthe Exchequer ] were at a distance, and there are railways andpost offices in Great Britain. 14

Grey was in something of a quandary. He believed that no Cabinet

would undertake any obligation to go to war, but, at the same time, the

Anglo-French Entente was quite popular in Britain. Therefore, it was

necessary that Britain "be free to go to the help of France as well as

free to stand aside. " Without a military understanding beforehand,

Britain would be unable to help France in time, regardless of how

strongly public opinion might desire it. 15

General Grierson, after admitting that he was without authority

to discuss possible joint military actions with Huguet, had written to

Sanderson, in the Foreign Office, giving his views on the necessity of

1 4 The Earl Loreburn, How the War Came, p. 80.

1 5 Grey, 22. c it., p. 73.

such conversations.16 Two days later, on January 13, the urgency of

the matter was given impetus from Paris. On this occasion the French

Foreign Office had again raised the issue that "il ne parait pas impossi-

ble que le Gourvernement Allemand fasse la demande d'un port sur la

c~te du Maroc. " This possibility was duly reported by Bertie in a

memorandum to Grey. 17 The French were well aware that this issue

served to stimulate action in Britain as nothing else did. Consequently,

on January 15, Sanderson instructed General Grierson as follows:

I showed your letter of the 11th to Sir E. Grey, and hehas spoken to Mr. Haldane on the subject. They agree toyour entering into communications with the French MilitaryAttache here for the purpose of obtaining such information asyou require as to the methods in which military assistancecould in case of need be best afforded by us to France andvice versa. Such communications must be solely provisionaland non-committal. 18

On this same date, Grey reported his action to Bertie as follows:

I told M. Cambon today that I had communicated to thePrime Minister my account of his conversation with me onthe 10th instant. I had heard from the Prime Minister thathe could not be in London before the 25th of January, and itwould therefore not be possible for me to discuss thingswith him before then, and the members of the Governmentwould not assemble in London before the 29th. I couldtherefore give no further answer today on the question hehad addressed to me. He had spoken to me on the 10th ofcommunications passing between the French Naval Attacheand the Admiralty. I understood that these communications

1 6 Grierson to Sanderson, January 11, 1906, B. D., III, no. 211,pp. 172-173.

1 7 Bertie to Grey, January 13, 1906, B. D., III, no. 213,pp. 174-175.

1 8 Sanderson to Grierson, January 15, 1905, B. D., III, no. 214,pp. 176-177.

had been with Sir John Fisher. If that was so, it was not

necessary for me to do any more; but, with regard to thecommunications between the French Military Attach and theWar Office, I understood from him that these had taken placethrough an intermediary. I had therefore taken the oppor-tunity of speaking to Mr. Haldane, the Secretary of State for

War, who had been taking part in my election contest inNorthumberland on Friday, and he had authorised me to saythat these communications might proceed between the French

Military Attache and General Grierson direct; but it must beunderstood that these communications did not commit either

Government. M. Cambon said that the intermediary in ques-tion had been a retired Colonel, the Military Correspondent

of the "Times,t" who, he understood, had been sent from the

War Office. 19

Cambon was making headway. Thanks to the impulsive Fisher,

who had needed no greater authority than the vague statements of Lans-

downe, conversations were taking place between the British and French

Admiralties. Now Grey had given permission for military conversa-

tions on an official basis. Furthermore, the Foreign Minister had

secured authorization from the War Office, and at least the acquiescence

of the Prime Minister. In giving his permission, Grey had qualified

it with the statement, ". . . but it must be understood that these com-

munications did not commit either Government." This qualification

was to be used repeatedly throughout the years that followed; on each

occasion when the Foreign Minister was called upon to comment on

the military conversations he was to preface or append his remarks

with this clause. In the years that followed the war, when the policies

1 9 Grey to Bertie, January 15, 1906, B. D., III, no. 215, p. 177,and Grey, oj_. cit. , I, p. 76.

of the Foreign Minister were criticized as having contributed to its

outbreak, the "country gentleman" of Fallodon was to defend his poli-

cies by saying, in effect, that the actions of the British Foreign Office

did not involve the British government. Unfortunately for Grey, history

has been far more realistic than was he. The horse thief does not es-

cape punishment by calling the purloined animal a hare.

Grey's thinking on the subject, as reflected in his memoirs, is

interesting when considered in the light of his thoughts at the time the

military conversations had their beginnings. His ideas are reflected

in a private letter written to Bertie on the same date as the letter in

which he first gave permission for the conversations:

You will have seen from the official despatch thatCambon has put the great question to me. Diplomatic sup-port we are pledged to give and are giving. A promise in ad-vance committing this country to take part in a Continentalwar is another matter and a very serious one; it is very dif-ficult for any British Government to give an engagement ofthat kind. It changes the entente into an alliance and al-liances, especially continental alliances, are not in accord-ance with our traditions. My opinion is that if France islet in for a war with Germany arising out of our agreementwith her about Morocco, we cannot stand aside, but musttake part with France. But a deliberate engagement pledgingthis country in advance before the actual cause of the war isknown or apparent, given in cold blood, goes far beyond any-thing that the late Government said or as far as I know con-

templated.If we give any promise of armed assistance it must be

conditional. Should the Morocco Conference break up with-out result we must be held free to suggest to the French pos-sible modifications of the Morocco declarations, or even con-cessions, which might lead to an agreement with Germany.And France must not take independent action in Morocco,

which might lead to war with Germany without keeping us in-formed and hearing what we have to say. I think too weshould have some quid pro quo such as a promise that, ifwe get into war with Germany over any question of our ownFrance will at least remain neutral if she cannot support us,and keep other European Powers neutral.

Meanwhile I should like to have your views of the answerwhich should be given: my own are still in solution and Ihaven't yet determined what proposal I shall make to the PrimeMinister.

P. S. -As to taking precautions beforehand in case warshould come, it appears that Fisher has long ago taken theFrench Naval attach in hand and no doubt has all naval plansprepared. I have now got Haldane's consent to General Grier-son being in direct communication with the French MilitaryAttach . But I am told that 80,000 men with good guns is allwe can put into the field in Europe to meet first-class troops;that won't save France unless she can save herself. . . .

All this however is sheer precaution. I detest the ideaof another war now and so does the whole of this country. .. 20

The most significant fact contained in this letter is the statement

that "My opinion is that if France is let in for a war with Germany

arising out of our agreement with her about Morocco, we cannot stand

aside, but must take part with France." Grey's every action seems to

indicate that this was his opinion in 1906. First, he firmly believed

that Britain owed France her full diplomatic support, because of the

Anglo-French Entente. Second, he was in sympathy with Lansdowne's

assurances to the French as expressed in April, 1905. And third, he

had finally agreed to the military conversations. In later years Grey,

Z 0 Grey to Bertie, January 15, 1906, B. D. , III, no. 216,pp, 177-178.

when defending his position in the matter, was to make the following ob-

servation concerning this opinion:

My own opinion-perhaps it would be more accurate tocall it an instinctive feeling rather than considered opinion-was, that if Germany forced war on France in order to destroythe Anglo-French Agreement, we ought to go to the help ofFrance.21

Perhaps it is a little difficult to imagine a British Foreign Secretary

conducting affairs of state on instinct, but such was the man who held

the portfolio in 1906. Small wonder that such a consummate diplomatist

as Paul Cambon was able to lead the French designs along paths which

led to an acceptable substitute for an Anglo-French alliance.

Grey's election was declared on January 25, 1906; on January 31,

Cambon, true to his promise, again approached him to ask whether

France would be able to count upon the assistance of England in the

event of an attack upon her by Germany. The Foreign Secretary's re -

ply was evasive; as reported to Bertie, he said, in part:

. . . I said that an assurance of that kind could be noth-ing short of a solemn undertaking. It was one which I couldnot give without submitting it to the Cabinet and getting theirauthority, and that were I to submit the question to the Cabi-net I was sure that they would say that this was too serious amatter to be dealt with by a verbal engagement but must beput in writing. . . . I did think there would be difficultiesin putting such an understanding in writing. It could not begiven unconditionally, and it would be difficult to describe theconditions. It amounted, in fact to this; that, if any changewas made, it must be to change the "Entente" into a defensivealliance. That was a great and formal change, and I againsubmitted to Monsieur Cambon as to whether the force of cir-c*mstances bringing England and France together was not

2 1 Grey, M. cit. , p. 75.

stronger than any assurance in words which could be given atthis moment. I said that it might be that the pressure of cir-cum stances -the activity of Germany, for instance -mighteventually transform the "Entente" into a defensive alliancebetween ourselves and France, but I did not think that thepressure of circ*mstances was so great as to demonstratethe necessity of such a change yet.

. . . I asked Monsieur Cambon, however, to bear inmind that, if the French Government desired it, it would bepossible at any time to re-open the conversation. Eventsmight change, but, as things were at present, I did not thinkit was necessary to press the question of a defensive alliance.

Monsieur Cambon said the question was very grave andserious, because the German Emperor had given the FrenchGovernment to understand that they could not rely upon us,and it was very important to them to feel that they could. 22

In other words, a formal defensive alliance between France and Britain

would be superfluous. Circ*mstances which brought the two nations

together were stronger than any alliance could possibly be. If Ger-

many threatened France, the Entente might well be turned into a de-

fensive alliance. Gambon's parting thrust was not without significance;

it must have struck a responsive chord, for the one sensitive spot in

the British national character at this moment was the international

reputation of "Perfidious Albion."

There is one noticeable difference between the conversation as

reported above and Cambon's report to Rouvier. In his report of the

same date, the Ambassador says, "Ainsi l'amiraute anglaise a l'inten-

tion dans le cas d'un conflit avec l'Allemagne de barrer la Manche aux

2 2 Grey to Bertie, January 31, 1906, B. D., III, no. 219,pp. 180-182, and Grey, pp. cit., pp. 76-79.

escadres germaniques. "23 On February 2, Grey had this to say of Cam-

bon's version: "I think the purport of M. Cambon's note is accurate. ,24

There can be no doubt that by the end of January, 1906, Grey

had gone a long way toward obligating the British government in case of

war between France and Germany. He had told the French Ambassador

that in the event of an aggression by Germany, British public opinion

would demand that military and naval assistance be given to France.

Furthermore, he had not objected to the discussions which Fisher was

carrying on with the French Naval Attache, and he had consented to

military conversations between Grierson and Huguet. Both of these

actions could only serve to convince the French that if war came with

Germany, the British were at least under moral obligation to render

aid. The question arises, who in the British government knew of these

commitments on the part of the Foreign Secretary? Documents re-

veal that the Prime Minister knew of Grey's actions, for in writing to

the latter on January 21, in regard to Cambon's request for military

aid, Campbell-Bannerman had said, "When would you like a Cabinet?

Would 30th, 31st, or 1st do? Would you like the answer for the French

to be confirmed by a Cabinet before it is given ?"25 But Grey had not

2 3 Cambon to Rouvier, January 31, 1906, D. D. F., 2nd series,IX, no. 106, pp. 149-153.

2 4 Minute by Grey, February 2, 1906, B. D., III, p. 184.

2 5 Campbell-Bannerman to Grey, January 21, 1906, quoted inSpender, 2p. cit. , p. 253.

asked for a Cabinet. As he had told Cambon on January 31:

Should such a defensive alliance be formed, it wastoo serious a matter to be kept secret from Parliament. TheGovernment could conclude it without the assent of Parliament,but it would have to be published afterwards. No British Gov-ernment could commit the country to such a serious thing andkeep the engagement secret. 26

Did this statement mean that the Foreign Minister wanted the matter kept

secret? Apparently he did. But in addition to the Prime Minister, he

had consulted Haldane and Asquith. Grey, in later years, was to say

that he did not consult the Cabinet because the crisis passed and the

thing ceased to be of importance-but later on it was brought to the at-

tention of the Cabinet. He does not say when. 27 Also, in his memoirs

Grey contends that the conversations "must have been familiar to sev-

eral members of the Cabinet in discussion at the Imperial Committee of

Defense. "28 In 1927 this statement was challenged by Lord Sydenham,

who says:

I think that Lord Grey is mistaken in saying in"Twenty Five Years" that all the regular members of theCommittee of Imperial Defence had all the information. Thiswas not so. In my time the question never came to me of -ficially and I only heard quite informally what was going on.

Whether different arrangements, enabling the Commit-tee of Imperial Defence to be cognisant of the negotiations,

2 6 Grey to Bertie, January 31, 1906, B. D., III, no. 219,pp. 180-182.

2 7 Loreburn, _o. cit. , p. 80. 28Grey, _2. cit. , P. 93.

were made after the end of September [ 1907] when I left for

India I do not know.

However, documents from the archives of the Admiralty seem to indi-

cate that Sydenham was only partially correct. One such document,

written by Admiral C. L. Ottley to the First Sea Lord on January 13,

1906, reports:

Another informal meeting was held in the offices of the

Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence yesterdayafternoon: Lord Esher, General Sir John French, Sir George

Clark, General Grierson and myself being present. 30

The proper conclusion, from what has been said, would seem to

be that some members of the Cabinet knew of Grey's commitments and

that he had obtained permission from at least a part of his colleagues to

act as he did. On the other hand, he had not taken the matter up with

the Cabinet and had tried to maintain a degree of secrecy in regard to

the military conversations. Perhaps he believed that by acting individ-

ually in the matter, the obligation on the part of his government would

be minimized. Thus, he would placate the insistent French Ambassa-

dor by making decisions of the Foreign Office separate and distinct

from the British Government.

As early as January 13, 1906, the discussions between the mili-

tary and naval authorities of the two nations had led to detailed plans

2 9 Written statement by Lord Sydenham, July 19, 1927, B. D.,III, no. 221, p. 185.

3 0 0ttley to First Sea Lord, January 13, 1906, B. D., III, p. 186.

of joint operations in the event of war. The Boer War had convinced

the Powers that the British military was in need of reorganization, and

in no quarter was this more acutely felt than in the British War Office.

