Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:23:11.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Course in British Foreign Policy, 1892–1902

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

Lillian M. Penson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In one of his characteristic outbursts to the British military attaché at Berlin, the Kaiser complained, ‘All my life I have worked for a good understanding with England, but you do not help me’. This is only one of the oft-repeated complaints, made sometimes to the British ambassador and more often to the military attaché, but its frequent repetition, in varying forms, represented a genuine conviction of German good-will and British lack of response. In the history of the ten years which began in 1892 this reproach has a special significance, for one at least of the important results of the developments of British policy in this period was that the era of co-operation between Britain and the members of the Triple Alliance was ended.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 25 , December 1943 , pp. 121 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1943

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 121 note 1 Lt.-Col. A. Russell to Sir E. Goschen, no. 4, secret, Berlin, 3 March 1911. Gooch and Temperley, British documents on the origins of the war, vi, p. 594, no. 442, encl.

page 121 note 2 Ibid., p. 782. Minutes of the meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence, 26 May 1911.

page 122 noet 1 British documents on the origins of the war, vi, pp. 631–6, no. 468 and encl.

page 122 note 2 Woodward, E. L.: Great Britain and the German navy (1935), p. 2.Google Scholar

page 123 note 1 There is no study of this subject comparable in thoroughness with Mr. Woodward's book, though the sketch by Earle, E. M. in Turkey, the Great Powers and the Bagdad Railway (1923) is valuableGoogle Scholar. The subject is, however, very fully documented both in Die grosse Politik der Europāischen Kabinette, 1871—1914 (v. vols. xvii, xxv (i), xxvii (ii), xxxi, and xxxvii (i. and ii)), and in Gooch and Temperley, op. cit., particularly vols. ii, vi, and x (ii).

page 123 note 2 Joseph, P.: Foreign diplomacy in China, 1894–1000 (1928)Google Scholar.

page 123 note 3 Langer, W. L.: The diplomacy of imperialism (2 vols., 1935), cþ. p. 167sqqGoogle Scholar.

page 123 note 4 F.O. 64/1351. Memorandum by Colonel Swaine, 20 December 1895. cp. the Kaiser's account of the conversation, Die grosse Politik, x, pp. 251–5.

page 124 note 1 cp. The Times, 5 May 1898, p. 7. The relevant passage is as follows: ‘We know that we shall maintain against all comers that which we possess. and we know, in spite of the jargon about isolation, that we are amply competent to do so. But that will not secure the peace of the world.

You may roughly divide the nations of the world as the living and the dying.’

page 125 note 1 The Times, 14 May 1898, p. 12. ‘Now the first point that I want to impress upon you is this. It is the crux of the situation. Since the Crimean War, nearly 50 years ago, the policy of this country has been a policy of strict isolation. We have had no allies—I am afraid we have had no friends. … Now, what does history show us ? It shows us that unless we are allied to some great military power, as we were in the Crimean War, when we had France and Turkey as our allies, we cannot seriously injure Russia, although it may also be true that she cannot seriously injure us. … If, on the other hand, we are determined to enforce the policy of the open door … then … we must not reject the idea of an alliance with those powers whose interests more nearly approximate to our own.’

page 125 note 2 cp. Temperley, and Penson, : Foundations of British foreign policy (1938), pp. 344, 516–20Google Scholar.

page 126 note 1 As an example of Bismarck's attitude, cp. Malet's letter to Salisbury of 25 October 1887, Gooch and Temperley, oþ. cit., viii, p. 14.

page 126 note 2 cp. for example Kálnoky to Biegeleben, no. 2, secret, Vienna, 25 October 1887, Gooch and Temperley, oþ. cit., viii, pp. 9–10; Kálnoky to Bruck, secret, no. 1, Vienna, 22 June 1891, W.S.A., Pol. A. Rot. 465, secret, xxiv/ii; also Kálnoky to Deym, no. 3, very confidential, Vienna, 4 December 1894, Deym to Kálnoky, no. 40F, secret, London, 13 December 1894, W.S.A., viii/172, iii.

page 126 note 3 cp. Kálnoky to Szögyény, very confidential, Vienna, 5 December 1894, and to Deym, nos. 1, 2, very confidential, 4 December 1894, W.S.A,, viii/172, iii.

page 126 note 4 Count Eulenburg's account is given in his despatch to Prince von Hohenlohe, no, 249, very confidential, Vienna, 4 December 1894, G.P., ix, pp. 172–6.

page 127 note 1 Minute by Kimberley, 31 March 1894, F.O. 64/1332. Printed Temperley and Penson, Foundations of British foreign policy (1938), p. 488.

