Chapter 25

THE NEW GROUPING OF THE GREAT POWERS[495]

(1900-1907)

When I penned the words at the end of Chapter XX. it seemed probable that the mad race in armaments must lead either to war or to revolution. In these three supplementary chapters I seek to trace very briefly the causes that have led to war, in other words, to the ascendancy (perhaps temporary) of the national principle over the social, and international tendencies of the age.

[Footnote 495: Written in May-July 1915.]

The collapse of the international and pacifist movement may be ascribed to various causes. The Franco-German and Russo-Turkish Wars left behind rankling hatreds which rendered it very difficult for nations to disarm; and, after the decline of those resentments, there arose others as the outcome of the Greco-Turkish War and the Boer War. Further, the conflict between Japan and Russia so far weakened the latter as to leave Germany and Austria almost supreme in Europe; and, while in France and the United Kingdom the social movement has made considerable progress, Germany and Austria have remained in what may be termed the national stage of development, which offers many advantages over the international for purposes of war. Then again in the Central Empires parliamentary institutions have not been successful, tending on the whole to accentuate the disputes between the dominant and the subject races. The same is partially true of Russia, and far more so of the Balkan States. Consequently, in Central and Eastern Europe the national idea has become militant and aggressive; while Great Britain, the Netherlands, and to some extent France, have sought as far as possible to concentrate their efforts upon social legislation, arming only in self-defence. In this contrast lay one of the dangers of the situation.

Nationality caused the movements and wars of 1848-77. Thereafter, that principle seemed to wane. But it revived in redoubled force among the Balkan peoples owing partly to the brutal oppressions of the Sublime Porte; and the cognate idea, aiming, however, not at liberty but conquest, became increasingly popular with the German people after the accession of Kaiser William II. The sequel is only too well known. Civilisation has been overwhelmed by a recrudescence of nationalism, and the wealthiest age which the world has seen is a victim to the perfection and potency of its machinery. A recovery of the old belief in the solidarity of mankind and a conviction of the futility of all efforts for domination by any one people, are the first requisites towards the recovery of conditions that make for peace and good-will.

Meanwhile, recent history has had to concern itself largely with groupings or alliances, which have in the main resulted from ambition, distrust, or fear. As has already been shown, the Partition of Africa was arranged without a resort to arms; but after that appropriation of the lands of the dark races, the white peoples in the south came into collision late in 1899.

Much has been written as to the causes of the Boer War; but the secret encouragements which those brave farmers received from Germany are still only partly known. Even in 1894 Mr. Merriman warned Sir Edward Grey of the danger arising from "the steady way in which Krüger was Teutonising the Transvaal." Germany undoubtedly stiffened the neck of Krüger and the reactionary Boers in resisting the much-needed reforms. It is significant that the Kaiser's telegram to Krüger after the defeat of Jameson's raiders was sent only a few days before his declaration, January 18, 1896, that Germany must now pursue a World-Policy, as she did by browbeating Japan in the Far East. These developments had been rendered possible by the opening of the Kiel-North Sea Canal in 1895, an achievement which doubled the naval power of Germany. Thenceforth she pushed on construction, especially by the Navy Bill of 1898. Reliance on her largely accounts for the obstinate resistance of the Boers to the just demands of England and the Outlanders in 1899. A German historian, Count Reventlow, has said that "a British South Africa could not but thwart all German interests"; and the anti-British fury prevalent in Germany in and after 1899 augured ill for the preservation of peace in the twentieth century so soon as her new fleet was ready[496].

[Footnote 496: E, Lewin, _The Germans and Africa_, p. xvii. and chaps. v.-xiii.; J.H. Rose, _The Origins of the War_, Lectures I.-III.; Reventlow, _Deutschlands auswärtige Politik_, p. 71.]

The results of the Boer War were as follows. For the time Great Britain lost very seriously in prestige and in material resources. Amidst the successes gained by the Boers, the intervention of one or more European States in their favour seemed highly probable; and it is almost certain that Krüger relied on such an event. He paid visits to some of the chief European capitals, and was received by the French President (November 1900), but not by Kaiser William. The personality and aims of the Kaiser will concern us later; but we may notice here that in that year he had special reasons for avoiding a rupture with the United Kingdom. The Franco-Russian Alliance gave him pause, especially since June 1898, when a resolute man, Delcassé, became Foreign Minister at Paris and showed less complaisance to Germany than had of late been the case[497]. Besides, in 1898, the Kaiser had concluded with Great Britain a secret arrangement on African affairs, and early in 1900 acquired sole control of Samoa instead of the joint Anglo-American-German protectorate, which had produced friction. Finally, in the summer of 1900, the Boxer Rising in China opened up grave problems which demanded the co-operation of Germany and the United Kingdom.

[Footnote 497: Delcassé was Foreign Minister in five Administrations until 1905.]

It has often been stated that the Kaiser desired to form a Coalition against Great Britain during the Boer War; and it is fairly certain that he sounded Russia and France with a view to joint diplomatic efforts to stop the war on the plea of humanity, and that, after the failure of this device, he secretly informed the British Government of the danger which he claimed to have averted[498]. His actions reflected the impulsiveness and impetuosity which have often puzzled his subjects and alarmed his neighbours; but it seems likely that his aims were limited either to squeezing the British at the time of their difficulties, or to finding means of breaking up the Franco-Russian alliance. His energetic fishing in troubled waters caused much alarm; but it is improbable that he desired war with Great Britain until his new navy was ready for sea. The German Chancellor, Prince von Bülow, has since written as follows: "We gave England no cause to thwart us in the building of our fleet: . . . we never came into actual conflict with the Dual Alliance, which would have hindered us in the gradual acquisition of a navy[499]." This, doubtless, was the governing motive in German policy, to refrain from any action that would involve war, to seize every opportunity for pushing forward German claims, and, above all, to utilise the prevalent irritation at the helplessness of Germany at sea as a means of overcoming the still formidable opposition of German Liberals to the ever-increasing naval expenditure.