French opinion, as expressed by Major Huguet on his arrival in Eng-

land in 1904, was that if Britain was to be of assistance to his country

on land, many changes would have to be made in the British army. The

army would have to be reorganized along lines which would make it ef-

fective in Continental warfare. Haldane, Secretary of State for War,

entered wholeheartedly into the British effort. He states that during

the general election of January, 1906, he

At once went to London, summoned the heads of the Brit-ish General Staff, and saw the French Military Attache, Colonel

Huguet, a man of sense and ability. I became aware at oncethat there was a new army problem. It was how to mobilizeand concentrate at a place of assembly to be opposite the Bel-

gian frontier, a force calculated as adequate (with the assist-ance of Russian pressure in the East) to make up for the in-

adequacy of the French armies for their great task of de-

fending the entire French frontier from Dunkirk down to Bel-fort, or even farther south, if Italy should join the Triple Al-liance in an attack. 31

Haldane thought that Britain could not put more than 80,000 men in the

field, and that this would require at least two months. The French

thought that this would be altogether too slow to be of help to them;

thinking in terms of the Franco-Prussian War, they were afraid they

would be destroyed before British help arrived. The War Secretary

31R. B. Haldane,, Before the War, p. 30.

set to work to make "a complete revolution in the organization of the

British Army. " By the end of 1910 he stated the following as possible:

England was able rapidly to mobilize, not only 100,000,

but 160,000 men; to transport them, with the aid of the navy,

to a place of concentration which had been settled between the

Staffs of France and Britain; and to have them at their ap-pointed place within twelve days.

In addition to conversations with the French General Staff, the

British were carrying on talks with the Belgians. On this subject

Hardinge, British Minister at Brussels, reported as follows on January

31, 1907:

At the beginning of the year the possibility of a European

war as the result of the Morocco complications caused a good

deal of anxiety in Belgium, involving as it did the prospect of

hostilities between France and Germany, and perhaps a viola-

tion of Belgian territory by a German invading force, aiming

at turning the flank of France's eastern defences. A frank

and confidential exchange of views between the British and

Belgian military authorities determined to their mutual satis-faction the action to be adopted by both Governments in such an

eventuality. . . . 33

These conversations were carried on between Lieutenant-Colonel N. W.

Barnardiston, British Military Attache at Brussels, and General Du-

carne, Chief of the Belgian General Staff.

One reason given by Grey for his authorization of the conversa-

tions between the French and British was his confirmed belief that

public opinion in England would be sympathetic to France in case of

3 2 Ibid. , p. 32.

3 3 General report on Belgium for the year 1906, January 31,1907, B. D., III, p. 187.

aggression by Germany. The public knew that diplomatic friction, in

the years 1906, 1907, and 1908, had revived the fear and hostility be-

tween the French and German people. The maritime rivalry between

Germany and Britain had produced formidable danger of war, for the

British people were convinced that the German Fleet was designed to

measure itself against the Royal Navy; in Germany the knowledge that

this suspicion existed led to counter -suspicion, and to the belief that

British diplomacy was busy intriguing to encircle Germany with a

coalition of hostile states. It was thought that if France and Germany

went to war, one or the other would in all probability win a crushing

victory in the first month's fighting, as in 1870. If Germany were the

conqueror, she would certainly use her victory to secure maritime

ascendancy as well as Continental possessions. If France conquered

without the help of England or, worse still, if France were defeated

in a duel with Germany without aid from a British army, even if the

British Fleet swept the seas, the relations between the English and

the French would become embittered. In the case of a French victory

unaided, the two countries would inevitably drift into opposite camps

in the subsequent grouping of European Powers; in the last case, it

was more likely than not that France would be forced to make terms for

herself with the invader by helping him in his next enterprise. By the

year 1909, British journalists were speculating on the best course for

that nation to follow. One of the conclusions reached was that if Brit-

ish assistance was to be worth-while, the British Army would have to

be considerably improved. Again, it was reasoned that there could be

no delay in landing an army in France. If the first-line army of France

were defeated as decisively as the Russians were beaten at Mukden, the

war might be lost by that one struggle; everything seemed to demand

an advanced understanding between the two nations.

Opposed to this segment of the public were those who were of the

opinion that the despatch of British troops to the Continent would be

a mistake. This group argued that the assistance which England would

be able to give would be unequal to the task, and that the decisive bat-

tle of the war would be fought before British troops could reach the

scene of battle. 34

Grey, being a French sympathizer himself, was more attentive

to British public opinion which favored assistance to France than he was

to the opposing group.

What of Gambon throughout this period? Apparently the Ambassa-

dor knew when he asked Grey for a defensive alliance that it would not

be forthcoming; what he had really wanted was a continuation of the

military and naval conversations, and on a General Staff level-not

3 4 Cecil Battine, "The Defence of France," The Fortnightly Re-view, LXXXV (June, 1909), 1059-1068.

through an intermediary. After this was done, Cambon appeared satis-

fied.

The one factor which possibly contributed more to the 'satisfac-

tion" of Cambon during this period than anything else was the proceed-

ings of the Algeciras Conference. The prospects of German aggres-

sion became less menacing, and the request for more than diplomatic

support was not pressed again for some time.

To the French government, no doubt, came the awareness that

nothing produced a spirit of co-operation in England quite like a German

threat to occupy a Moroccan port on the Atlantic coast. Twice had this

threat motivated British action;it was to play a part in Anglo-French

relations on yet a third occasion.

3 5 Grey, 22. cit., p. 85.

R i A I

CHAPTER IV

THE AGADIR CRISIS

The conference to settle difficulties which had arisen between

France and Germany over the status of Morocco met at Algeciras on

January 16, 1906. One hundred and fifty persons representing the

United States and twelve leading European Powers, as well as Morocco,

were present. The principles for which Germany fought-the terri-

torial integrity of Morocco and equal rights for all nations there-were

nominally accepted. Yet the eventual partition of the Sherifian Empire

was only delayed. A Moroccan police force under French and Spanish

instructios, and headed by a Swiss Inspector-General, was established.

Freedom of trade and settlement in the Sultanate was guaranteed to

foreigners, and an international bank, financed chiefly by French and

English capital, was created. 1

With the conclusion of the Algeciras Conference the first Moroc-

can crisis was at an end; the crisis had been successfully passed with-

out involving Europe in war. Unfortunately, the solution of the problem

did not endure-the conference had settled nothing; Morocco remained

1 G. Lowes Dickinson, The International Anarchy, 1904-1914,pp. 134-153.

the sore spot on the international scene. Events seemed to bear out a

very sagacious prediction made by Bismarck during the latter years of

his life. While surveying the possible causes for war which might arise

in the world, the spot which he selected was a country little known at

the time and which had not then been in any way a source of dispute.

The country mentioned in the Iron Chancellor's prophecy was Morocco, 2

Bernhard von Bulow, boasting of his achievements after the downfall of

Delcass6, and while the Algeciras Conference was assembling, had

said that he had "bolted the door against the attempts of France to com-

pass the 'Tunification of Morocco. "I Also, he "provided a bell we

could ring at any time should France show any similar tendencies

again. "3 Germany was to ring this bell on July 1, 1911. When Ger -

many realized that France intended to colonize Morocco, she determined

to secure a portion of the spoils for herself, or, if that were not pos-

sible, to prevent her rival from having it.

The seriousness of the crisis which had resulted in the Act of

Algeciras undoubtedly tended for a time to restrain the French govern-

ment in its forward policy. This hesitation was not due to the restric-

tions in the Act itself so much as to the marked anti-colonial feelings

2 W. S. Davis, The Roots of the War, p. 402.

3 Quoted in Herbert H. Asquith, The Genesis of the War, p. 143.

See Also

Pat Andrews — Blog 3 — Pfander Center

4E. Ashmead-Bartlett, The Passing of the Shereefian Empire,

p. 3.

. lwwffm

in France. In 1906, public opinion led by Jean Jaure s, the Socialist

orator, and the French government dominated by Georges Clemenceau,

opposed colonial projects and insisted on the strict enforcement of the

Algeciras Act. To be sure, there was a difference of opinion as to

the limitations which this Act imposed upon France.

Sir Gerard Lowther, British Minister at Tangier, writing to

Grey on December 4, 1907, speaks of "the apparent long-suffering at-

titude displayed by France. "5 While certain circles in France inter-

ested in French expansion complained of the utter inertia of the French

government from 1906 to 1909, and of German exaggeration of her

rights, others were of opposite opinion. Barlow, quoting from George

Hardy, "Le Maroc, " in Gabriel Hannotaux' Histoirie des colonies fran-

gaises et de expansion de la France dans le monde, says:

. . . France tried scrupulously to carry out the pro-visions of the Algeciras Act, while Germany played her cardsless frankly. She [ Germany] sent to Morocco a diplomatalready known for his anti-French sentiments and his spiritof chicanery, Dr. Rosen, who immediately posed as the

champion of the independence of Morocco and succeeded ingiving many discreet strains to the Act of Algeciras to theprofit of Germany; nomination of German engineers in

Morocco, concessions of public works to German enter-

prises. .*.. 6

Every time the situation seemed to settle down, minor incidents

arose to harass the nationals of both countries and to try the patience

5 Lowther to Grey, December 4, 1907, B. D., VII, no. 87,pp. 72-74.

6 Barlow, 2p.U cit., p. 47.

of their foreign offices. Each action on the part of France served to

increase the suspicion of Germany, and the latter country's constant

efforts to improve her economic position earned for her the resentment

of the former.

In 1906 a Frenchman was assassinated at Tangier. France se-

cured the promise of satisfaction only after sending ships of war. In

the same year the bandit, Raisouli, became caid of the outskirts of Tan-

gier and inflicted numerous vexations and trials on the Europeans, which

led to a French and Spanish naval demonstration. In 1907, Dr. Mauchamp,

in charge of the French dispensary at Marrakech, was assassinated.

French troops then moved from Algeria and occupied the village of

Oudja, in order to force the Sultan to maintain order. Consequently,

when in 1907 there occurred the bombardment of Casablanca, Germans

began to express opposition to French policy-a policy which inevitably

led to greater political control over Morocco.

Casablanca was the most prosperous of the Moroccan ports; its

trade was large and increasing; its inhabitants numbered 30,000; and

its future was bright. The appalling suddenness of the disaster caused

by the bombardment will be realized when it is remembered that on

July 30, 1907, the inhabitants of the town were leading their usual

peaceful existence, and on August 5 nothing but a heap of smoking ruins

remained, and the survivors were desperately holding their own against

a horde of bloodthirsty, fanatical Arabs.

Dreams of a commercially great city had stimulated much inter-

est in the harbor improvements at.Casablanca, for which a French com-

pany had secured the concession in February, 1907. To expedite the

project, the company had built a railroad from the seafront to a short

distance beyond the town. Objections arose, especially among the

Arabs, because the railroad skirted the old Moorish cemetery. Discon-

tent at the weakness of Abdul Aziz had been growing since the French

loan of 1904, and increased with the organization of the customs under

French officials. The construction work at Casablanca, and particu-

larly that of the railroad, was, consequently, interpreted by the dis-

contented elements as proof that Abdul Aziz had sold their country to

the foreigners. Disturbed conditions had existed in and around Casa-

blanca for several days but seemed to be controlled by the local of-

ficials until, on July 30, a mob attacked a group of workers and killed

nine Europeans. The French believed that they must take some action

to punish the offenders.

Although the consul advised delay until the cruiser, Du Chayla,

arrived from Tangier, the commander of the French ship Galilde, which

appeared in the harbor on August 1, permitted the pressure of events

to force him to premature action. Efforts of the caid in charge of the

Chaouya, in co-operation with Europeans in the city, were going for-

ward in such a manner as to indicate that the situation would be brought

under control and the guilty punished. They insisted that the com-

mander of the Galilee proceed with caution, and not try to land a party.

Nevertheless, he authorized the landing of a small party, and when a

struggle broke out between the landing party and a group of natives at

the gates, the ship bombarded the town. Many natives were killed and

the city was heavily damaged. Additional French forces arrived, and

on the seventh, General Drude began the work of pacification of the dis-

trict.7

Criticism of French action in the incident was widespread; that of

Germany being particularly sinister, in that one section of the German

press accused France of creating the incident as an excuse for further

penetrations into Morocco. 8 England, on the other hand, officially

would seem to have been in agreement with French plans to send war-

ships to Casablanca, since on July 31, 1907, the following message was

sent to Grey by Lowther:

Serious disturbances yesterday at Dar-al-Baida [ Arabianname for Casablanca] .

Neighbouring tribes objecting to French port works andcontrol of Customs. British Consul says he is of opinion thata ship of war or ships of war should be immediately sent. AFrench ship of war is leaving here today for Dar-al-Baida.British Colony consists of 140.

The British Foreign Office added the following "minutes":

7 Ashmead-Bartlett, op. c it. , pp. 20-53.

8 Barlow, 2p. cit. , p. 50.

Question Admiralty and say that Secretary of State isof opinion that a ship of war should be despatched to Dar-al-Baida at once for the protection of British subjects there.

Request Sir F. Bertie to inform French Governmentthat a ship will be sent. 9

Then, on August 7, Grey informed Bertie that

M. Cambon handed me today the statement of which acopy is sent herewith, as to the action taken at Casablanca.

I said the French Government evidently had no choiceexcept to act as they had done, and it was probably betterthat they should have been forced to take strong measuresthan half -measures. 10

The French government upheld the action of the commander of the

Galil6e on the grounds that disorders which surrounded the city necessi-

tated drastic action if her subjects were to carry out their work within

the district. Concessionaires could not operate if they were constantly

endangered by threats of fanatical riots. Protection of nationals is

held by every nation as a fundamental principle of foreign policy, but

France added to that principle the power granted her by the Act of

Algeciras to direct the police force in certain open ports. Casablanca

was one of the ports allotted to the co-operative work of France and

Spain, and Spain soon joined in the work of pacifying the city.