page 127 note 2 cp. Deym to Kálnoky, tels. nos. 29 and 31, secret, 13 and 14 June 1894. W.S.A., viii/172, iii. Cited Foundations, pp. 491–2. cp. Eulenburg's report of a conversation with Kálnoky on 15 June, G.P., viii, p. 455.

page 127 note 3 cp. G.P., ix, pp. 172–6.

page 128 note 1 Deym to Kálnoky, no. 35B, very confidential, London, 1 November 1894. W.S.A., viii/114.

page 128 note 2 Salisbury's Memorandum of 29 May 1901, Gooch and Temperley, oþ. cit., ii, pp. 68–9, no. 86.

page 128 note 3 Salisbury to E. B. Iwan-Muller, 31 August 1896, ibid., vi, p. 780.

page 129 note 1 Kálnoky to Szögyény, no. 2, very confidential, Vienna, 30 November 1894. W.S.A., viii/172, iii.

page 130 note 1 Cecil, Lady Gwendolen, Life of Salisbury, iv (1932), pp. 404–405Google Scholar. The letter is dated 18 August 1892.

page 130 note 2 vide Foundations, p. 482.

page 131 note 1 Minute by Kálnoky on despatch from Szögyéiy to Kalnoky, no. 17A, secret, Berlin, 31 March 1894. W.S.A., viii/172, iii.

page 131 note 2 vide Gooch and Temperley, oþ. cit., ii, p. 79, No. 93.

page 132 note 1 A.P., 1895, cix [c. 7643], pp. 159–62.

page 132 note 2 cp. Kálnoky to Szögyény, no. 3, secret, Vienna, 30 November 1894. The assurances were reported by Deym in his telegram, no. 72, secret, of 21 November. W.S.A., viii/172, iii. Kimberley gave similar assurances. Deym to Kálnoky, no. 39A, very confidential, London, 30 November 1894. W.S.A., viii/172, iii; cp. also G.P., ix, pp. 165, 167.

page 132 note 3 cp. Medlicott, W. N., ‘Lord Salisbury and Turkey’, History, October 1927Google Scholar, and Preller, H.: Salisbury und die türkische Frage im Jahre 1895 (1930)Google Scholar.

page 132 note 4 vide Hansard: Parl. Deb., 4th ser., xlv, pp. 28–9, 19 January 1897. ‘But I am bound to say that if you call upon me to look back and to interpret the present by the past, to lay on this shoulder or on that the responsibility for the difficulties in which we find ourselves now, the parting of the ways was in 1853, when the Emperor Nicholas's proposals were rejected. Many Members of this House will keenly feel the nature of the mistake that was made when I say that we put all our money upon the wrong horse.’

page 133 note 1 Salisbury to E. B. Iwan-Muller, 31 August 1896. vide Gooch and Temperley, oþ. cit., vi, p. 780.

page 133 note 2 cp. G.P., x, pp. 9–13, 16–18, where Hatzfeldt reports conversations of 30 July 1895 and early in August; Hatzfeldt's reports from Cowes, ibid., pp. 22–7, and his subsequent reflections, ibid., pp. 28–36, passim.

page 133 note 3 cp. Foundations, pp. 494–5. Perhaps the most illuminating comment on Salisbury's views is that of Baron de Courcel in August 1895: ‘C'est du reste un homme qui aime à envisager les problèmes de l'avenir et à les discuter.’ vide G.P., x, p. 34.

page 134 note 1 vide Salisbury to Rumbold, no. 6, very confidential, 20 January 1897, printed in Gooch and Temperley, oþ. cit., ix (i), pp. 775–6.

page 134 note 2 Minute of 4 June 1892, quoted in Memorandum by F. Bertie, 19 October 1893. F.O. 78/4592.

page 135 note 1 Lansdowne to Buchanan, no. 301, very confidential, Sandringham, 14 November 1902. F.O. 78/5248.

page 135 note 2 cp. Renouvin, P., ‘Les engagements de l'alliance franco-russe. Leur évolution de 1891 à 1914,’ Revue d'Histoire de la Guerre Mondiale, 1934, pp. 297–310Google Scholar; Documents diplomatiques francais (1871–1914), 2nd ser., iii, pp. 601–14.

page 135 note 3 vide Pribram, A. F., The secret treaties of Austria-Hungary (Harvard University Press, 1921), ii, pp. 231–257Google Scholar.

page 137 note 1 cp. Twenty-five years, i, p. 6.

page 137 note 2 Hansard: Parl. Deb., 4th ser., xxxii, pp. 405–6.

page 138 note 1 Hay to Adams, 21 November 1900. W. Thayer, R., Life and letters of John Hay (1915), ii, pp. 248–249Google Scholar. Cited Morse, H. B.: International relations of the Chinese Empire (1918), iii, p. 328Google Scholar.