Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

which was to be only in the form of an unofficial letter, that these conversations which took place were not binding upon the freedom of either Government; and on the 22nd of November, 1912, I wrote to the French Ambassador the letter which I will now read to the House, and I received from him a letter in similar terms in reply. The letter which I have to read to the House is this, and it will be known to the public now as the record that, whatever took place between military and naval experts, they were not binding engagements upon the Government. [Sir Edward then read his letter to M. Cambon of November 22, 1912. See above pp. 283-84.]

"... That is the starting-point for the Government with regard to the present crisis. I think it makes it clear that what the Prime Minister and I said to the House of Commons was perfectly justified, and that, as regards our freedom to decide in a crisis what our line should be, whether we should intervene or whether we should abstain, the Government remained perfectly free and, a fortiori, the House of Commons remains perfectly free. That I say to clear the ground from the point of view of obligation. I think it was due to prove our good faith to the House of Commons that I should give that full information to the House now, and say what I think is obvious from the letter I have just read, that we do not construe anything which has previously taken place in our diplomatic relations with other powers in this matter as restricting the freedom of the Government to decide what attitude they should take now, or restrict the freedom of the House of Commons to decide what their attitude should be.

"Well, Sir, I will go further, and I will say this: The situation in the present crisis is not precisely the same as it was in the Morocco question. In the Morocco question it was primarily a dispute which concerned France - a dispute which concerned France and France primarily a dispute, as it seemed to us, affecting France, out of an

[ocr errors]

agreement subsisting between us and France, and published to the whole world, in which we engaged to give France diplomatic support. No doubt we were pledged to give nothing but diplomatic support; we were, at any rate, pledged by a definite public agreement to stand with France diplomatically in that question.

"The present crisis has originated differently. It has not originated with regard to Morocco. It has not originated as regards anything with which we had a special agreement with France; it has not originated with anything which primarily concerned France. It has originated in a dispute between Austria and Servia. I can say this with the most absolute confidence no Government and no country has less desire to be involved in war over a dispute with Austria and Servia than the Government and the country of France. They are involved in it because of their obligation of honor under a definite alliance with Russia. Well, it is only fair to say to the House that that obligation of honor cannot apply in the same way to us. We are not parties to the Franco-Russian Alliance. We do not even know the terms of that Alliance. So far I have, I think, faithfully and completely cleared the ground with regard to the question of obligation." 1

1 At the same time that the relations of France and England are under discussion, it will be of interest to consider what was the situation between England and Russia. Some very interesting documents bearing upon the negotiations of England with France and Russia have been published in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung. These appeared in Germany, October 16, and were republished by the New York Times, November 8, and on account of their length have been placed among the documents at the end of this volume. (Post, chap. x.) It is necessary to read them carefully to reach an understanding of the peculiar nature of the hazy entente, which " with subtle ingenuity is worded in such a manner that it suits the peculiar English mentality." To the German editorial writer it looks like an attempt to play a double game, but it is in reality something deeper than an ordinary treaty between two bureaucratic governments; just as between individuals the ties of a sincere friendship are deeper and sometimes better observed than a more formal and legally binding partnership agreement.

6. England declares that she is not interested in a Balkan

question

Sir Edward Grey had been paralleling his efforts to prevent a war by a second series of efforts to prevent his country from being engulfed, should war prove inevitable.

From the very start he had made the same declaration, contained in his speech of August 3, that England was not concerned in a Balkan question (R. O. P. no. 20; B. W. P. no. 5), and that as long as Austria could settle her affairs with Servia so as not to involve Russia, he had nothing to say. The British Ambassador at St. Petersburg told M. Sazonof, that 'direct British interests in Servia were nil, and a war on behalf of that country would never be sanctioned by British public opinion.' (Modified quotation, July 24, B. W. P. no. 6; cf. B. W. P. no. 24.)