Affairs resumed a normal tempo in Morocco, but again Germany

had the feeling that France would use the incident to extend her control

in the Sultanate. Germans living in Casablanca and elsewhere in

9 Lowther to Grey, July 31, 1907, B. D., VII, no. 63, p. 52.

1 0 Grey to Bertie, August 7, 1907, B. D., VII, no. 68, p. 55.

Morocco, both business men and official representatives, were full of

complaints. They did not stop with criticizing France for bombarding

the city but charged her with conscious efforts to destroy German inter-

ests. On August 30, 1907, Tattenbach, German Charge d'affaires in

Lisbon, wrote to Tschirschky, Acting Secretary of State for Foreign

Affairs, saying:

. . . German interests in Casablanca are really verygreat and with calm development of things would have had ayet greater future. . . . Through the advance of the French,the commercial people in Casablanca have suffered not onlyserious loss . . . but must renounce any further future.

In addition to this viewpoint, there were those who remembered

that after the murder of Dr. Mauchamp, the French occupied Oudja, and

warned the public that the death of nine Europeans, three of whom were

French, would surely be followed by further territorial occupation.

This could only mean that Germany's aspirations in Morocco would

suffer; another frustration of her territorial and economic desires; an-

other occasion on which France did not think it necessary to consult her

before taking action-another blow to German pride.

At no time had Abdul Aziz proved himself to be a strong ruler,

and his continued subservience to France served to weaken him even

more among his subjects. On August 16, soon after the disastrous

Casablanca bombardment, Mulay Hafid, his elder half-brother, was

1 1Barlow, op. cit. , p. 51.

proclaimed Sultan at Marrakech. Mulay Hafid, as governor of the

Marrakech district, gave promise of being a strong ruler, and to many

of the Moroccans, seemed to be their one hope of saving their country

from foreign domination. His revolt against his brother and lawful sov-

ereign spread rapidly over the entire south. Rumors of his savagery

kept the Europeans in the coastal cities in a constant state of alarm;

but the rumor that Mulay Hafid had proclaimed a Holy War, a rumor

that he consistently denied, excited terror among them. As the strength

of the pretender increased, that of the old Sultan waned, and the latter

left his capital at Fez and moved to Rabat. After this move, charges

that he had sold out to the French gained such prominence that he found

himself master only of Rabat and the Chaouya district. Early in Janu-

ary of 1908 Mulay Hafid was proclaimed Sultan at Fez, and he began

his triumphant march to the northern capital, entering that city in

June.

The play of international politics soon entered the question. The

charge was made that when Abdul Aziz entered Rabat he had done so to

obtain French protection. These charges were accentuated when

Regnault, French Minister at Tangier, became his closest adviser.

France maintained that as Abdul Aziz was the legally recognized Sul-

tan, her actions did not exceed recognized diplomatic procedure and

that her maintenance of order in the Chaouya district was a result of

the Casablanca affair and not of the struggle for the throne. Charges

that France was aiding Abdul Aziz were denied by the French Foreign

Minister, Pichon. He insisted, however, that Mulay Hafid must prove

his power before being recognized. In the eyes of the Moroccans, Ab-

dul Aziz was the claimant supported by France; and when, lacking French

support, he was forced to abdicate, French prestige suffered.

Jules Delafosse, a member, speaking in the Chamber of Deputies

January 15, 1909, was bitingly critical of Pichon's policy in Morocco.

He said that the success of Mulay Hafid was a defeat for France. The

realistic Delafosse made the statement that "the truth is that the

Moroccan question is a rivalry of influence between France and Ger-

many; it is even only this, and if it were not this, it would not exist.

In this controversy, Germany had trouble deciding which side to

support. Her natural inclination was to support Mulay Hafid-being

suspicious of the French support being given to his rival. While at

the same time, there was danger that German economic interests would

suffer if a prolonged contention developed between the Sultan and the

pretender.

In May, 1908, the French notified Germany that they were willing

to recognize Mulay Hafid, but such recognition should come only after

an agreement of the Powers signatory to the Act of Algeciras. This

I'Ibid., p. 55.

proposal followed an appeal by Abdul Aziz to the German Minister at

Tangier, asking for the intervention of Germany to prevent France from

violating the Treaty of Algeciras. 12

On August 31, Ger-many took a forward step in recognizing Mulay

Hafid; on that date the British Minister at Tangier notified Grey as

follows:

I am informed that Dr. Vassel has left for Fez today,to resume his duties as German Consul there. His de-parture was kept secret by the German Legation. Prepara-tions for journey have been made very secretly. 13

France, now thinking that she had best clarify her position, issued

the following communique which appeared in Le Temps on September 3,

under the heading, "La France, l'Allemagne et le Maroc":

La note de la Gazette de l'Allemagne du nord, completepar les commentaires des journaux allemands que nous avonsdonnas plus haut, semble indiquer que si l'Allemagne insistepour la prompte reconnaissance (rasche Anerkennung) deMoulai Hafid, c'est que la France se serait derobde 'a cettereconnaissance, en manoeuvrant avec une lenteur calcul6epour maintenir une situation equivoque. En presence de cetteinsinuation, nous avons cru devoir prdciser nettementl'attitude de la France depuis que la question s'est posee.Voici, a ce sujet, les reseignements qui nous ont ete'fournis.

There follow four principles which the French government believed

should be considered before the Powers should recognize Mulay Hafid:

1 2 Grey to Bertie, January 27, 1908, B. D., VII, no. 89, p. 75.

1 3 White to Grey, August 31, 1908, B. D., VII, no. 95, p. 82.

1. Il es ne'cessaire que les puissances etudient d'abord lesgaranties a obtenir pour les intrests europe/ens.

2. L'entente des puissances sur ces garanties est aussi/_MAnecessaire que ces garanties elles-memes.

3. Ily a encore trop d'inconnu dans la situation intrieur duMaroc pour qu'une decision puisse etre pris avant com-plete information.

4. Sous ces reserves, la France n'a montre a aucun momentle parti pris de ne pas reconnaTitre Moulai Hafid, Elleentend seulment que sa situation de fait soit pr'cisee. 14

France advised caution in extending recognition to the pretender,

but Germany, having reached her decision, was acting accordingly. On

the same day as the French communique, the German Charge d'Affaires

at Rome suggested to the Italian Government the desirability of recog-

nition of Mulay Hafid. 15

England disapproved of Germany's action; the Foreign Office spoke

of it as "a piece of sharp practice on the part of Germany. 1 6 Spain,

while officially supporting France, was somewhat sympathetic to the

German program. On the other hand, Germany's action excited the

disapproval of her allies, and ultimately created an atmosphere of ten-

sion that darkened her friendship with Austria.

1 4 Enclosure in no. 96, September 2, 1908, B. D., VII, no. 96,p. 83.

15Wyndham to Grey, September 3, 1908, B. D., VII, no. 97,p. 84.

1 6 White to Grey, August 31, 1908, B. D., VII, no. 95, p. 82.

Despite these disagreements, a plan of recognition was worked

out and submitted to the signatory Powers on September 14, 1908. Ac-

cording to this plan, Mulay Hafid was to accept the Act of Algeciras and

all the laws of application resulting from it, accept all other treaties and

engagements concluded by his predecessors, assume the debts of Abdul

Aziz, grant to France and Spain the right to supervise contraband trade,

submit the questions of damages due from the Casablanca incident to an

international commission, and agree to maintain order. Moreover,

each Power reserved the right to negotiate separately with the new Sul-

tan on matters that touched their interests exclusively. This last pro-

vision left open to France and Spain the right to secure reimbursem*nt

for their expenses in the military actions undertaken around Casablanca.

All the signatory Powers, Germany included, accepted the note by No-

vember 12, 1908. This did not mean, however, that Franco-German

tension over Morocco was now over. On the contrary, since Septem-

ber their relations had been strained to the breaking point by the Casa-

blanca deserters' affair which, though settled at approximately the same

time as the Mulay Hafid case, had aroused such popular excitement that

repercussions continued for some time.

Of the Casablanca deserters' affair it has been said:

Usually historians list the Kaiser's visit to Tangier asthe first Moroccan crisis and the Panther's stay at Agadir asthe second Moroccan crisis; but some would call the latter

the third and number the Casablanca deserters' affair as thesecond crisis. 17

This crisis resulted from the attempted escape of six deserters from

the French Foreign Legion. The six, assisted by the German Consul,

Luderitz, and his aide, were attempting to reach a German vessel

anchored in the harbor and thereby make their escape from Morocco.

The French officials were told of the venture in time to appear at the

docks before the men could make good their escape. In this, the French

were assisted by the elements, in that the boat carrying the six to the

German ship capsized in the harbor due to the rough water, and the de-

serters were forced to return to the shore. When the German Consul

attempted to protect the deserters, a French officer threatened him

with a pistol. Though the German officials formally demanded the re-

lease of the prisoners, the French military authorities retained them

in custody.

Diplomatic channels were immediately thrown into turmoil by

the incident. The incident had occurred on September 25, and three

days later Pichon expressed his regret and the hope that the matter

would be solved satisfactorily. Naturally, divergence quickly appeared

between the French and German viewpoints. According to the German

version, the fact that a subject of the German Empire had taken service

in a foreign army did not deprive him of his German nationality, and

1 7 Barlow, p_. cit. , pp. 61-62.

consequently the German Consul was within his rights in protecting him.

This argument was weakened by the fact that only three of the deserters

were Germans, one being an Austrian, one a Swiss, and one a Russian

Pole. Germany argued further that for a French officer to threaten a

German official with a pistol was intolerable. Desertions had been

going on for some time, and France should have first discussed the mat-

ter instead of taking the law into her own hands. France maintained that

in international right German jurisdiction did not cover German subjects

in a foreign army, and that desertion was always considered as a crime

punishable by the proper military authorities. The French case was

weakened by the action of her agent in threatening the German official. 18

The incident, although filled with danger, had from the beginning

seemed likely to yield to peaceful settlement, since both France and

Germany seemed anxious to settle the matter. But, before final set-

tlement could be reached, many proposals and counter -proposals had to

be made. It was a case in which the two participants were both highly

conscious of their national honor; as Germany insisted on her demands

and France refused to yield, a situation of extreme tension resulted.

Schoen was frankly worried and feared that "we must now perhaps bring

up the heavy artillery and with disturbance in the diplomatic relations

perhaps even threaten with sending of ships to Casablanca. "119 The

18Ibid.., p. 63. 19 Ibid., p. 65.

action of the other Powers unquestionably had a great deal to do with

the settlement of the incident. England unhesitatingly supported France,

as was to be expected. And again, as in the question of the recogni-

tion of Mulay Hafid, Austria was more in sympathy with France than

with Germany. The air began to clear on November 7, and by Novem-

ber 10 Bulow was to telegraph the Emperor that the formula for an

agreement had been reached. 21

After approximately two years of almost constant controversy

since the Algeciras Conference, France was in possession of the vil-

lage of Oudja, in the east, and Casablanca and the Chaouya, in the west.

But the German-supported claimant to the throne ruled in Fez. The

events of these years had taught German and French diplomats that the

interests of both had suffered from the sequence of crises. It was ob-

vious that some mutual agreement must be reached if affairs in Morocco

were to prove profitable to either German or French nationals.

Events up to and including the "deserters' affair" had shown that

France could never be able to swallow up Morocco without first con-

ciliating Germany. Since Germany's intervention in Morocco had been

based, formally, upon her commercial interests there, it was in this

matter that France sought an understanding. Certain articles included

2 0 Grey to McKenna, November 5, 1908, B. D., VII, no. 132,pp. 119-120.

2 1 Buo1Bulowto Jenisch, November 10, 1908, quoted in Barlow, op. cit.,

p. 66.

in the Act of Algeciras had sought to secure equal and free competition

among the Powers in the Sherifian Empire. A re-examination of these

provisions now seemed in order to facilitate the prosperity of both na-

tions in their separate ventures. As a result, the following agreement

was signed between the two Powers in February, 1909:

The Government of the French Republic and the ImperialGerman Government, being equally anxious to facilitate theexecution of the Algeciras Act, have agreed to define the mean-ing which they attach to the articles of that Act with a view toavoid in the future all sources of misunderstanding betweenthem.

Therefore,The Government of the French Republic, firmly attached

to the maintenance of the independence and integrity of theShereefian Empire, being resolved to safeguard the principleof economic equality, and, consequently, not to obstruct Ger-man commercial and industrial interest in that country;

And the Imperial German Government, pursuing only eco-nomic interests in Morocco, recognizing on the other hand thatthe special political interests of France in that country areclosely bound up with the consolidation of order and interna-tional peace, and being resolved not to impede those interests;

Declare that they do not pursue nor encourage any meas-ure of a nature to create, in their favor or in that of any power,an economic privilege, and that they will endeavor to associatetheir nationals in affairs for which the latter may obtain a con-cession.

This agreement more or less eliminated all but the two signatories

but, in spite of this, the British government seemed to have welcomed

the agreement and the detente which, presumably, would follow. In

2 2 Dickinson, op. cit., p. 186.

the diplomatic exchanges which followed-most of which were laudatory

of the agreement-Grey sounded an ominous note: He did not believe

that the Franco-German understanding was a very profound one, and

for this reason it would probably remain a facade agreement. Z3 Britain

was willing to go along with the agreement, however, as long as the

11open door" was maintained in Morocco. Grey proved to be a true

prophet, for whatever may have been the intentions of the parties, the

course of events showed that it was impossible to put the treaty into ef-

fective operation.

There were three important departments to which the treaty might

apply: (1) mines, (2) railways, and (3) other public works. In all of

these the arrangements projected broke down. In discussing the

breakdown of the accord of 1909, it is as well to take up the mines first.

European captains of industry were attracted by the fabulous ac-

counts of iron, gold, copper, antimony, silver, lead, and sulphur that

presumably lay hidden in the subsoil of Morocco; and saw therein a

rich field from which the deficiency in minerals in their respective

countries could be repaired. There was little interest in phosphates or

in the potential oil wealth of the country. The Riff, the Atlas, and the

Sous, with their elusive but glamorous offers of iron and gold, were

the coveted regions.