[Footnote 498: Sir V. Chirol, _Quarterly Review_, Oct. 1914.]

[Footnote 499: Bülow, _Imperial Germany_, pp. 98-9 (Eng. transl.); Rachfahl, _Kaiser und Reich_ (p. 163), states that, as in 1900-1, the German fleet, even along with those of France and Russia, was no match for the British fleet, Germany necessarily remained neutral. See, too, Hurd and Castle, _German Sea Power_, chap. v.]

In order to discourage the futile anti-British diatribes in the German Press, Bülow declared in the Reichstag that in no quarter was there an intention to intervene against England. There are grounds for questioning the sincerity of this utterance; for the Russian statesman, Muraviev, certainly desired to intervene, as did influential groups at Petrograd, Berlin, and Paris. In any case, the danger to Great Britain was acute enough to evoke help from all parts of the Empire, and implant the conviction of the need of closer union and of maintaining naval supremacy. The risks of the years 1899-1902 also revealed the very grave danger of what had been termed "splendid isolation," and aroused a desire for a friendly understanding with one or more Powers as occasion might offer.

The war produced similar impressions on the German people. Dislike of England, always acute in Prussia, especially in reactionary circles, now spread to all parts and all classes of the nation; and the Kaiser, as we have seen, made skilful use of it to further his naval policy. His speech at Hamburg on October 18, 1899, on the need of a great navy, marked the beginning of a new era, destined to end in war with Great Britain. Admiral von Tirpitz, in introducing the Amending Bill of February 1900, demanded the doubling of the navy in a scheme working automatically until 1920. The Socialist leader, Bebel, opposed it as certain to strain relations with England, a war with whom would be the greatest possible misfortune for the German people. On the other hand, the Chancellor, Prince Hohenlohe, voiced the opinions of the governing class and the German Navy League when he declared that the demand for a great navy originated in the ambition of the German nation to become a World-Power[500]. The Bill passed; and thenceforth the United Kingdom and Germany became declared rivals at sea. Fortunately for the islanders, the new German Navy could not be ready for action before the year 1904; otherwise, a very dangerous situation would have arisen. Even as it was, British statesmen were induced to secure an ally and to end the Boer War as quickly as possible.

[Footnote 500: Prince Hohenlohe, _Memoirs_, vol. ii. p. 480.]

During that conflict the tension between England and the Dual Alliance (France and Russia) was at times so acute as to render it doubtful whether we should not gravitate towards the rival Triple Alliance. The problem was the most important that had confronted British statesmen during a century. Kinship and tradition seemed to beckon us towards Germany and Austria. On the other hand, democracy and social intercourse told in favour of the French connection. Further, now that Russia was retiring more and more from her Balkan and Central Asian projects in order to concentrate on the Far East, she ceased to threaten India and the Levant. Moreover, the personality of the Tsar, Nicholas II., was reassuring, while that of Kaiser Wilhelm II. aroused distrust and alarm.

In truth, the inordinate vanity, restless energy, and flamboyant Chauvinism of the Kaiser placed great difficulties in the way of an Anglo-German Entente. An article believed to have been inspired by Bismarck contained the following reference to the Kaiser's megalomania: "It causes the deepest anxiety in Germany, because it is feared that it may lead to some irreparable piece of want of tact, and thence to war. For it is argued that, vanity being at the bottom of it all, and the Emperor finding he is unable to gain the premature immortality he thirsts for by peaceful prodigies, his restless nervous irritability may degenerate into recklessness, and then his megalomania may blind him to the dangers he and, above all, poor blood-soaken Germany may encounter on the war-path[501]." Kaiser William possesses more power of self-restraint than this passage indicates; for, though he has spread a warlike enthusiasm through his people, he has also restrained it until there arrived a fit opportunity for its exercise. It arrived when Germany and her Allies were far better prepared, both by land and sea, than the Powers whom she expected to meet in arms.

[Footnote 501: _Contemporary Review_, April 1892.]

His attitude towards Great Britain has varied surprisingly. During several years he figured as her friend. But it is difficult to believe that a man of his keen intellect did not discern ahead the collision which his policy must involve. His many claims to acquire maritime supremacy and a World-Empire were either mere bluff or a portentous challenge. Only the good-natured, easy-going British race could so long have clung to the former explanation, thereby leaving the most diffuse, vulnerable, and ill-armed Empire that has ever existed face to face with an Empire that is compact, well-fortified, and armed to the teeth. In this contrast lies one of the main causes of the present war.

Moreover, the internal difficulties of France and the preoccupation of Russia in the Far East gave to Kaiser William a disquietingly easy victory in the affairs of the Near East. His visit to Constantinople and Palestine in 1898 inaugurated a Levantine policy destined to have momentous results. On the Bosphorus he scrupled not to clasp the hand of Sultan Abdul Hamid II., still reeking with the blood of the Christians of Armenia and Macedonia. At Jerusalem he figured as the Christian knight-errant, but at Damascus as the champion of the Moslem creed. After laying a wreath on the tomb of Saladin, he made a speech which revealed his plan of utilising the fighting power of Islam. He said: "The three hundred million Mohammedans who live scattered over the globe may be assured of this, that the German Emperor will be their friend at all times." Taken in conjunction with his pro-Turkish policy, this implied that the Triple Alliance was to be buttressed by the most terrible fighting force in the East[502].

[Footnote 502: See Hurgronje, _The Holy War; made in Germany_, pp. 27-39, 68-78; also G.E. Holt, _Morocco the Piquant_ (1914), who says (chap, xiv.): "Islam is waiting for war in Europe. . . . A war between any two European Powers, in my opinion, would mean the uprising of Islam."]