In conformity with this stand, Sir Edward Grey refused to go into the merits of the Austro-Servian dispute (B. W. P. no. 91), but said that he 'should concern himself with the matter solely and simply from the point of view of the peace of Europe.' (Modified quotation, July 24, B. W. P. no. 5.) British opinion sympathized with Austria's bereavement, and could easily believe that a government founded upon regicide and favoring regicides merited the natural suspicions which attached to its evil reputation.

Sir Edward Grey told the German Ambassador at London that 'of course, if the presentation of the Austrian ultimatum did not lead to trouble between Austria and Russia, they need not concern themselves about it.' (Modified quotation, July 24, B. W. P. no. 10.)

Sir Edward, well knowing that France had announced from the start that she would stand back of Russia and that Germany would not allow Russia to crush Austria, realized that an Austro-Russian conflict was almost certain to widen out to include Germany and France, and that when this occurred it would be difficult for England

to keep out of the struggle. (Cf. B. W. P. nos. 6, 24, 25.) As Sir Edward remarked, 'when there was a danger of a European conflict, it was impossible to say who would not be drawn into it; even the Netherlands apparently were taking precautions.' (Modified quotation, July 29, B. W. P. no. 90.)

Intending to reserve his independence of action up to the last, Sir Edward Grey told M. Paul Cambon (July 29) that he meant to tell the German Ambassador that day that he 'must not be misled by the friendly tone of their conversations into any sense of false security that they should stand aside if all the efforts to preserve the peace, which they were then making in common with Germany, failed. But he went on to say to M. Cambon that he thought it necessary to tell him also that public opinion in England approached the present difficulty from a quite different point of view from that taken during the difficulty as to Morocco a few years before. In the case of Morocco the dispute was one in which France was primarily interested, and in which it appeared that Germany, in an attempt to crush France, was fastening a quarrel on France on a question that was the subject of a special agreement between France and England. In the present case the dispute between Austria and Servia was not one in which she felt called to take a hand. Even if the question became one between Austria and Russia, England would not feel called upon to take a hand in it. It would then be a question of the supremacy of Teuton or Slava struggle for supremacy in the Balkans; and their idea had always been to avoid being drawn into a war over a Balkan question. If Germany became involved and France became involved, they had not made up their minds what they should do; it was a case that they would have to consider. France would then have been drawn into a quarrel which was not hers, but in which, owing to her alliance, her honor and interest obliged her to engage. England

was free from engagements, and would have to decide what British interests required her to do. Sir Edward thought it necessary to say this, because, as M. Cambon knew, they were taking all precautions with regard to their fleet, and he was about to warn Prince Lichnowsky not to count on their standing aside, but it would not be fair that he should let M. Cambon be misled into supposing that this meant that they had decided what to do in a contingency that he still hoped might not arise.' (Modified quotation, July 29, B. W. P. no. 87.)

7. England warns Germany that she will not hold aloof if
France is involved

As early as July 27, Sir Arthur Nicolson, English UnderSecretary of State, told the French Chargé at London, in reference to 'the German and Austrian Ambassadors giving it to be understood that England would remain neutral, that Prince Lichnowsky could not, after the conversation he had had with him that day, preserve any doubt as to the liberty of intervention which the British Government intended to keep, should it deem intervention necessary.' (Modified quotation, July 27, F. Y. B. no. 63.)

In Sir Edward Grey's dispatch of July 29, to Sir Edward Goschen at Berlin, we learn that he told the German Ambassador at London that 'after speaking to him about the European situation, he wished to say to him, in a quite private and friendly way, something that was on his mind. The situation was very grave. While it was restricted to the issues at present actually involved, England had no thought of interfering in it. But if Germany became involved in it, and then France, the issue might be so great that it would involve all European interests; and he did not wish him to be misled by the friendly tone of their conversation which he hoped would continue - into thinking that they would stand aside.

'Prince Lichnowsky said that he quite understood this,

« AnteriorContinuar »