2 3 Grey to Bertie, February 9, 1909, B. D., VII, no. 153,pp. 136-138.

The French, English, and Spanish.iron-masters were no less

anxious to secure concessions, but the Germans attracted more atten-

tion due to the aggressive action of the Mannesmann brothers, of whom

there were many, "all pushing. ,,24 In 1906 Reinhard Mannesmann, on

a wedding trip, visited the coast of Morocco, where the natives showed

him specimens of iron ore. From this time on the interest of the

Mannesmanns in Morocco was intense. They were an aggressive lot-

able in the short span of thirty years to become one of the leading in-

dustrial firms of Germany, and this same spirit was evident through-

out their dealings in Morocco.

The Mannesmanns in Morocco were not in virgin territory, for

already, as early as 1907, an international society, the Union of Mines,

had been formed in which France had 50 per cent and Germany 20 per

cent of the capital, the remaining Powers being thus in a very small

minority. Conflict soon arose between these two interests. In the ne-

gotiations which followed the German nationalists took the Mannesmann

brothers under their patronage; of this fact the firm made every possi-

ble use. They employed publicists to present their cause, which they

represented as being the true cause of greater Germany, to the public,

and they succeeded in making a political issue of their Moroccan efforts

in the Reichstag. However, it must be said that the German government

24 Wolff, 2.p. cit. , p. 34.

was never in wholehearted accord with the ambitions of the Mannes-

manns. Negotiations dragged on, and the brothers were still trying to

obtain a satisfactory mining law at the time of the crisis in 1911, due

in part to the fact that their claims were so excessive. 25

The construction of railways was delayed by the French claims

that certain lines were strategic. The German attitude was that such

lines should be built-provided they were open to trade on equal terms

for all. Disagreements arose over who was to build the railroads, and

which lines were to be built first. At this point the Ministry fell and

French policy changed. Gruppi now became Foreign Minister. An

agreement had not been reached in the matter of Moroccan railroads

when the episode of the Panther occurred. 25

The Act of Algeciras had recognized the independence and terri-

torial integrity of the Sherifian Empire, had internationalized some of

the administrative functions, and had guaranteed the open door and eco-

nomic equality to all nations. The Accord of 1909 recognized the po-

litical pre-eminence of France in Morocco, and created an economic

order in which France and Germany were to receive a privileged, if

not a monopolistic, position. The two cannot be harmonized. The cry

that the Act of Algeciras had been violated should have been raised in

1909 and not left quiescent until 1911. The effort to make the two

2 5 G. P. Gooch, History of Modern Europe 1878-1919, p. 464.

treaties operative at the same time could result only in failure. Eng-

land demanded that concessions of public works be open to public bid-

ding as guaranteed by the Act of Algeciras. As it was, France and Ger-

many could not guarantee that any specific concessions would fall to

any particular syndicate. A system of private contract must super-

sede the system of adjudication if the Accord of 1909 were to function.

In case that should happen, the rights of nationals of other Powers would

depend upon the good will of France and Germany and not upon the Act

of Algeciras. France, in her effort to hold to both agreements, failed

to make either effective. Mutual distrust was the predominant feature

of the accord between France and Germany; no agreement could be ex-

pected to work successfully under such conditions. 26

These disagreements between France and Germany did nothing to

strengthen the position of the Sultan. Consequently, Mulay Hafid in

1911, unable to subdue the revolt of his subjects and to free the

Europeans from the besieged city of Fez, was forced to call upon France

for aid. Could France rely upon her own interpretation of the Accord

of 1909 and answer his call? Would France and Germany agree any

more closely in their interpretation of the political clauses of the Ac-

cord than they had on its economic clauses ? France by her march to

Fez forced an answer to these questions. Meanwhile, the collaboration

2 6 Barlow, 2_. cit., pp. 150-152.

of France and Morocco was no more successful than that of France and

Germany.

In 1910, rebellion broke out among the tribes around Fez. Due to

the mismanagement of military affairs by Mulay Hafid, there were no

troops to suppress the rebels. As the trouble continued, the French

began to speak of the necessity of organizing and sending a Moroccan

force for the relief of the city. Germany failed to see the necessity

of such an expedition. France then decided to send a force to Rabat-

with the understanding that she would respect the spirit of Algeciras

and the sovereignty of the Sultan. Still Germany opposed the move.

But on April 19 Cruppi announced that, in view of the danger to Euro-

peans, France had listened to the Sultan's appeal for aid in organizing

a Moroccan force for the relief of Fez. A French column would also

be available if required to succor the capital. German opinion was that

if the French went to Fez they would stay there. In addition, the Chan-

cellor warned that he must insist upon the importance of observing the

Act of Algeciras, saying that difficulties would begin directly after

French troops entered Fez. At this juncture pan-German excitement

became intense, and the press began to assert German demands-a

port at Agadir, while at the same time declaring that France was violat-

ing the Act of Algeciras.

In France opinion was divided on the question. The Temps argued

that the Act of Algeciras would not be violated by the sending of a force

to the relief of Fez. Others were of the opinion that the whole idea was

a fraud, as neither the Sultan nor the Europeans were in danger.

The proposed expedition stirred Spanish ambition, and despite

French protests Spain landed troops at Larache and occupied El-Kasr.

It was Spain's fear, as expressed by the Premier Canalejas, that

France was securing military and financial administration of the whole

country and that Spain would have nothing left. 27

England advised caution in the matter; she reminded France of the

likely German reaction to the proposed expedition. But Grey told the

German Ambassador that England had been informed of France's proposed

actions and was in full agreement with them-that England approved of

the proposed French plan to send succor to the Europeans in Fez. 28

On May 14, 1911, Gruppi informed the nations of Europe that

France had ordered an advance to Fez without delay, but that they

would hold the city no longer than was necessary. Moreover, he took

the precaution to declare again that the aim of the action of the French

forces rested always on assuring the sovereignty of the Sultan, the in-

tegrity of territory, and the liberty of commercial transactions. The

French forces arrived before Fez on May 21, and reported all Europeans

2 7Gooch, o. cit., pp. 467-468.

2 8 Grey to Bertie, May 3, 1911, B. D., VII, no. 245, p. 222.

to be safe for the time being, despite the admitted gravity of the situa-

tion.

In the face of French assurances, however, Germany was of an-

other opinion. As seen by the latter nation, France had occupied a town

not specified in the Algeciras Act; she had penetrated far into the in-

terior of the country; she would not leave Fez soon; and if she did leave,

she would soon be back. In the eyes of Germany, France had indicated

that she was now ready to establish a protectorate in Morocco. She had

violated the Act of Algeciras. In the interest of her self-respect, Ger-

many must now demand compensation for this high-handed action on the

part of France. If such compensation were not forthcoming, she must

participate in the division of the Sherifian Empire. The first step in

this plan would be the sending of a warship to Agadir, said to be the

best harbor in southern Morocco, and she would act under the necessity

of protecting her nationals in Agadir-just as France had acted in going

to Fez. 30

The domestic situation in Germany made a protest unavoidable.

For two years Bethmann-Hollweg's liberal policies had antagonized

many persons. Such organizations as the Pan-German League and the

Navy League were attacking him for his naval negotiations, and the

Colonial Society plagued him with an ambitious program for a great

2 9 Barlow, o p. cit. , pp. 198-199.

3 0 Erich Brandenburg, From Bismarck to the World War, p. 371.

colonial empire in Africa. As general elections to the Reichstag were

to be held in January, 1912, the Chancellor believed that something

would have to be done to placate the extreme chauvinists or a Reichstag

would be chosen with which he could not work.

At this point Kiderlen-Wachter, ambitious German Foreign Secre-

tary, presented Germany's claims to a part of Morocco to Jules Cam-

bon, now French Ambassador to Germany, at Kissingen, the Ambassa-

dor having been sent there by the Chancellor. It was to be a discussion

of all the outstanding differences between the two nations, with the ex-

ception of the Alsace-Lorraine question. After a general discussion,

which was leading nowhere, the French Ambassador asserted that

French public opinion would not stand for a partitioning of Morocco, but

that Germany could look elsewhere. The meeting ended and Cambon

promised to report the discussion to his government and report back

to Kiderlen. As Cambon was leaving, Kiderlen told him to bring

something back from Paris for Germany. At this point the Monis

Cabinet fell, but before the French government had time to consider the

proposition, Germany took a step which shook Europe to its founda-

tions. 31

A contemporary journalist asked a leading question of his day in

the following words:

3 1 Gooch, 2p. cit. , pp. 469-470.

A small German cruiser has been rolling her bilge-

keel clear on the Atlantic swell in front of a mud-hole on

the Moroccan coast, and the whole of Europe is agogI What

does it all mean? 32

The small German cruiser was the gunboat Panther which had

dropped anchor on July 1, 1911, in front of a mud-hole that was the

port of Agadir. Britain's worst fears had been realized, and Germany

had taken the step most likely to make possible the conclusion of Paul

Gambon's design to gain a military alliance with Britain.

At the time of the "Panther's Spring" the French Ministry was in

an unsteady position. The Monis Cabinet, which had authorized the

march to Fez, had just fallen and Caillaux, the new Prime Minister,

had made De Selves, a complete novice at diplomacy, his Foreign Min-

ister. Three days after the establishment of the Ministry, news ar-

rived of the German boat's arrival at Agadir. De Selves had no idea

what to do. Fortunately, he did not heed the advice of some of his ag-

gressively and irresponsibly chauvinistic associates, who had sug-

gested that a French warship be sent to Agadir. Caillaux sought a

peaceful settlement of the crisis. He was willing to pay for a French

protectorate over Morocco with concessions elsewhere-exactly what

Kiderlen wanted. Caillaux's chief difficulty lay in his own Foreign

Minister, who, apparently out of patriotism, was unwilling to make

3 2 Kepi, "Morocco in Liquidation, " Blackwood's Magazine, CXC

(August, 1911), 145-152.

100

Germany an attractive offer. Consequently, no offer was made by

France. At this point Germany demanded the French Congo in its en-

tirety; France refused to consider such a demand, and for a moment war

seemed imminent. Nevertheless, the French were willing to negotiate

further. 33

Downing Street was shocked at the news of Germany's action-

even more than was the Quai d'Orsay. The British were, of course,

vigorously opposed to Germany's obtaining a naval base in Morocco, and

protested the latter's action on the ground that it was in violation of the

Act of Algeciras. The British, under the circ*mstances, were able to

convince themselves that, whereas the expedition to Fez did not consti-

tute a violation of the Act, the arrival of the Panther at Agadir did.

Grey, in conversation with the German Ambassador, made the state-

ment that England must remember her treaty obligations to France. 34

On July 9 Kiderlen-Wachter and Jules Cambon began the conversa-

tions which were to last for four months. The German Foreign Minis-

ter declared himself ready to renounce territorial claims in Morocco,

and asked for compensation in the Congo. It would be impossible, he

said, to admit a third party to the negotiations without inviting all the

signatories to the Treaty of Algeciras. The Ambassador was agreeable

3 3 Swain, op. cit. , p. 305.

3 4 Grey to de Salis, July 4, 1911, B. D., VII, no. 356, p. 334.

101

to this, but remarked that France must keep her friends and allies in-

formed. Kiderlen then said that it was his desire to resume the con-

versations of Kissingen; he remained willing to give up Morocco but, to

get the acceptance of German public opinion, he must secure compen-

sation. The German Secretary brought up the old argument that France

had bought her liberty from Spain, England, and even Italy in Morocco,

and should have negotiated with his government before going to Fez.

On July 21 Grey asked the German Ambassador to see him, and

informed him that British silence, in the absence of communications

from Germany, was not to be taken as meaning that his government had

lost interest in the affair. The Ambassador immediately reported this

conversation to his home government. The next day Berlin sent a re-

assuring-message to Downing Street.

However, a few hours after the interview between Grey and the

German Ambassador, Lloyd George made a public declaration of Brit-

ish policy and introduced a new element of danger into a delicate situa-

tion. Oddly enough, this speech declaring Britain's policy was deliv-

ered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on July 22 at the Mansion

House, without reference to the Cabinet. A Cabinet meeting had taken

place on July 21, but the content of the Mansion House speech had not

been discussed. Later in the day Lloyd George had consulted both As-

quith, the Prime Minister, and Grey, since he did not feel that he had

10z

the right to meddle in foreign affairs without their consent; both had

agreed to the content of the speech, which said, in part:

But I am also bound to say this-that I believe itis essential in the highest interest, not merely of this coun-try, but of the world, that Britain should at all hazards main-

tain her place and prestige among the Great Powers of theworld. Her potent influence has many a time been in thepast, and may yet be in the future, invaluable to the cause ofhuman liberty. It has more than once in the past redeemed

Continental nations, who are sometimes too apt to forget thatservice, from overwhelming disaster, and even from na-tional extinction. I would make a great sacrifice to preserve

peace. I conceive that nothing would justify a disturbance ofinternational good-will except questions of the gravest national

moment. But if a situation were to be forced upon us in which

peace could only be preserved by the surrender of the great andbeneficent position Britain has won by centuries of heroism andachievement, by allowing Britain to be treated, where her in-

terests were vitally affected, as if she were of no account inthe Cabinet of nations, then I say emphatically that peace atthat price would be a humiliation intolerable for a great coun-

try like ours to endure. National honor is no party question.

The security of our great international trade is no party ques-tion; the peace of the world is much more likely to be securedif all nations realize fairly what the conditions of peace must

be. . . . -35

The German people were astounded. They saw France and Ger-

many engaged in discussing the Moroccan question, and no French

statesman had raised the alarm. Suddenly a contingent declaration of

war seemed to be flung across the North Sea. The German Foreign Of-

fice assured Britain that they were being unjustly accused; they had

landed no men at Agadir, nor had they ever thought of establishing a

3 5 Extract from speech of Lloyd George on July 21, 1911, at the

Mansion House, B. D., VII, no. 412, pp. 391-392.