During the tour he did profitable business with the Sublime Porte by gaining a promise for the construction of a railway to Bagdad and the Persian Gulf, under German auspices. The scheme took practical form in 1902-3, when the Sultan granted a firman for the construction of that line together with very extensive proprietary rights along its course. Russian opposition had been bought off in 1900 by the adoption of a more southerly course than was originally designed; and the Kaiser now sought to get the financial support of England to the enterprise. British public opinion, however, was invincibly sceptical, and with justice, for the scheme would have ruined our valuable trade on the River Tigris and the Persian Gulf; while the proposed prolongation of the line to Koweit on the gulf would enable Germany, Austria, and Turkey to threaten India.

By the year 1903 Austria was so far mistress of the Balkans as to render it possible for her and Germany in the near future to send troops through Constantinople and Asia Minor by the railways which they controlled. Accordingly, affairs in the Near East became increasingly strained; and, when Russia was involved in the Japanese War, no Great Power could effectively oppose Austro-German policy in that quarter. The influence of France and Britain, formerly paramount both politically and commercially in the Turkish Empire, declined, while that of Germany became supreme. Every consideration of prudence therefore prompted the Governments of London and Paris to come to a close understanding, in order to make headway against the aggressive designs of the two Kaisers in the Balkans and Asia Minor. Looking forward, we may note that the military collapse of Russia in 1904-5 enabled the Central Powers to push on in the Levant. Germany fastened her grip on the Turkish Government, exploited the resources of Asia Minor, and posed as the champion of the Moslem creed. Early in the twentieth century that creed became aggressive, mainly under the impulse of Sultan Abdul Hamid II., who varied his propagandism by massacre with appeals to the faithful to look to him as their one hope in this world. Constantinople and Cairo were the centres of this Pan-Islamic movement, which, aiming at the closer union of all Moslems in Asia, Europe, and Africa around the Sultan, threatened to embarrass Great Britain, France, and Russia. The Kaiser, seeing in this revival of Islam an effective force, took steps to encourage the "true believers" and strengthen the Sultan by the construction of a branch line of the Bagdad system running southwards through Aleppo and the district east of the Dead Sea towards Mecca. Purporting to be a means for lessening the hardships of pilgrims, it really enabled the Sultan to threaten the Suez Canal and Egypt.

The aggressive character of these schemes explains why France, Great Britain, and Russia began to draw together for mutual support. The three Powers felt the threat implied in an organisation of the Moslem world under the aegis of the Kaiser. He, a diligent student of Napoleon's career, was evidently seeking to dominate the Near East, and to enrol on his side the force of Moslem enthusiasm which the Corsican had forfeited by his attack on Egypt in 1798. The construction of German railways in the Levant and the domination of the Balkan Peninsula by Austria would place in the hands of the Germanic Powers the keys of the Orient, which have always been the keys to World-Empire.

Closely connected with these far-reaching schemes was the swift growth of the Pan-German movement. It sought to group the Germanic and cognate peoples in some form of political union--a programme which threatened to absorb Holland, Belgium, the greater part of Switzerland, the Baltic Provinces of Russia, the Western portions of the Hapsburg dominions, and, possibly, the Scandinavian peoples. The resulting State or Federation of States would thus extend from Ostend to Reval, from Amsterdam (or Bergen) to Trieste.

Even those Germans who did not espouse these ambitious schemes became deeply imbued with the expansively patriotic ideas championed by the Kaiser. So far back as 1890 he ordered their enforcement in the universities and schools[503]. Thenceforth professors and teachers vied in their eagerness to extol the greatness of Germany and the civilising mission of the Hohenzollerns, whose exploits in the future were to eclipse all the achievements of Frederick the Great and William I. Moreover, the new German Navy was acclaimed as a necessary means to the triumph of German _Kultur_ throughout the world. Other nations were depicted as slothful, selfish, decadent; and the decline in the prestige of Great Britain, France, and Russia to some extent justified these pretensions. The Tsar, by turning away from the Balkans towards Korea, deadened Slav aspirations. For the time Pan-Slavism seemed moribund. Pan-Germanism became a far more threatening force.

[Footnote 503: Latterly, the catchword, _England ist der Feind _("England is the enemy"), has been taught in very many schools.]

Summing up, and including one topic that will soon be dealt with, we may conclude as follows: Germany showed that she did not want England's friendship, save in so far as it would help her to oppose the Monroe Doctrine or supply her with money to finish the Bagdad Railway. For reasons that have been explained, she and Austria were likely to undermine British interests in the Near East; while, on the other hand, the diversion of Russia's activities from Central Asia and the Balkans to the Far East, lessened the Muscovite menace which had so long determined the trend of British policy. Moreover, Russia's ally, France, showed a conciliatory spirit. Forgetting the rebuff at Fashoda (see _ante_, pp. 501-6), she aimed at expansion in Morocco. Now, Korea and Morocco did not vitally concern us. The Bagdad Railway and the Kaiser's court to Pan-Islamism were definite threats to our existence as an Empire. Finally, the development of the German Navy and the growth of a furiously anti-British propaganda threatened the long and vulnerable East Coast of Great Britain.

A temporary understanding with Germany could have been attained if we had acquiesced in her claim for maritime equality and in the oriental and colonial enterprises which formed its sequel. But that course, by yielding to her undisputed ascendancy in all parts of the world, would have led to a policy of partition. Now, since 1688, British statesmen have consistently opposed, often by force of arms, a policy of partition at the expense of civilised nations. Their aim has been to support the weaker European States against the stronger and more aggressive, thus assuring a Balance of Power which in general has proved to be the chief safeguard of peace. In seeking an Entente with France, and subsequently with Russia, British policy has followed the course consistent with the counsels of moderation and the teachings of experience. We may note here that the German historian, Count Reventlow, has pointed out that the Berlin Government could not frame any lasting agreement with the British; for, sooner or later, they would certainly demand the limitation of Germany's colonial aims and of her naval development, to neither of which could she consent. The explanation is highly significant[504].