103

naval base there. Germany contended that apparently the British were

trying to complicate affairs and that the speech of the Chancellor of the

Exchequer had gone far toward accomplishing that purpose. The Brit-

ish press took the position that war was inevitable.

The speech of Lloyd George and internal affairs persuaded the

Germans to be a little quicker in negotiating. Kiderlen gave up his

idea of bullying the French in order to drive a good bargain, and noti-

fied them that he would be willing to accept much less than the whole

Congo. After months of negotiating, France ceded a portion of the Congo

territory to Germany, connecting the Kameruns with the Congo River;

in return she received a tract near Lake Chad, and the recognition of

her right to establish a protectorate over Morocco, provided all na-

tions were granted equality regarding tariffs, transportation charges,

and mining privileges. 36

The Agadir crisis was but another occasion on which German

diplomacy served to strengthen the friendship between France and

Britain. Cambon was quick to seize the opportunity of advancing the

understanding between the two Powers by using the crisis as a stimulus

for greater military and naval co-operation between them. Conversa-

tions, which had been going on between the two General Staffs since

1906, were given renewed impetus by the crisis.

3 6 Swain, 2p. c it. , p. 308.

104

Again a Moroccan crisis had served to draw the British into the

web so carefully woven by Paul Cambon-a web designed by Delcass4.

The former Foreign Minister, who in 1905, it will be remembered, had

been forced from office, was now back in the Cabinet again. To be sure,

he was Minister of Marine, and the Prime Minister, Monis, had assured

Germany that Delcasse would not meddle in foreign policy, but such as-

surances were naive indeed to those who viewed the situation realistic-

ally. It was a matter of common knowledge that the new Minister of

Marine was having a hand in French foreign policy. 37 That this policy

had continued to be that of Delcasse is vouched for by Caillaux, who

became Prime Minister in June, 1911, and who declared: "Our prob-

lem was nothing less than to regain all the ground lost since 1905, and

to repair the consequences of the serious diplomatic check which we had

suffered. ,,38

During the months following his fall, it became apparent that the

policy of Delcass4 had not been materially affected by his resignation.

The following explanation has been offered for this fact:

. . . He [ Delcass ] had pursued a double end during1904 and 1905. His basic aim had been to consolidate his

great system of ententes. Then, because his diplomatic

position seemed so powerful, he had attempted to exclude

Germany from Morocco and thus to make a diplomatictriumph at Germany's expense. The system of ententes was

3 7 Wilifred Scawen Blunt, My Diaries, Vol. II, p. 346.

3 8 Fay, p. cit., p. 280.

105

sound to the core and rested upon the common interests of the

Entente Powers, but the effort to exclude Germany from alldiscussions concerning the Sherifian Empire was'somethingof an adventure, and an unnecessary one at that. France re-pudiated this last as a useless departure from Delcasse'sbasic program, but retained the other features of his policy.

Then, too, Germany got rid of Delcassd but did not succeedin getting rid of the permanent staff of the Quai d'Orsay. Forinstance, Paleologue, who was a sincere admirer of Del-cass'Is diplomacy, remained in charge of his old functions.Similarly, Bulow did not succeed in removing the careerdiplomats who had shared Delcassd's ideas on the subject offoreign affairs. M. Barrere said to his British colleague in

Rome, June 13, 1905: ". . . that the leaders of French

diplomacy, the two Gambons, Jusserand [ French Ambassa-dor at Washington] and himself, were firmly united in sym-pathy for the policy of their late Chief and considered thatthere was no cause for alarm; the French position was asound one in harmony with England and others.39

German policy overreached itself in sending the Panther to Aga-

dir; the French accepted the challenge with a vengeance-the second

phase of the military and naval conversations between France and Eng-

land leave no doubt of that!

3 9 Porter, p_ cit., p. 269.

CHAPTER V

ANGLO-FRENCH MILITARY AND NAVAL

C ONVERSATIONS: SECOND PHASE

Kiderlen-Wachter, German Minister of Foreign Affairs, had rung

Bulow's bell of July 1, 1911, by sending the Panther to Agadir; "all the

alarm bells throughout Europe began immediately to quiver.1" In no

nation was the alarm more resounding than in Britain, for at this

point the possibility of a German naval base on the Atlantic coast of

Africa was fast becoming a reality. England, true to her Entente agree-

ment with France, had given her diplomatic support to the French pro-

gram in Morocco. This assistance had sufficed, blessed by the out-

spoken Mansion House speech of Lloyd George, to bring Germany to

terms in the territorial settlement which followed the coup d'Agadir.

But, Germany had clearly demonstrated the ease with which the deli-

cate balance between peace and war in Europe might be upset. Viewed

in this light, the situation seemed to demand further exploration of

British military and naval assistance to France; exploration to provide

for immediate aid, in case a sudden turn of events precipitated a war

between France and Germany. To France the situation suggested the

need of a defensive alliance, but the British Foreign Office, in accordance

'Winston S. Churchill, The World Crisis, p. 39.

106

107

with precedent, was reluctant to enter into a Continental alliance. Faced

with this impasse, France resorted to the strategy of 1905 and 1906-

military and naval conversations to obtain the moral obligation of Great

Britain to, come to the assistance of France in case of German aggres-

sions.

The conversations of 1906 had led to an understanding on such sub-

jects as the size of the expeditionary force which Britain would send to

the Continent, information regarding the ports of embarkation and

railway transport thereto, transport by sea across the Channel, the

ports of disembarkation, and railway transport therefrom to the assumed

area of operations. The tentative plan agreed upon between Generals

Grierson and Huguet had been approved by the Admiralty.

In October, 1906, General Ewart succeeded General Grierson as

Director of Military Operations. Ewart was of the opinion that certain

changes were necessary in the original scheme due to changes which

had taken place in the English army, as well as changes in the French

plans of mobilization and concentration. A revised scheme was pre-

pared and submitted to General Huguet, after first getting the approval

of Grey in the Foreign Office. Admiralty approval of the revised plan

was obtained from Lord Fisher, First Sea Lord.

The scheme was further elaborated, during December, 1908, and

laid before a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence ap-

pointed by the Prime Minister to consider the military needs of the

108

Empire. At a meeting of this Committee on March 23, 1909, the ques-

tion of rendering military assistance was further discussed; the follow-

ing conclusion was unanimously approved as a result of the conference:

(a) In the event of an attack on France by Germany, the

expediency of sending a military force abroad, or of relying

on naval means only, is a matter of policy which can only be

determined, when the occasion arises, by the Government of

the day.

(b) In view, however, of the possibility of a decision by

the Cabinet to use military force, the Committee have examined

the plans of the General Staff and are of opinion that in the ini-

tial stages of a war between France and Germany, in which the

British Government decided to assist France, the plan to which

preference is given by the General Staff is a valuable one, and

the General Staff should accordingly work out all the necessarydetails. 2

The sub-committee reported its conclusion to the Committee of

Imperial Defence, and mentioned the possibility of increasing the size

of the British expeditionary force within the next few months. Greater

emphasis was placed upon this possibility of increased numbers during

the discussions taking place in April of 1911. Throughout this time

care was taken by the General Staff to treat the plans as being secret,

hypothetical, and non --committal.

Britain was always careful to stipulate that the communications

were devoid of any official significance, and in no way binding on the

British and French governments. France, however, was beginning to

look upon the situation somewhat differently. The French were grateful

2 Memorandum by Brigadier -General Sir G. N. Nicholson, Novem-

ber 6, 1911, B. D., VII, no. 639, pp. 626-629.

109

for Lloyd George's speech, and for the indications that England would

supplement her diplomatic support, promised in the 1904 agreement,

with the military support contemplated in the conversations that had

taken place between the two General Staffs.

In the fall of 1911 there was a pronounced change in the attitude

of France toward a war with Germany. Whereas, in 1905, the sugges-

tion of a possibility of war with Germany had been sufficiently alarm-

ing to cause France to sacrifice her foreign minister in appeasing Ger-

many, the French government now asserted that they were not going to

stand for any more nonsense from Germany, no manque de politesse.

The Minister of War in the Caillaux Cabinet, Messimy, stated the

policy of his government as follows:

. . . That Germany was always going behind agreementsand wanting something more, but that France this time hadmade up her mind what she was ready to concede, and wouldgo no further. She, France, must have a free hand in Morocco.

* . . When France got her warning, four years before,she had begun to prepare [ for war I , and had been preparingever since. . . . during the last two months the work ofpreparation had been most "intensive. "4

Messimy had not been prepared to say that he thought that there would

be war, but he thought if war came, France would win. The attitude of

the French public and the press during this period was one of calm

3 Memorandum of meeting held on July ZO, 1911, between GeneralDubail and General Wilson, August 21, 1911, B. D., VII, no. 640,pp. 629-632; also Fay, 2_. cit. , p. 291.

4 Fairholme to Bertie, September 1, 1911, B. D., VII, no. 643,p. 635.

110

confidence -quite different from the tenseness and uncertainty that had

existed earlier. 5

This change on the part of the French public was due in part to the

influence of the new Minister of Marine, Thdophile Delcasst. Delcasse

had been aware of the weakness of the French army in 1905 and of the

deplorable condition of the navy; ". . . thanks to Camille Pelletan, we

no longer have a fleet, " he had said in 1904. In the years following his

fall, the former Foreign Minister had concluded that his resignation

had been forced as the result of a foreign policy which had completely

outdistanced the force to carry it through. Consequently, on his return

to power, Delcass6 immediately set to work to give France a navy of

such character as to be of service in carrying out the foreign policy

of his country. While carrying on his duties in the office of Minister

of Marine, Delcasse used all of his influence to strengthen the military

might of France; he had been especially influential in the passage of a

bill restoring the provision of the army laws which stipulated that every

able-bodied man in the nation should render three years' compulsory

military service to his country. 6

By the close of 1911 France had made considerable internal

progress in strengthening her military position; the next logical move

5 Enclosure in no. 644, September 7, 1911, B. D., VII, no. 644,pp. 635-636.

6Porter, 2p. 4c ., p. 322.

111

must be in the direction of securing a firm pledge of assistance from

Britain. This next step would be the work of Cambon in London; that

he had been busy may be assumed from the following statement made

by Grey: "But the military conversations must naturally have been

active. " The Foreign Secretary was right; the conversations were so

active that in September, 1911, the Prime Minister wrote to him as fol-

lows:

Conversations such as that between Gen. Joffre andCol. Fairholme [ Military Attache at Paris]I seem to merather dangerous; especially the part which refers to pos-

sible British assistance. The French ought not to be en-

couraged, in present circ*mstances, to make their planson any assumptions of this kind.7

To this Grey replied:

It would create consternation if we forbade our mili-tary experts to converse with the French. No doubt theseconversations and our speeches have given an expectationof support. I do not see how that can be helped. 8

In his letter, Grey mentions that Cambon had just been to see him,

which may well account for his position in the matter. In later years

Grey was to explain that it was not a general expectation on the part of

France that military assistance would be given by Britain, but an ex-

pectation that support would be given only in the Agadir Crisis; this

opinion was given by Grey in defending his policies as having contributed

7 Grey, 2Rp. c-it. , p. 9)2.

8 Ibid. , p. 93.

112

to the outbreak of war in 1914 and was entirely illusory. It is interest-

ing to note, in this regard, that Grey tried to shift some of the respon-

sibility by adding that this expectation was "founded partly on the

speeches we [Lloyd George ?] had made in public with reference to

that [the Agadir I crisis." 9

The Agadir affair had brought the military conversations into such

prominence in England that in November, 1912, Grey decided that the

matter should be discussed in the Cabinet. A difficulty arose immedi-

ately; those Ministers who now heard of the conversations for the first

time suspected that there was something to hide. If Grey had not com-

mitted the government, why had the matter not been brought before the

Cabinet earlier ? To dispel this suspicion, the Foreign Secretary hit

upon the idea of writing to Cambon, stating his views as to just how the

matter stood and asking for confirmation. The letter was drafted in the

Cabinet; the Ambassador's reply is a classic of evasion. The British

letter was as follows:

From time to time in recent years the French and Brit-

ish naval and military experts have consulted together. It has

always been understood that such consultations do not restrict

the freedom of either Government to decide at any future time

whether or not to assist the other by armed force. We have

agreed that consultation between experts is not, and ought not

to be, regarded as an engagement that commits either Govern-

ment to action in a contingency that has not arisen and may

never arise. The disposition, for instance, of the French and

British fleets respectively at the present moment is not based

upon an engagement to cooperate in war.

91bid.

113

You have, however, pointed out that if either Government

had grave reason to expect an unprovoked attack by a third

Power it might become essential to know whether it could in

that event, depend upon the armed assistance of the other.

I agree that, if either Government had grave reason to

expect an unprovoked attack by a third Power, or something

that threatened the general peace, it should immediately

discuss with the other whether both Governments should act

together to prevent aggression and to preserve peace, and, if

so, what measures they would be prepared to take in common.

If these matters involved action, the plans of the general

staffs would at once be taken into consideration, and the Gov-

ernments would then decide what effect should be given to

them. 10

The following is Cambon's reply to Grey's letter:

You reminded me in your letter of yesterday, Novem-

ber 22, that during the last few years the military and naval

authorities of France and Great Britain had consulted with

each other from time to time; that it had always been under-

stood that these consultations should not restrict the liberty

of either Government to decide in the future whether they

should lend each other the support of their armed forces;

that, on either side, these consultations between experts

were not, and should not be, considered as engagements bind-

ing our Governments to take action in certain eventualities;

that, however, I had remarked to you that, if one or other of

the two Governments had grave reason to fear an unprovoked

attack on the part of a third Power, it would become essential

to know whether it could count on the armed support of the

other.

Your letter answers that point, and I am authorized to

state that, in the event of one of our two Governments having

grave reason to fear either an act of aggression from a third

Power, or some event threatening the general peace, that

Government would immediately examine with the other the

question whether both Governments should act together in

order to prevent the act of aggression or preserve peace.