[Footnote 504: Reventlow, _Deutschlands auswärtige Politik_, pp. 178-9; _Mr. Chamberlain's Speeches_, vol. ii. p. 68.]

Nevertheless, at first Great Britain sought to come to a friendly understanding with Germany in the Far East, probably with a view to preventing the schemes of partition of China which in 1900 assumed a menacing guise. At that time Russia seemed likely to take the lead in those designs. But opposite to the Russian stronghold of Port Arthur was the German province of Kiao Chau, in which the Kaiser took a deep interest. His resolve to play a leading part in Chinese affairs appeared in his speech to the German troops sent out in 1900 to assist in quelling the Boxer Rising. He ordered them to adopt methods of terrorism like those of Attila's Huns, so that "no Chinaman will ever again dare to look askance at a German." The orders were ruthlessly obeyed. After the capture of Pekin by the Allies (September 1900) there ensued a time of wary balancing. Russia and Germany were both suspected of designs to cut up China; but they were opposed by Great Britain and Japan. This obscure situation was somewhat cleared by the statesmen of London and Berlin agreeing to maintain the territorial integrity of China and freedom of trade (October 1900). But in March 1901 the German Chancellor, Prince von Bülow, nullified the agreement by officially announcing that it did not apply to, or limit, the expansion of Russia in Manchuria. What caused this _volte face_ is not known; but it implied a renunciation of the British policy of the _status quo_ in the Far East and an official encouragement to Russia to push forward to the Pacific Ocean, where she was certain to come into conflict with Japan. Such a collision would enfeeble those two Powers; while Germany, as _tertius gaudens_ would be free to work her will both in Europe and Asia[505].

[Footnote 505: In September 1895 the Tsar thanked Prince Hohenlohe for supporting his Far East policy, and said he was weary of Armenia and distrustful of England; so, too, in September 1896, when Russo-German relations were also excellent (_Hohenlohe Mems_., Eng. edit., ii. 463, 470).]

On the other hand, Eckardstein, the German ambassador in London, is said to have made proposals of an Anglo-German-Japanese Alliance in March-April 1901. If we may trust the work entitled _Secret Memoirs of Count Hayashi_ (Japanese ambassador in London) these proposals were dangled for some weeks, why, he could never understand. Probably Germany was playing a double game; for Hayashi believed that she had a secret understanding with Russia on these questions. He found that the Salisbury Cabinet welcomed her adhesion to the principles of maintaining the territorial integrity of China and of freedom of commerce in the Far East[506].

[Footnote 506: _Secret Memoirs of Count Hayashi_ (London, 1915), pp. 97-131. There are suspicious features about this book. I refer to it with all reserve. Reventlow (_Deutschlands auswärtige Politik_, p. 178) thinks Eckardstein may have been playing his own game--an improbable suggestion.]

In October 1901 Germany proposed to the United Kingdom that each Power should guarantee the possessions of the other in every Continent except Asia. Why Asia was excepted is not clear, unless Germany wished to give Russia a free hand in that Continent. The Berlin Government laid stress on the need of our support in North and South America, where its aim of undermining the Monroe Doctrine was notorious. The proposed guarantee would also have compelled us to assist Germany in any dispute that might arise between her and France about Alsace-Lorraine or colonial questions. The aim was obvious, to gain the support of the British fleet either against the United States or France. A British diplomatist of high repute, who visited Berlin, has declared that the German Foreign Office made use of garbled and misleading documents to win him over to these views[507]. It was in vain. The British Government was not to be hoodwinked; and, as soon as it declined these compromising proposals, a storm of abuse swept through the German Press at the barbarities of British troops in South Africa. That incident ended all chance of an understanding, either between the two Governments or the two peoples.

[Footnote 507: _Quarterly Review_, Oct. 1914, pp. 426-9.]

The inclusion of Germany in the Anglo-Japanese compact proving to be impossible, the two Island Powers signed a treaty of alliance at London on January 30, 1902. It guaranteed the maintenance of the _status quo_ in the Far East, and offered armed assistance by either signatory in the event of its ally being attacked by more than one Power[508]. The alliance ended the isolation of the British race, and marked the entry of Japan into the circle of the World-Powers. The chief objections to the new departure were its novelty, and the likelihood of its embroiling us finally with Russia and France or Russia and Germany. These fears were groundless; for France and even Russia(!) expressed their satisfaction at the treaty. Lord Lansdowne's diplomatic _coup_ not only ended the isolation of two Island States, which had been severally threatened by powerful rivals; it also safeguarded China; and finally, by raising the prestige of Great Britain, it helped to hasten the end of the Boer War. During the discussion of their future policy by the Boer delegates at Vereeniging on May 30, General Botha admitted that he no longer had any hope of intervention from the Continent of Europe; for their deputation thither had failed. All the leaders except De Wet agreed, and they came to terms with Lords Kitchener and Milner at Pretoria on May 31. That the Anglo-Japanese compact ended the last hopes of the Boers for intervention can scarcely be doubted.

[Footnote 508: _E.g._, if the Russians alone attacked Japan we were not bound to help her: but if the French also attacked Japan we must help her. The aim clearly was to prevent Japan being overborne as in 1895 (see p. 577). The treaty was signed for five years, but was renewed on August 12, 1905, and in July 1911.]

Still more significant was the new alliance as a warning to Russia not to push too far her enterprises in the Far East. On April 12, 1902, she agreed with China to evacuate Manchuria; but (as has appeared in Chapter XX.) she finally pressed on, not only in Manchuria, but also in Korea, in which the Anglo-Japanese treaty recognised that Japan had predominant interests. For this forward policy Russia had the general support of the Kaiser, whose aims in the Near East were obviously served by the transference thence of Russia's activities to the Far East. It is, indeed, probable that he and his agents desired to embroil Russia and Japan. Certain it is that the Russian people regarded the Russo-Japanese War, which began in February 1904, as "The War of the Grand Dukes." The Russian troops fought an uphill fight loyally and doggedly, but with none of the enthusiasm so conspicuous in the present truly national struggle. In Manchuria the mistakes and incapacity of their leaders led to an almost unbroken series of defeats, ending with the protracted and gigantic contests around Mukden (March 1-10, 1905). The almost complete destruction of the Russian Baltic fleet by Admiral Togo at the Battle of Tsushima (May 27-28) ended the last hopes of the Tsar and his ministers; and, fearful of the rising discontent in Russia, they accepted the friendly offers of the United States for mediation. By the Treaty of Portsmouth (Sept. 5, 1905) they ceded to Japan the southern half of Saghalien and the Peninsula on which stands Port Arthur: they also agreed to evacuate South Manchuria and to recognise Korea as within Japan's sphere of influence. No war indemnity was paid. Indeed it could not be exacted, as Japan occupied no Russian territory which she did not intend to annex. To Russia the material results of the war were the loss of some 350,000 men, killed, wounded, and prisoners; of two fleets; and of the valuable provinces and ice-free harbours for the acquisition of which she had constructed the Trans-Siberian Railway. So heavy a blow had not been dealt to a Great Power since the fall of Napoleon III.; and worse, perhaps, than the material loss was that of prestige in accepting defeat at the hands of an Island State, whose people fifty years before fought with bows and arrows.

Japan emerged from the war triumphant, but financially exhausted. Accordingly, she was not loath to conclude with Russia, on July 30, 1907, a convention which adjusted outstanding questions in a friendly manner[509]. The truth about this Russo-Japanese _rapprochement_ is, of course, not known; but it may reasonably be ascribed in part to the good services of England (then about to frame an _entente_ with Russia); and in part to the suspicion of the statesmen of Petrograd and Tokio that German influences had secretly incited Russia to the policy of reckless exploitation in Korea which led to war and disaster.

[Footnote 509: Hayashi, _op. cit._ ch. viii. and App. D. On June 10, 1907, Japan concluded with France an agreement, for which see Hayashi, ch. vi. and App. C.]

The chief results of the Russo-Japanese War were to paralyse Russia, thereby emasculating the Dual Alliance and leaving France as much exposed to German threats as she was before its conclusion; also to exalt the Triple Alliance and enable its members (Germany, Austria, and Italy) successively to adopt the forward policy which marked the years 1905, 1908, 1911, and 1914. The Russo-Japanese War therefore inaugurated a new era in European History. Up to that time the Triple Alliance had been a defensive league, except when the exuberant impulses of Kaiser William forced it into provocative courses; and then the provocations generally stopped at telegrams and orations. But in and after 1905 the Triple Alliance forsook the watchwords of Bismarck, Andrassy and Crispi. Expansion at the cost of rivals became the dominant aim.

We must now return to affairs in France which predisposed her to come to friendly terms, first with Italy, then with Great Britain. Her internal history in the years 1895-1906 turns largely on the Dreyfus affair. In 1895, he, a Jewish officer in the French army, was accused and convicted of selling military secrets to Germany. But suspicions were aroused that he was the victim of anti-Semites or the scapegoat of the real offenders; and finally, thanks to the championship of Zola, his condemnation was proved to have been due to a forgery (July 1906). Meanwhile society had been rent in twain, and confidence in the army and in the administration of justice was seriously impaired. A furious anti-militarist agitation began, which had important consequences. Already in May 1900, the Premier, Waldeck-Rousseau, appointed as Minister of War General André, who sympathised with these views and dangerously relaxed discipline. The Combes Ministry, which succeeded in June 1902, embittered the strife between the clerical and anti-clerical sections by measures such as the separation of Church and State and the expulsion of the Religious Orders. In consequence France was almost helpless in the first years of the century, a fact which explains her readiness to clasp the hand of England in 1904 and, in 1905, after the military collapse of Russia in the Far East, to give way before the threats of Germany[510].

[Footnote 510: Even in 1908 reckless strikes occurred, and there were no fewer than 11,223 cases of insubordination in the army. Professor Gustave Hervé left the University in order to direct a paper, _La Guerre sociale_, which advocated a war of classes.]

The weakness of France predisposed Italy to forget the wrong done by French statesmen in seizing Tunis twenty years before. That wrong (as we saw on pp. 328, 329) drove Italy into the arms of Germany and Austria. But now Crispi and other pro-German authors of the Triple Alliance had passed away; and that compact, founded on passing passion against France rather than community of interest or sentiment with the Central Empires, had sensibly weakened. Time after time Italian Ministers complained of disregard of their interests by the men of Berlin and Vienna[511], whereas in 1898 France accorded to Italy a favourable commercial treaty. Victor Emmanuel III. paid his first state visit to Petrograd, not to Berlin. In December 1900 France and Italy came to an understanding respecting Tripoli and Morocco; and in May 1902 the able French Minister, Delcassé, then intent on his Morocco enterprise, prepared the way for it by a convention with Italy, which provided that France and Italy should thenceforth peaceably adjust their differences, mainly arising out of Mediterranean questions. Seeing that Italy and Austria were at variance respecting Albania, the Franco-Italian Entente weakened the Triple Alliance; and the old hatred of Austria appeared in the shouts of "Viva Trento," "Viva Trieste," often raised in front of the Austrian embassy at Rome. Despite the renewal of the Triple Alliance in 1907 and 1912, the adhesion of Italy was open to question, unless the Allies became the object of indisputable aggression.

[Footnote 511: Crispi, _Memoirs_ (Eng. edit.) vol. ii. pp. 166, 169, 472; vol. iii. pp. 330, 347.]