If so, the two Governments would deliberate as to the meas-

ures which they would be prepared to take in common; if those

1 0 Grey to Gambon, November 22, 1912, Grey, op. cit., p. 94.

114

measures involved action, the two Governments would takeinto immediate consideration the plans of their General Staffsand would then decide as to the effect to be given to those

plans.

Now, for the first time, France had a written agreement commit-

ting the Britigh Government to discuss with France the joint measures

to be taken in case of French fears of "an unprovoked attack" or "some-

thing that threatened the general peace. "1 Cambon was making progress;

as Lutz says: "The simple agreement concerning Morocco, engaging

Britain to give merely diplomatic support, had now been developed into

an Entente, covering everything 'that threatened the general peace' and

thus no longer restricted to a German attack on France. " This same

writer raises the following issue in regard to the Grey-Cambon letters

of the autumn of 1912:

One is compelled to ask, especially in view of the resigna-tion of several members of the Cabinet in August, 1914, was the

Cabinet placed in autumn 1912 in full possession of informa-tion, was it frankly told of the scope of the military "conversa-tions, " which had grown into a real military convention; wasit, especially, made aware of the naval agreement already ex-isting with France, dealing with the naval strength of the two

Powers in the Mediterranean and on the northern coast ofFrance, the agreement which, as early as August 2, 1914,was already forcing Great Britain to come into the war ?12

The question is well pit: how it would have been possible, in view of

the Mediterranean agreements of 1912, for members of the British

1 1Cambon to Grey, November 23, 1912, ibid. , pp. 95-96.

1 2 Hermann Lutz, Lord Grey and the World War, p. 88.

115

Cabinet to engage, along with Grey, in such naive correspondence with

the French Ambassador as that of November 22, assuming full knowl-

edge of all that had taken place, is beyond comprehension. A look at

the naval agreements between the two Powers is now in order.

The British attitude as expressed by Lloyd George in his Mansion

House speech produced its inevitable results beyond the Rhine. Tirpitz

immediately asserted that Germany had suffered a diplomatic check,

and must remedy the situation by a Supplementary Naval Bill; this idea

had the full support of the Kaiser, who instructed the Chancellor to

work the Supplementary Bill into the budget of 1912. Fortunately for

world peace, however, while Tirpitz was engaged in his efforts, wiser

heads resolved to renew their efforts toward avoiding a conflict. A

Memorandum was drawn up by Lloyd George and Winston S. Churchill,

First Lord of the Admiralty, which provided that Germany was to

recognize British superiority at sea, not to increase her naval pro-

gram, and possibly to reduce it. Great Britain, for her part, was not

to interfere with German colonial expansion. When the Memorandum

was presented to the Kaiser, he indicated a willingness to discuss the

matter and suggested a direct exchange of views between the govern-

ments, and an early visit from Edward Grey was proposed. Grey in-

dicated that he would be pleased to go to Berlin, if an agreement ap-

peared assured; but meanwhile Haldane would be sent there on a private

116

mission. Arrangements were completed and the War Secretary ar-

rived in Berlin on February 8th. 13

After the arrival of Haldane in Berlin, the Kaiser announced to

the Reichstag that the proposed increase of the army and navy would be

introduced at a later date. This immediately drew from Churchill,

speaking in Glasgow, the comment that "the British Navy is to us a

necessity and, from some points of view, the German Navy is to them

more in the nature of a luxury. " Churchill went on to add that Britain

would take such steps as were necessary to prevent any other Power

from overcoming the British naval superiority.

Discussions between Haldane, Tirpitz, and the Kaiser, although

friendly, soon revealed that a naval agreement between the two Powers

would be difficult, and it was thought best to try for a political agree-

ment. On February 10, in a long final interview, Bethmann-Hollweg,

German Chancellor, proposed the following formula for an agreement:

I. The High Contracting Powers assure each other mu-

tually of their desire for peace and friendship.

II. They will not, either of them, make any combina-

tion, or join in any combination, which is directed against

the other. They expressly declare that they are not bound byany such combination.

III. If either of the High Contracting Parties becomes

entangled in a war with one or more other Powers, the other

of the High Contracting Parties will at least observe toward

1 3 Gooch, 2R. cit., pp. 456-457.

117

the Power so entangled a benevolent neutrality, and use its

utmost endeavor for the localisation of the conflict.

IV. The duty of neutrality which arises from the preced-

ing Article has no application in so far as it may not be recon-

cilable with existing agreements which the High Contracting

Powers have already made. The making of new agreements

which make it impossible for either of the Contracting Parties

to observe neutrality toward the other beyond what is provided

by the preceding limitation is excluded in conformity with the

provision contained in Article II. 14

Haldane could not accept Article III; it would prohibit England from

coming to the assistance of France, in case Germany directed an attack

toward the Channel ports. British security demanded that these ports

remain in the hands of her friend, France. Also, Haldane believed

that England could not remain neutral if Germany fell upon France in any

direction. Again, England had existing treaty obligations to Belgium,

Portugal, and Japan, which precluded such an agreement with Germany.

Haldane therefore proposed the following modifications to Articles II

and III:

II. They will not either of them make or prepare to makeany unprovoked attack upon the other, or join in any combina-

tion or design against the other for purposes of aggression, or

become party to any plan or naval or military enterprise alone

or in combination with any other power directed to such an end.

III. If either of the High Contracting Parties becomes

entangled in a war with one or more other powers, in which

it cannot be said to be the aggressor, the other of the High

Contracting Parties will at least observe toward the power so

entangled a benevolent neutrality and use its utmost endeavor

for the localisation of the conflict. 15

1 5 Fay, 2p. cit., pp. 306-307.1 4 Haldane, op. cit., p. 64.

118

Haldane's proposals would seem to indicate that he was opposed to mak-

ing any agreement with Germany which might be contrary to a defensive

alliance between England and France. There seems to be little doubt

but that the War Secretary considered earlier agreements between his

country and France, such as the military conversations and the under-

standing of 1904, constituted such an alliance.

Germany argued that the terms of Haldane's proposal were too

vague, and that neutrality would depend upon the uncertainty of inter-

pretation, which would rob the agreement of all its value. Haldane

countered with the argument that a simple postponement of German

naval construction, as proposed by the Kaiser and the Chancellor,

would not meet with the approval of the British Cabinet. A tentative

agreement was reached on the colonial questions without difficulty, and

Haldane returned to England carrying a draft of the proposed German

Navy Law.

The German proposal to expand her navy proved too much for

Britain. A memorandum in opposition to the expansion was forwarded

to Berlin and this made a bad impression on the Kaiser. Next, Grey

began to vacillate in his opinions regarding the tentative colonial set-

tlements; in fact, British attention began to draw away from all phases

of the negotiations except the Navy Law. On March 18 the British

Navy Estimates laid before Parliament provided that two keels would

119

be laid down by England for every additional German one. On March 29

Grey informed Metternich that the Cabinet had decided definitely

against the original German neutrality formula.

The Haldane mission had failed in its purpose: England was un-

willing to enter into any restrictive agreement which might interfere

with her plans to furnish assistance to France; and Germany was un-

16willing to make any reductions in her naval expansion.

The possibility of an Anglo-German rapprochement, brought

about by the Haldane mission, had been a source of considerable alarm

in Paris. Raymond Poincar4, now Prime Minister, had advised the

French Ambassador at London to approach Grey with a suggestion of

the dangers involved in a neutrality agreement with Germany. Coinci-

dentally, the day on which Cambon discussed the matter with Grey,

March 29, was the day on which the latter informed the German Am-

bassador that England had decided definitely against the German neu-

trality formulae. 17

At an earlier date, March 18, Churchill had made a statement that

encouraged the French when he said:

In order to meet the new German squadron, we are

contemplating bringing home the Mediterranean battleships.

This means relying on France in the Mediterranean. . . 18

16Ibid. , pp. 309-311. 1 7 Ibid., p. 317.

1 8 Churchill, op., cit., p. 98.

120

This led to agitation in the French and British press for a regular de-

fensive alliance to replace the Anglo-French Entente. At this point,

Cambon spoke to Arthur Nicolson, in the British Foreign Office, of

the need of strengthening the Entente Cordiale through a written agree-

ment. Acting on instructions from Poincare, the Ambassador said:

You see there is a cause of weakness in M. Poincare's

situation. More than anyone else, he is a partisan of the En-

tente with England, but to the important politicians, to his col-

leagues in the Cabinet, to the leaders of French public opin-ion who question him, he cannot give them to understand that

there exist between us other bonds than those of sympathy.

This is not enough between two Governments sure of their

reciprocal intentions. It is not enough for public opinion.

The enemies of England in France (they are few but they

exist) proclaim that our relations with you offer no security.

I have, therefore, asked myself if we could not find together

a formula which would permit us to reassure uneasy and

doubting spirits. I know that the British Government does

not have the right to bind itself without the authorization of

Parliament, but there is no need of an agreement in dupli-

cate, of a treaty drawn up and signed; we could content our-

selves with an exchange of declarations. This is what we

would have done, in 1905, with Lord Lansdowne, if the

resignation of M. Delcasse had not cut our conversation

short. 19

This interview is a classic example of the Cambon technique-the sub-

tle suggestion; nothing much is wanted; it is really of no importance;

and always the suggestion of precedent, the reference to Lansdowne

and Delcass4. In this case Cambon was dealing with Nicolson; he

could only practice his "art of suggestion" on Grey for a limited time

1 9 Cambon to Poincare, April 18, 1912, quoted, Fay, op. c it.,p. 319.

121

without its losing its effectiveness, then he must turn to someone else

-preferably an associate, someone who was sure to convey the sug-

gestion to the Foreign Minister. At this time Cambon's efforts were

without success; the Under-secretary was convinced, but his superior

did not feel like taking such a momentous step.

In 1912, British fear of Germany' s naval expansion had its inevita-

ble consequences. In 1904, another period such as that which now ex-

isted, Fisher had concentrated units of the Royal Navy in the North

Sea; he had recalled ships from various parts of the world to meet the

German threat. Now, in 1912, England saw herself compelled to. with-

draw the battleships from the Mediterranean. This, of course, brought

up the question of the defense of the Mediterranean area, and a meeting

of the Committee of Imperial Defence, to be held at Malta during Whit-

suntide, 1912, was proposed. This development immediately suggested

an opportunity to Cambon; he proposed to the Foreign Office that con-

versations be resumed in the direction of Franco-British naval co-

operation to the end that the French fleet would have the responsibility

of protecting British interests in the Mediterranean, and in return,

Britain would protect the northern coast of France and look after the

Channel. Asquith replied that no such arrangement as this could be

made without Cabinet approval, but Churchill was of the opinion that

2 0 Hankey to Grey, April 30, 1912, B. D., X, pt. 2, no. 381,

p. 580.

122

the time was approaching when such conversations would have to be

resumed and that he would have to ask for the necessary authority after

Whitsuntide. 21 To some it appeared that it would be a much less ex-

pensive plan for England to enter into an agreement with France for

the protection of her interests in the Mediterranean than for her to at-

tempt to build sufficient ships to create another fleet for that area. 22

Eyre Crow, in a memorandum, expressed the opinion that the British

withdrawal from the Mediterranean would have a disastrous effect on

the international situation unless the place of the British Mediterranean

squadron were effectively taken by a powerful French fleet. 23

In July, 1912, Churchill reported that the Comte de Saint Seine

had called at the Admiralty and stated that the French had decided to

move their six remaining battleships from Brest into the Mediterranean

to form a third squadron there, leaving the northern and Atlantic coasts

solely to the protection of their torpedo flotillas. 24 Five days later

Grey told Cambon that conversations could be resumed between the

2 1 Minutes by Churchill, May 10, 1912, B. D., X, pt. 2, no. 383,pp. 582-583.

2 2 Nicolson to Bertie, May 6, 1912, B. D., X, pt. 2, no. 384,

pp. 583-584.

2 3 Memorandum on the effect of British evacuation of the Mediter-

ranean on questions of foreign policy, May 8, 1912, B. D., X, pt. 2,

no. 386, pp. 585-589.

2 4 Memorandum by Ghurchill, July 17, 1912, B. D., X, pt. 2,

no. 399, pp. 600-601.

123

French Naval Attache and the Admiralty. In this interview, as always,

the Foreign Secretary reiterated the provision that nothing that passed

between the naval experts was to be taken as "prejudicing the freedom

of decision of the Government so as to commit either Government to

come to the assistance of the other in time of war. " A little later on

in the discussion Grey said:

I remarked that of course there was no formal "En-

tente" between the two Governments.

It is interesting to note Gambon's reply:

M. Cambon replied that there was nothing but a moral

"Entente, " which might however be transformed into a formal

"Entente" if the two Governments desired, when an occasion25arose.

The Ambassador had indicated that despite Grey's continual protests

that nothing which took place between the two nations was to be regarded

as binding their governments, there could be such a thing as a moral

obligation. It is a tribute to the Foreign Secretary's weird sense of

parliamentary government that only the legislative branch could obligate

the government. Members of the executive branch could take any ac-

tion and by simply stating that such actions did not prejudice the gov-

ernment, all responsibility was ended.

On the following day, July 23, an interesting agreement was

drawn up between the French Naval Attache and the British Admiralty.

2 5 Grey to Carnegie, July 22, 1912, B. D., X, pt. 2, no. 400,

p. 601.

124

Its text read, in part, as follows:

1. The following agreement relates solely to a con-

tingency in which Great Britain and France were to be allies

in a war, and does not affect the political freedom of either

Government as to embarking on such a war.

2. It is understood that France has almost the whole of

her battle fleet in the Mediterranean, leaving her Atlantic

sea board to the care of Flotillas.