Still more important was the Anglo-French Entente of 1904. That the Anglophobe outbursts of the Parisian Press and populace in 1902 should so speedily give way to a friendly understanding was the work, partly of the friends of peace in both lands, partly of the personal tact and charm of Edward VII. as manifested during his visit to Paris in May 1903, but mainly of the French and British Governments. In October 1903 they agreed by treaty to refer to arbitration before the Hague Tribunal disputes that might arise between them. This agreement (one of the greatest triumphs of the principle of arbitration[512]) naturally led to more cordial relations. During the visit of President Loubet and M. Delcassé to London in July 1903, the latter discussed with Lord Lansdowne the questions that hindered a settlement, namely, our occupation of Egypt (a rankling sore in France ever since 1882); French claims to dominate Morocco both commercially and politically, "the French shore" of Newfoundland, the New Hebrides, the French convict-station in New Caledonia, as also the territorial integrity of Siam, championed by England, threatened by France. A more complex set of problems never confronted statesmen. Yet a solution was found simply because both of them were anxious for a solution. Their anxiety is intelligible in view of the German activities just noticed, and of the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War in February 1904. True, France was allied to Russia only for European affairs; and our alliance with Japan referred mainly to the Far East. Still, there was danger of a collision, which both Paris and London wished to avert. It was averted by the skill and tact of Lord Lansdowne and M. Delcassé, whose conversations of July 1903 pointed the way to the definitive compact of April 8, 1904.

[Footnote 512: Sir Thomas Barclay, _Anglo-French Reminiscences_ (1876-1906), ch. xviii-xxii; M. Hanotaux (_La Politique de l'Équilibre_, p. 415) claims that Mr. Chamberlain was chiefly instrumental in starting the negotiations leading to the Entente with France.]

Stated briefly, France gave way on most of the questions named above, except one, that is, Morocco. There she attained her end, the recognition by us of her paramount claims. For this she conceded most of the points in dispute between the two countries in Egypt, though she maintains her Law School, hospitals, mission schools, and a few other institutions. Thenceforth England had opposed to her in that land only German influence and the Egyptian nationalists and Pan-Islam fanatics whom it sought to encourage. France also renounced some of her fishing rights in Newfoundland in return for gains of territory on the River Gambia and near Lake Chad. In return for these concessions she secured from us the recognition of her claim to watch over the tranquillity of Morocco, together with an offer of assistance for all "the administrative, economic, financial, and military reforms which it needs." True, she promised not to change the political condition of Morocco, as also to maintain equality of commercial privileges. Great Britain gave a similar undertaking for Egypt[513].

[Footnote 513: A. Tardieu, _Questions diplomatiques de l'année 1904, _Appendix II. England in 1914 annulled the promise respecting Egypt because of the declaration of war by Turkey and the assistance afforded her by the Khedive, Abbas II. (see Earl of Cromer, _Modern Egypt and Abbas II_.), On February 15, 1904, France settled by treaty with Siam frontier disputes of long standing.]

The Anglo-French Entente of 1904 is the most important event of modern diplomacy. Together with the preceding treaty of arbitration, it removed all likelihood of war between two nations which used to be "natural enemies"; and the fact that it in no respect menaced Germany appeared in the communication of its terms to the German ambassador in Paris shortly before its signature. On April 12 Bülow declared to the Reichstag his approval of the compact as likely to end disputes in several quarters, besides assuring peace and order in Morocco, where Germany's interests were purely commercial. Two days later, in reply to the Pan-German leader, Count Reventlow, he said he would not embark Germany on any enterprise in Morocco. These statements were reasonable and just. The Entente lessened the friction between Great Britain and Russia during untoward incidents of the Russo-Japanese War. After the conclusion of the Entente the Russian ambassador in Paris publicly stated the approval of his Government, and, quoting the proverb, "The friends of our friends are _our_ friends," added with a truly prophetic touch--"Who knows whether that will not be true?" The agreement also served to strengthen the position of France at a time when her internal crisis and the first Russian defeats in the Far East threatened to place her almost at the mercy of Germany. A dangerous situation would have arisen if France had not recently gained the friendship both of England and Italy.

Finally, the Anglo-French Entente induced Italy to reconsider her position. Her dependence on us for coal and iron, together with the vulnerability of her numerous coast-towns, rendered a breach with the two Powers of the Entente highly undesirable, while on sentimental grounds she could scarcely take up the gauntlet for her former oppressor, Austria, against two nations which had assisted in her liberation. As we shall see, she declared at the Conference of Algeciras her complete solidarity with Great Britain.

Even so, Germany held a commanding position owing to the completion of the first part of her naval programme, which placed her far ahead of France at sea. For reasons that have been set forth, the military and naval weakness of France was so marked as greatly to encourage German Chauvinists; but the Entente made them pause, especially when France agreed to concentrate her chief naval strength in the Mediterranean, while that of Great Britain was concentrated in the English Channel and the North Sea. It is certain that the Entente with France never amounted to an alliance; that was made perfectly clear; but it was unlikely that the British Government would tolerate an unprovoked attack upon the Republic, or look idly on while the Pan-Germans refashioned Europe and the other Continents. Besides, Great Britain was strong at sea. In 1905 she possessed thirty-five battleships mounting 12-in. guns; while the eighteen German battleships carried only 11-in. and 9.4-in. guns. Further, in 1905-7 we began and finished the first _Dreadnought_; and the adoption of that type for the battle-fleet of the near future lessened the value of the Kiel-North Sea Canal, which was too small to receive _Dreadnoughts_. In these considerations may perhaps be found the reason for the caution of Germany at a time which was otherwise very favourable for aggressive action.

Meanwhile Kaiser William, pressed on by the colonials, had intervened in a highly sensational manner in the Morocco Affair, thus emphasising his earlier assertion that nothing important must take place in any part of the world without the participation of Germany. Her commerce in Morocco was unimportant compared with that of France and Great Britain; but the position of that land, commanding the routes to the Mediterranean and the South Atlantic, was such as to interest all naval Powers, while the State that gained a foothold in Morocco would have a share in the Moslem questions then arising to prime importance. As we have seen, the Kaiser had in 1898 declared his resolve to befriend all Moslem peoples; and his Chancellor, Bülow, has asserted that Germany's pro-Islam policy compelled her to intervene in the Moroccan Question. The German ambassador at Constantinople, Baron von Marschall, said that, if after that promise Germany sacrificed Morocco, she would at once lose her position in Turkey, and therefore all the advantages and prospects that she had painfully acquired by the labour of many years[514].

[Footnote 514: Bülow, _Imperial Germany_, p. 83.]

On the other hand, the feuds of the Moorish tribes vitally concerned France because they led to many raids into her Algerian lands which she could not merely repel. In 1901 she adopted a more active policy, that of "pacific penetration," and, by successive compacts with Italy, Great Britain, and Spain, secured a kind of guardianship over Moroccan affairs. This policy, however, aroused deep resentment at Berlin. Though Germany was pacifically penetrating Turkey and Asia Minor, she grudged France her success in Morocco, not for commercial reasons but for others, closely connected with high diplomacy and world-policy. As the German historian, Rachfahl, declared, Morocco was to be a test of strength[515].

[Footnote 515: Tardieu, _Questions diplomatiques de 1904_, pp. 56-102; Rachfahl, _Kaiser und Reich_, pp. 230-241; E.D. Morel, _Morocco in Diplomacy_, chaps, i-xii.]

In one respect Germany had cause for complaint. On October 6, 1904, France signed a Convention with Spain in terms that were suspiciously vague. They were interpreted by secret articles which defined the spheres of French and Spanish influence in case the rule of the Sultan of Morocco ceased. It does not appear that Germany was aware of these secret articles at the time of her intervention[516]. But their existence, even perhaps their general tenor, was surmised. The effective causes of her intervention were, firstly, her resolve to be consulted in every matter of importance, and, secondly, the disaster that befel the Russians at Mukden early in March 1905. At the end of the month, the Kaiser landed at Tangier and announced in strident terms that he came to visit the Sultan as an independent sovereign. This challenge to French claims produced an acute crisis. Delcassé desired to persevere with pacific penetration; but in the debate of April 19 the deficiencies of the French military system were admitted with startling frankness; and a threat from Berlin revealed the intention of humiliating France, and, if possible, of severing the Anglo-French Entente. Here, indeed, is the inner significance of the crisis. Germany had lately declared her indifference to all but commercial questions in Morocco. But she now made use of the collapse of Russia to seek to end the Anglo-French connection which she had recently declared to be harmless. The aim obviously was to sow discord between those two Powers. In this she failed. Lord Lansdowne and Delcassé lent each other firm support, so much so that the Paris _Temps_ accused us of pushing France on in a dangerous affair which did not vitally concern her. The charge was not only unjust but ungenerous; for Germany had worked so as to induce England to throw over France or make France throw over England. The two Governments discerned the snare, and evaded it by holding firmly together[517].

[Footnote 516: Rachfahl, pp. 235, 238. For details, _see_ Morel, chap. ii.]

[Footnote 517: In an interview with M. Tardieu at Baden-Baden on October 4, 1905, Bülow said that Germany intervened in Morocco because of her interests there, and also to protest against this new attempt to isolate her (Tardieu, _Questions actuelles de Politique étrangère_, p. 87). If so, her conduct increased that isolation. Probably the second Anglo-Japanese Treaty of August 12, 1905 (published on September 27), was due to fear of German aggression. France and Germany came to a preliminary agreement as to Morocco on September 28.]

The chief difficulty of the situation was that it committed France to two gigantic tasks, that of pacifying Morocco and also of standing up to the Kaiser in Europe. In this respect the ground for the conflict was all in his favour; and both he and she knew it. Consequently, a compromise was desirable; and the Kaiser himself, in insisting on the holding of a Conference, built a golden bridge over which France might draw back, certainly with honour, probably with success; for in the diplomatic sphere she was at least as strong as he. When, therefore, Delcassé objected to the Conference, his colleagues accepted his resignation (June 6). His fall was hailed at Berlin as a humiliation for France. Nevertheless, her complaisance earned general sympathy, while the bullying tone of German diplomacy, continued during the Conference held at Algeciras, hardened the opposition of nearly all the Powers, including the United States. Especially noteworthy was the declaration of Italy that her interests were identical with those of England. German proposals were supported by Austria alone, who therefore gained from the Kaiser the doubtful compliment of having played the part of "a brilliant second" to Germany.

It is needless to describe at length the Act of Algeciras (April 7, 1906). It established a police and a State Bank in Morocco, suppressed smuggling and the illicit trade in arms, reformed the taxes, and set on foot public works. Of course, little resulted from all this; but the position of France was tacitly regularised, and she was left free to proceed with pacific penetration. "We are neither victors nor vanquished," said Bülow in reviewing the Act; and M. Rouvier echoed the statement for France. In reality, Germany had suffered a check. Her chief aim was to sever the Anglo-French Entente, and she failed. She sought to rally Italy to her side, and she failed; for Italy now proclaimed her accord with France on Mediterranean questions. Finally the _North German Gazette_ paid a tribute to the loyal and peaceable aims of French policy; while other less official German papers deplored the mistakes of their Government, which had emphasised the isolation of Germany[518]. This is indeed the outstanding result of the Conference. The threatening tone of Berlin had disgusted everybody. Above all it brought to more cordial relations the former rivals, Great Britain and Russia.

[Footnote 518: Tardieu, _La Conference d'Algeciras_, pp. 410-20.]