Great Britain on the other hand has concentrated her

battle fleets in home waters, leaving in the Mediterranean a

strong containing force of battle and armoured cruisers and

torpedo craft. These dispositions have been made inde-

pendently because they are the best which the separate inter-

ests of each country suggest, having regard to all the circum-

stances and probabilities; and they do not arise from any naval

agreement or convention.

3. In the event of a war in which the Governments are

allies the following arrangements are agreed upon between the

respective Admiralties.

Mediterranean

General Principles.

British objectives.

Protection of Anglo-French interests in Western Basin

of the Mediterranean, i. e. west of Malta.

Combined action if possible for the purposes of general26engagement. . . .

This draft agreement was handed to Cambon by his Naval Attache

and on the following day the Ambassador had this to say to Grey:

In short the engagement to be taken was really uni-

lateral-France was to move practically all her naval force

to the Mediterranean and leave her other coasts unprotected,

2 6 Draft agreement in Admiralty Archives, July 23, 1912, B. D.,

X, pt. 2, p. 602; also Delcasse to Poincare , September 17, 1912,

D. D. F. , 3rd series, III, no. 420, pp. 506-511.

125

and England was free to aid France or not as she liked, and

be under no obligation to do so-M. Cambon said that it was

possible these objections might occur to M. Poincare [the

Channel and the Atlantic would be practically abandoned byFrance, and would expose her to an attack by Germany with-

out any guarantee at all that the British fleet would come to

her aid I1, and that the French Admiralty before concurring

in the proposed disposition of the French naval forces would

require that they should have some assurances that British

naval aid would be forthcoming for the Channel and Atlantic

Coasts. . . .

After due consideration the incredible British Foreign Secretary added

the following comment to his report of the conversation:

The French may not raise the point: if they do raise

it we shall have to consider how it can be met without alter -

ing the first article of the Draft Naval Agreement referred

to in this minute. 27

On July 26 Cambon raised the following issue in discussing the

naval agreement with Grey:

. . . As long ago as 1907 there were verbal communica-

tions with Sir John Fisher in which the French had said that

they could assure only the western part of the Mediterranean,

and we [ England 1 had said that we could undertake the eastern

part. Eventually, the French had said that they would look

after the whole of the Mediterranean, and Sir John Fisher had

said that we [ England I would look after the North Sea and

Channel. It was in consequence of these conversations that

France had concentrated her fleet in the Mediterranean. . . .

M. Cambon suggested that private Notes might be exchanged

to this effect. . . , 28

Grey was not prepared to go quite this far at the time, but agreed to

reflect upon the matter further.

2 7 Minute by Sir A. Nicholson, July 24, 1912, B. D., X, pt. 2,no. 401, p. 603.

2 8 Grey to Carnegie, July 26, 1912, B. D., X, pt. 2, no. 402,

p. 604.

126

French comment on the proposal next came from Poincare in

Paris. After Cambon's suggestions, the. thinking of the French Prime

Minister seems more to the point, who, as reported by Bertie, said:

. . . The decision of the French Government was quite

spontaneous but it would not have been taken if they could sup-

pose that in the event of Germany making a descent on the

Channel or Atlantic ports of France, England would not come

to the assistance of France. If such was to be the case the

conversations between the Naval Experts would be useless

and the French Government must have their best ships to

face Germany in the Channel. 29

To begin a Military or Naval Convention by saying

that it means nothing so far as the Governments are concerned

is superfluous and quite out of place in such a Convention. .

If the Entente does not mean that England will come to the aid

of France in the event of Germany attacking the French ports

its value to France is not great. . . . 30

After making these comments, Poincare proposed that the matter should

be allowed to rest as it stood until September.

The most significant development which came with the resumption

of discussions of the matter in September was the exchange of letters

between Grey and Cambon already mentioned as having been written in

November of 191Z. In his letter the Foreign Secretary maintains with

consistent purpose that the British government is in no way obligated to

France. Other minds held other opinions; Churchill held that

2 9 Bertie to Grey, July 30, 1912, B. D., X, pt. 2, no. 404,

pp. 605-606.

3 0 Bertie to Grey, July 30, 1912, B. D., X, pt. 2, no. 405,

pp. 606-607.

127

It is true to say that our Entente with France, and themilitary and naval conversations that had taken place since1906, had led us into a position where we had the obligationsof an alliance without its advantages. . . We were morallybound to come to the aid of France. 31

As early as December, 1914, the Spectator wrote:

If Germany had tried to invade France by the direct routeinstead of by way of Belgium, we should still have been undera profound obligation to help France and Russia. It is uselessto tell us that we were free to act as we pleased. . . . All ourdealings with France-our sanction of her line of policy, ourmilitary conversations with her staff, our definite associationwith her acts abroad-had committed us to her cause as plainlyas though we had entered into a binding alliance with her. 32

There was no further change in the relations between the French

and British, so far as written agreements were concerned, from the

date of the Grey-Cambon letters. As far as the wording of the letters

went, Grey was justified in maintaining the illusion that his government

was in no way obligated to act in behalf of France in the event of a

Franco-German war. But actions taken by the two governments in the

shifting of their naval forces are incompatible with the Foreign Minis-

ter's illusion. When Britain transferred her battleships from the Medi-

terranean to the North Sea, and France, abandoning the defense of her

northern and western shores, sent all of her capital ships into the Medi-

terranean, a situation came into existence entirely contrary to the terms

of Grey's letter. It is inconceivable that the French could move their

3 1 Ghurchill, 2P_. cit., p. 116.

3 2 Lutz, 2p. cit. , p. 95.

128

battleships from their Atlantic bases without some assurance that their

ports in this area would be protected by the British navy. As the French

saw the situation, England was forced to move her Mediterranean fleet

into home waters as a safeguard against the threat of the German navy;

then, to safeguard British interests in the Mediterranean, the Admiralty

had suggested to France that the French fleet, most of which was in the

Mediterranean, act to protect Anglo-French interests in that area. In

return for this protection, Britain would defend the northern and western

coasts of France. The action in either case would be contingent upon

the fact that the two governments had decided upon joint action in the

face of some threat or aggression on the part of a third Power; if the

governments decided otherwise, then each would have to look to its own

protection. Now in the case of England this last proviso was quite ac-

ceptable; the anticipated threat would come from Germany and the Brit-

ish navy was based strategically to intervene. The French situation

was something else; the threat was the German navy; the avenue of ap-

proach would be the North Sea and the Channel, but the French navy was

in the Mediterranean. How utterly ridiculous it would have been for

France to enter into such an agreement as this!

The French were willing to disperse their fleet and leave their

Atlantic coast defended only after the following understanding:

. . . Le Gourvenement de la Rdpublique et le Gouvernementde S. M. britannique, prevoyant le cas oi lun d'eux auraitun motif grave d'appr4hender, soit l'aggression d'une tierce

129

Puissance, soit quelque evinement menacant pour la paixg4ndral, conviennent qu'ils ddlibe'reront immddiatement sur

les moyens d'agir en commun h l'effet de pre'venir l'aggres-

sion et de sauvegarder la paix. 33

The British Foreign Office had given Cambon assurance that such an

agreement would be acceptable to them; Grey had gone so far as to as -

sure Cambon that such an understanding "ne modifiait en rien l'6tat de

fait actuel. "34 As the French saw the situation, there would be no more

fitting means for preventing an aggression by the German navy on the

French coast than for the British navy to intercede in behalf of France.

Cambon, in September, 1912, had reported to Poincar4 that the Brit-

ish had agreed to do just that.

The British interpretation of the Mediterranean Agreement of

1912 had left that nation morally obligated to protect the French coast;

the French interpretation held that Britain was formally bound to dis-

cuss the question of the better means to be employed in preventing an

aggression against France, aid only one solution was practical-the

Grey-Cambon letters notwithstanding. France and Britain were friends,

and between friends written alliances are superfluous. Cambon had,

again asked for an alliance; he had secured a naval agreement which

left Britain with but one course to follow in case of war between France

and Germany.

3 3 Cambon to Poincar, October 31, 1912, D. D. F., 3rd series,IV, no. 301, pp. 318-322.

3 4 Cambon to Poincar, September 21, 1912, D. D. F., 3rd series,III, no. 448, pp. 544-546.

130

During the second phase of the Anglo-French military and naval

conversations discussions had continued between the two General Staffs,

but emphasis centered on the discussions of the two Admiralties. Why

was this? During this period the French Minister of Marine was

Thdophile Delcasse.

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

The period between 1912 and the outbreak of war in 1914 was one

of continually growing international tension in Europe; the atmosphere

was charged with electricity, needing only a spark to provide a world-

shaking explosion. The murder of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand and

his wife at Serajevo on June 28, 1914, provided the necessary spark and

the existing system of alliances and ententes guaranteed that the re-

verberations would be felt throughout Europe. Austria declared war on

Serbia; Russia began mobilizing, and continued despite German pro-

tests; Germany declared war on Russia, and asked France what she

proposed to do; the Dual Alliance provided the French answer-Ger-

many declared war against France on August 3, 1914.

The question of paramount importance throughout July of the fatal

year was, what would Britain do? Germany tried desperately for Brit-

ish neutrality, but France was striving with equal intensity to involve

her on the side of the Dual Alliance. The final outcome in this contest

to determine the actions of Great Britain was never in doubt, for the

spade-work done by Delcasse and Cambon in the two decades preceding

the outbreak of war had been so thorough that any thought of British

131

132

neutrality at this stage of events was entirely out of the question. The

British Foreign Minister, nevertheless-true to his illusion-continued

to maintain the fiction that his nation was not politically obligated to

render anything more than diplomatic support to France in her hour of

need.

Grey, as late as the eve of that fateful day which saw the begin-

ning of a state of war between England and Germany, appeared before

the House of Commons to announce to that body that Britain's hands were

free. In this speech, on the afternoon of August 3, the Foreign Secre-

tary gave definition to the Triple Entente: " It I was not an Alliance -

it was a diplomatic group. " He was willing to concede, however, that

on the previous day the Foreign Office may have gone beyond a promise

of diplomatic assistance, but in general Britain had promised nothing. 1

The reference to the promise of "yesterday, " handled so casually by

the Minister, seems worthy of more comment than was given by Grey.

The promise of August 2, 1914, was the result of further effort

on the part of the French Ambassador. As the shadows of war had be -

gun to lengthen during July, Cambon had naturally approached the Brit-

ish Foreign Secretary to ascertain the prospects of British interven-

tion on behalf of France. The Ambassador was well aware of German

overtures to secure a declaration of British neutrality and was quite

1 Speech by Sir Edward Grey in the House of Commons, August 3,1914, Edward Grey, Twenty-Five Years, Vol. II, pp. 309-310.

133

concerned by the absence of a forthright declaration of policy on the

part of Grey. On July Z9 Cambon called at the Foreign Office and re-

ceived the following answer, as reported by Grey:

After telling M. Gambon today how grave the situationseemed to be, I told him that I meant to tell the German Am-bassador today that he must not be misled by the friendly toneof our conversations into any sense of false security that weshould stand aside if all the efforts to preserve the peace,which we were now making in common with Germany, failed.But I went on to say to M. Cambon that I thought it necessaryto tell him also that public opinion here approached the pres-ent difficulty from a quite different point of view from thattaken during the difficulty as to Morocco a few years ago.In the case of Morocco the dispute was one in which Francewas primarily interested and in which it appeared that Ger-many, in an attempt to crush France, was fastening a quarrelon France on a question that was the subject of a special agree-ment between France and us. In the present case the disputebetween Austria and Servia was not one in which we felt calledto take a hand. Even if the question became one between Aus-tria and Russia we should not feel called upon to take a handin it. It would then be a question of the supremacy of Teutonor Slav-a struggle for supremacy in the Balkans; and ouridea had always been to avoid being drawn into a war over aBalkan question. If Germany became involved and France be-came involved, we had not made up our minds what we shoulddo; it was a case that we should have to consider. . . . Wewere free from engagements, and we should have to decidewhat British interests required us to do. . .2

Needless to say, this line of thinking on the part of the Foreign

Secretary was thought of as being somewhat unrealistic by Cambon. In

a moment of exasperation the Ambassador roundly criticized Grey's

procrastinating; he reported the conversation as follows:

2 Grey to Bertie, July 29, 1914, B. D., XI, no. 283, p. 180.

134

On the morning of Saturday, August 1st, there had beenanother Cabinet meeting. Afterwards, I saw Grey, who told

me that their Government had not been able to decide upon in-

tervention in the war. He spoke very gravely. I replied that

I could not and would not tell my Government that. "After all

that has passed between our two countries,1" I exclaimed,

"after the withdrawal of our forces ten kilometres within our

frontier . . . ; after the agreement between your naval au-

thorities and ours by which all our naval strength has been

concentrated in the Mediterranean so as to release your fleet

for concentration in the North Sea, so that if the German Fleetsweeps down the Channel and destroys Calais, Boulogne, and

Cherbourg, there can be no resistance, you tell me that your

Government cannot decide upon intervention? How am I tosend such a message? It would fill France with rage and in-

dignation. My people would say you have betrayed us. It is

not possible. I cannot send such a message. It is true theagreements between your inilitary and naval authorities and

ours have not been ratified by our Government, but there isa moral obligation not to leave us unprotected. 03

Cambon was of the opinion that it might be necessary to strike the word

"honor" out of the English vocabulary.

The French Ambassador was undoubtedly relieved on the next

day, August 2, when he received the following aide-mdmoire from the

British Foreign Secretary:

I am authorised to give an assurance that if the Germanfleet comes into the Channel or through the North Sea to un-

dertake hostile operations against French coasts or shipping

the British fleet will give all the protection in its power.

This assurance is of course subject to the policy of His

Majesty's Government receiving the support of Parliamentand must not be taken as binding His Majesty's Governmentto take any action until the above contingency of action by the

German fleet takes place. 4

3 The London Times, December 22, 1920, quoted in Lutz, 2p. cit.,

p. 97.