As has already appeared, the friction between Great Britain and Russia quickly disappeared after the Japanese War. During the Congress of Algeciras the former rivals worked cordially together to check the expansive policy of Germany, in which now lay the chief cause of political unrest. In fact, the Kaiser's Turcophile policy acquired a new significance owing to the spread of a Pan-Islamic propaganda which sent thrills of fanaticism through North-West Africa, Egypt, and Central Asia. At St. Helena Napoleon often declared Islam to be vastly superior to Christianity as a fighting creed; and his imitator now seemed about to marshal it against France, Russia, and Great Britain. Naturally, the three Powers drew together for mutual support. Further, Germany by herself was very powerful, the portentous growth of her manufactures and commerce endowing her with wealth which she spent lavishly on her army and navy. In May 1906 the Reichstag agreed to a new Navy Bill for further construction which was estimated to raise the total annual expenditure on the navy from £11,671,000 in 1905 to £16,492,000 in 1917; this too though Bebel had warned the House that the agitation of the_ German Navy League had for its object a war with England.

In 1906 and 1907 Edward VII. paid visits to William II., who returned the compliment in November 1907. But this interchange of courtesies could not end the distrust caused by Germany's increase of armaments. The peace-loving Administration of Campbell-Bannerman, installed in power by the General Election of 1906, sought to come to an understanding with Berlin, especially at the second Hague Conference of 1907, with respect to a limitation of armaments. But Germany rejected all such proposals[519]. The hopelessness of framing a friendly arrangement with her threw us into the arms of Russia; and on August 31, 1907, Anglo-Russian Conventions were signed defining in a friendly way the interests of the two Powers in Persia, Afghanistan, and Thibet. True, the interests of Persian reformers were sacrificed by this bargain; but it must be viewed, firstly, in the light of the Bagdad Railway scheme, which threatened soon to bring Germany to the gates of Persia and endanger the position of both Powers in that land[520]; secondly, in that of the general situation, in which Germany and Austria were rapidly forcing their way to a complete military ascendancy and refused to consider any limitation of armaments. The detailed reasons which prompted the Anglo-Russian Entente are of course unknown. But the fact that the most democratic of all British Administrations should come to terms with the Russian autocracy is the most convincing proof of the very real danger which both States discerned in the aggressive conduct of the Central Powers. The Triple Alliance, designed by Bismarck solely to safeguard peace, became, in the hands of William II., a menace to his neighbours, and led them to form tentative and conditional arrangements for defence in case of attack. This is all that was meant by the Triple Entente. It formed a loose pendant to the Dual Alliance between France and Russia, which _was_ binding and solid. With those Powers the United Kingdom formed separate agreements; but they were not alliances; they were friendly understandings on certain specific objects, and in no respect threatened the Triple Alliance so long as it remained non-aggressive[521].

[Footnote 519: See the cynical section in Reventlow, _op. cit._ (pp. 280-8), entitled "Utopien und Intrigen im Haag." For Austria's efforts to prevent the Anglo-Russian Entente, see H.W. Steed, _The Hamburg Monarchy_, p. 230.]

[Footnote 520: Rachfahl (p. 307) admits this, but accuses England of covert opposition everywhere, even at the Hague Conference.]

[Footnote 521: On December 24, 1908, the Russian Foreign Minister, Izvolsky, assured the Duma that "no open or secret agreements directed against German interests existed between Russia and England."]

One question remains. When was it that the friction between Great Britain and Germany first became acute? Some have dated it from the Morocco Affair of 1905-6. The assertion is inconsistent with the facts of the case. Long before that crisis the policy of the Kaiser tended increasingly towards a collision. His patronage of the Boers early in 1896 was a threatening sign; still more so was his World-Policy, proclaimed repeatedly in the following years, when the appointments of Tirpitz and Bülow showed that the threats of capturing the trident, and so forth, were not mere bravado. The outbreak of the Boer War in 1899, followed quickly by the Kaiser's speech at Hamburg, and the adoption of accelerated naval construction in 1900, brought about serious tension, which was not relaxed by British complaisance respecting Samoa. The coquetting with the Sultan, the definite initiation of the Bagdad scheme (1902-3), and the completion of the first part of Germany's new naval programme in 1904 account for the Anglo-French Entente of that year. The chief significance of the Morocco Affair of 1905-6 lay in the Kaiser's design of severing that Entente. His failure, which was still further emphasised during the Algeciras Conference, proved that a policy which relies on menace and ever-increasing armaments arouses increasing distrust and leads the menaced States to form defensive arrangements. That is also the outstanding lesson of the career of Napoleon I. Nevertheless, the Kaiser, like the Corsican, persisted in forceful procedure, until Army Bills, Navy Bills, and the rejection of pacific proposals at the Hague, led to their natural result, the Anglo-Russian agreement of 1907. This event should have made him question the wisdom of relying on armed force and threatening procedure. The Entente between the Tsar and the Campbell-Bannerman Administration formed a tacit but decisive censure of the policy of Potsdam; for it realised the fears which had haunted Bismarck like a nightmare[522]. Its effect on William II. was to induce him to increase his military and naval preparations, to reject all proposals for the substitution of arbitration in place of the reign of force, and thereby to enclose the policy of the Great Powers in a vicious circle from which the only escape was a general reduction of armaments or war.

[Footnote 522: _Bismarck, his Reflections and Recollections_, vol. ii. pp. 252, 289. There are grounds for thinking that William II. has been pushed on to a bellicose policy by the Navy, Colonial, and Pan-German Leagues. In 1908 he seems to have sought to pause; but powerful influences (as also at the time of the crises of July 1911 and 1914) propelled him. See an article in the _Revue de Paris_ of April 15, 1913, "Guillaume II et les pangermanistes." In my narrative I speak of the Kaiser as equivalent to the German Government; for he is absolute and his Ministers are responsible solely to him.]