4 Grey to Bertie, August 2, 1914, B. D., XI, no. 487, pp. 274-275.

135

This was the promise of August 2 referred to in Grey's speech on the

following day, and as the Secretary admitted, it went somewhat beyond

diplomatic support. Again Cambon had enmeshed Grey in an obligation

to France and this time with Cabinet approval. The Ambassador had

been forced to speak rather bluntly to the Foreign Secretary, but he had

obtained quick results; the results were so satisfactory that Cambon

took this occasion to ask that two divisions of British troops be sent to

French soil immediately. Grey demurred.

In his speech of August 3 before Commons the Foreign Secretary

went into considerable historical detail in developing the relations be-

tween France and Great Britain since the signing of the Entente Cor-

diale in 1904. He told of the military and naval conversations of 1906

which grew out of the first Moroccan crisis; at this point he took care

to emphasize the fact that he had "given no promise. " As always,

Grey stressed the fact that he could not secure Cabinet approval of his

actions because of the General Election that was taking place at the

time. Some of his fellow Cabinet members have since declared that

this argument was invalid, 5 but the Foreign Secretary told Commons

that he could not consult the Cabinet because "Ministers were scattered

over the country, and I [was 3 spending three days a week in my con-

stituency and three days at the Foreign Office. .. 6 From this

5 Loreburn, op. cit., p. 80.

6 Grey, 2R. c it. , II, p. 310.

136

statement it would seem that Grey had considered his election to be of

greater importance than his conduct of the Foreign Office.

Next, the Foreign Secretary took up the Agadir crisis, and reasoned

that nothing which had happened at that time in any way obligated the gov-

ernment because of his letter to Cambon of November 22, 1912. The

naval agreement with France was of no consequence from the standpoint

of involving the British government. As Grey represented the situation

to the House of Commons:

That [November 22, 1912 ] is the starting point for the

Government with regard to the present crisis. . . . As re-

gards our freedom to decide in a crisis what our line should

be, whether we should intervene or whether we should ab-

stain, the Government remains perfectly free, and, a fortiori,

the House of Commons remains perfectly free. . . .7

This statement was made even after the promise of naval assistance to

the extent of using the British fleet to protect the French coast! At

least the head of the British Foreign Office was consistent; if his ac-

tions throughout the years since 1906 had not obligated his government,

then certainly the promise given on August 2 did not. But in the next

breath Grey admitted that there might be other opinions in the matter.

After mentioning the friendship which had grown up between the two na-

tions, he said:

But how far that friendship entails obligation--

it has been a friendship between the nations and ratified by

the nations -how far that entails an obligation let every man

71bid. , p. 312.

137

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. The House, individually and collectively, may

judge for itself. I speak my personal view, and I have given

the House my own feeling in the matter. 8

After expressing his views on the subject of obligations, the For-

eign Minister next gave a brief review of the deployment of the French

navy. The reason given for the French navy's being in the Mediterra-

nean was because "of the feeling of confidence and friendship which has

existed between the two countries. "1 At this point Grey's feelings took

on a different meaning, as he stated:

. . .My own feeling is that if a foreign fleet engaged in

a war which France had not sought, and which she had not

been the aggressor, came down the English Channel and bom-

barded and battered the undefended coast of France, we could

not stand aside and see this going on practically within sight

of our eyes, with our arms folded, looking on dispassionately,

doing nothing! I believe that this would be the feeling of this

country. 9

The speaker next stated that the British Mediterranean fleet had

not been kept up to its usual strength-he did not say why-but added

that lest France should see fit to return her fleet to the Atlantic for

the protection of her Channel ports, and thereby weaken her position

in the Mediterranean, Britain had agreed on the previous day to defend

the French coast. Grey then mentioned that the Germans had proposed

not to attack the northern coast of France, if Britain would pledge

8Ibid. , P. 314. 9Ibid. , P. 315.

138

herself to neutrality; this offer he dismissed as being "far too narrow

an engagement for us. "110

With this comment on the German offer, the Foreign Minister

concluded his discussion of the obligation of Britain to France; he next

turned his attention to the matter of the neutrality of Belgium, which

he considered to be of greater importance than the relationship between

his government and France.

The governing factor in Britain's relations to Belgian neutrality

was the treaty of 1839. As a guarantor of Belgian neutrality, accord-

ing to the terms of the treaty, Britain had the right and the obligation

of defending it. Moreover, the defense of the Low Countries against

the encroachments of contiguous great Powers was a tradition deeply

rooted in the national interest of Britain. In his speech of August 3,

Grey asked Parliamentary approval for making the violation of Belgian

neutrality a casus belli; in this matter the House was strong in its sup-

port of the Foreign Secretary. 11 On the following day Commons was

informed that Germany had invaded Belgium and that the Prime Minis-

ter had renewed his demand for assurances that Belgian neutrality

would be respected, and had attached a time-limit expiring at midnight.

At 11 p. m. (midnight in Berlin) the time -limit expired and Britain was

at war with Germany.

IbEnsor, . cit., p. 494.10Ibid. , p. 317.

139

Grey, in his appearance before Commons, maintained that the

Entente had never been an alliance; read the letters exchanged between

himself and Cambon in 1912; and claimed that Parliament was, as he

had always promised that it should be when the time arrived, free to

make any decision which it saw fit. He was, of course, technically

correct in what he had said. But he had failed, deliberately or other-

wise, to provide a true picture of the circ*mstances surrounding his

actions in dealing with the French. For instance, he failed to mention

the fact that British actions at the time of the Moroccan crises, which

had provided a measure of assurance to France, were not entirely

benevolent in their conception, but rather were motivated by the fear

of Germany's attempt to establish a naval base on the Atlantic Coast

of Africa. Again, in discussing the naval understanding of 1912, he

failed to mention that German naval expansion had necessitated the

withdrawal of units of the British fleet from the Mediterranean Sea,

and that England had profited by the transfer of the French fleet from

the Atlantic to the Mediterranean. The Foreign Secretary, as he spoke

before Parliament, explained his past actions on the basis of present

facts only, never intimating that France, considering their relations

with Britain in the light of circ*mstances which had dictated their ac-

tions at the time, would likely interpret events in an entirely different

fashion. He read his letter to Cambon of November 22, 1912, but he

did not read the Ambassador's reply; he did not mention that it was

11, 1 2 -1-1 , 14.- aw*Avoh ziA44oA4ww W*,

140

understood that if either one of the two governments had reason to fear

an act of aggression from a third Power, or some event threatening

the general peace, that government would immediately examine with

the other the question of whether or not both governments should act

together to prevent the act of aggression or to preserve peace. Grey

assured his listeners that they were free to make any decision which

they saw fit; then he proceeded to show them that because of the naval

agreement of 1912, they had no choice but to defend the French coast,

and then informed them that he had promised the French Ambassador

to do just that. Yet, he insisted that there was no alliance between

England and France and that neither government was pledged to sup-

port the other.

The one outstanding characteristic of the speech was its incon-

sistency, but inconsistency was the keynote of the career of the Foreign

Secretary. After all, "nature had made Lord Grey for a country gentle-

man, fate placed him at the head of the Foreign Office. " Sir Roger

Casem*nt gave the following explanation of Grey's career:

At bottom a peace-loving, homely, quiet man, he

came to an office for which he was entirely unsuited, and

mainly for this reason. The powers that guided the destiny

of the State had no use for an able man. . . . I should not

regard him as the stage villain of the piece; as he once

said of himself, he is "a fly_ on the wheel of state,'1 the

victim rather than the defender of the aims of British Im-

perialism. These aims were already fixed and the driver

of the coach of State was already at his post when . .

I--

141

Sir Edward Grey mounted the coach. Instead of driving it

himself, he was taken up as a passenger. 12

Whether or not these comments on the Foreign Secretary's career be

justified, the inescapable fact remains that his conduct of the office

which he held during the troublesome years immediately before World

War I placed his country in a position which guaranteed participation

in a Franco-German war. Fortunately for Grey, the question of Belgian

neutrality intervened as the casus belli for Britain in 1914.

Throughout his career Grey had been obliged to deal with Paul

Cambon, agent provocateur of Theophile Delcassd, and these two pro-

tagonists of an Anglo-French alliance were in the driver's seat of the

French coach of state; they had the advantage of knowing what they

wanted-Cambon knew how to get it. The high-water mark in the

career of Cambon was reached on August 2, 1914, when Grey notified

him that the British navy would protect the Atlantic coast of France;

at that time a de facto alliance came into being between Britain and

France.

Cambon achieved his goal through the military and naval conver-

sations between the two governments. From an inconsequential be-

ginning on a semi-official basis late in the year 1905, he had raised

these conversations to the level of an alliance in August of 1914. The

record of his progress is a monument to the diplomatic skill of Cambon,

1 2 Quoted in Lutz, a9_ cit., p. 72.

142

and the bellicosity of France was commensurate with the progress of

her Ambassador at London. This is borne out by the fact that in 1905

Delcassd had been forced to resign to appease Germany, but six years

later-six years of unremitting effort on the part of Cambon-on the

occasion of the Agadir crisis, the French government said that they

were not going to stand for any more nonsense on the part of Germany.

As for Delcassd, since his life work had been of such supreme

importance to France, it was natural that his countrymen should desire

to honor him and that they should restore to him his beloved post at the

Quai d'Or say. Indeed he was, in any case, the man best fitted for that

position inasmuch as he had been the principal organizer of the coali-

tion against Germany. Accordingly, on August 27, 1914, he was named

Minister of Foreign Affairs in Vivani's Ministry of National Defense.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

1. Official Publications

Gooch, George P., and Temperly, Harold, editors, British Documents

on the Origins of the War, 1898-1914, London, His Majesty's Sta-

tionery Office, 1928.

Ministere Des Affaires Etrangeres, Documents Diplomatiques Francais,

1871-1914, Paris, Imprimeria Nationale, 1929.

2. Memoirs, Biographies, and Correspondence

Asquith, Herbert H., The Genesis of the War, New York, George H.

Doran Company, 1923.

Blunt, Wilifred S., My Diaries, Vol. II, New York, Alfred A. Knopf,1923.

Churchill, Winston S. , The World Crisis, New York, Charles Scrib-ner's Sons, 1931.

Dugdale, E. T. S. , editor, German Diplomatic Documents, 1871-1914,

New York, Harper and Brothers, 1930.

Grey, Edward, Twenty-Five Years, 1892-1916, 2 vols., New York,

Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1925.

Haldane, Richard B. H., Before the War, New York, Funk and Wag-

nalls Company, 1920.

Huguet, Charles J. , L'Intervention Militaire Britannique en 1914,

Paris, Berger-Levrault, 1928.

Newton, Thomas W. L., Lord Lansdowne, A Biography, London, Mac-

millan and Company, Ltd., 1929.

143

144

Porter, Charles W., The Career of Thdophile Delcasse', Philadelphia,

University of Pennsylvania Press, 1936.

Repington, C. A'Court, The First World War, 1914-1918, Vol. I,

Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1920.

Spender, J. A. , The Life of the Right Honorable Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Vol. II, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1923.

Secondary Materials

1. Special Studies

Anderson, Eugene N., The First Moroccan Crisis, 1904-1906, Chicago,

The University of Chicago Press, 1930.

Ashmead-Bartlett, Ellis, The Passing of the Shereefian Empire, New

York, Dodd, Mead and Company, 1910.

Barlow, Ima C. , The Agadir Crisis, Chapel Hill, The University of

North Carolina Press, 1940.

Brandenburg, Erich, From Bismarck to the World War, London, Oxford

University Press, 1927.

Cecil, Algernon, British Foreign Secretaries, 1807-1916, London,

G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1927.

Dickinson, G. Lowes, The International Anarchy,- 1904-1914, New York,

The Century Company, 1926.

Manhart, George B. , Alliance and Entente, 1871-1914, New York,

F. S. Crofts and Company, 1932.

Mansergh, Nicholas, The Coming of the First World War, London, Long-

mans, Green and Company, 1949.

Moon, Parker T.,, Imperialism and World Politics, New York, The

Macmillan Company, 1927.

Loreburn, Robert T. R., How the War Came, London, Methuen and

Company, Ltd., 1919.

145

Lutz, Hermann, Lord Grey and the World War, London, George Allen

and Unwin, Ltd., 1928.

Wolff, Theodor, The Eve of 1914, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1936.

2. Reference Works

Davis, William S., The Roots of the War, 1870-1914, New York, The

Century Company, 1918.

Ensor, R. C. K., England, 1870-1914, London, Oxford University

Press, 1936.

Fay, Sidney B., The Origins of the World War, Vol. I, New York, The

Macmillan Company, 1929.

Gooch, George P., A History of Modern Europe, 1878-1919, New York,

Henry Holt and Company, 1923.

Swain, Joseph W., Beginning the Twentieth Century, New York, W. W.

Norton and Company, Inc., 1938.

Ward, A. W., and Gooch, G. P., editors, The Cambridge History of

British Foreign Policy, Vol. III, New York, The Macmillan Com-

pany, 1923.

Pe rio dic als

Kepi, "Morocco in Liquidation," Blackwood's Magazine, CXC (August,1911), 145-152.

Battine, Cecil, "The Defense of France, " The Fortnightly Review, LXXV(June, 1909), 1059-1068.

THE ANGLO-FRENCH MILITARY AND NAVAL ... - UNT Digital Library/67531/metadc663445/m2/1/high_re… · Crisis, R. B. Haldane's Before the War, and Lord Newton's Lord Lans-downe, A Biography, - [PDF Document] (2024)

References

THE ANGLO-FRENCH MILITARY AND NAVAL ... - UNT Digital Library/67531/metadc663445/m2/1/high_re… · Crisis, R. B. Haldane&#039;s Before the War, and Lord Newton&#039;s Lord Lans-downe, A Biography, - [PDF Document] (2024)

References

THE ANGLO-FRENCH MILITARY AND NAVAL ... - UNT Digital Library/67531/metadc663445/m2/1/high_re… · Crisis, R. B. Haldane's Before the War, and Lord Newton's Lord Lans-downe, A Biography, - [PDF Document] (2024)