Chapter I: Indo-European (5)

Deceived in her expectations of active support from her two allies, Russia found herself in an awkward position. From a military point of view it was absolutely necessary for her to come to an arrangement either with Austria or with England, because the communications of her army before Constantinople with its base could be cut by these two powers acting in concert--the land route being dominated by Austria, and the Black Sea route by the British fleet, which was at that time anchored in the Sea of Marmora. As soon, therefore, as the efforts to obtain the support of her two allies against the demands of England had failed, negotiations were opened in London, and on the 30th of May a secret convention was signed by Lord Salisbury and Count Schuvalov. By that agreement the obstacles to the assembling of the congress were removed. The congress met in Berlin on the 13th of June, and after many prolonged sittings and much secret negotiation the treaty of Berlin was signed on the 13th of July. By that treaty the preliminary peace of San Stefano was considerably modified. The big Bulgaria defined by General Ignatiev was divided into three portions, the part between the Danube and the Balkans being transformed into a vassal principality, the part between the Balkans and the Rhodope being made into an autonomous province, called Eastern Rumelia, under a Christian governor named by the sultan with the assent of the powers, and the remainder being placed again under the direct rule of the Porte. The independence of Montenegro, Servia and Rumania was formally recognized, and each of these principalities received a considerable accession of territory. Rumania, however. in return for the Dobrudja, which it professed not to desire, was obliged to give back to Russia the portion of Bessarabia ceded after the Crimean War. In Asia Minor Russia agreed to confine her annexations to the districts of Kars, Ardahan and Batum, and to restore to Turkey the remainder of the occupied territory. As a set-off against the large acquisitions of the Slav races, the powers recommended that the sultan should cede to the kingdom of Greece the greater part of Thessaly and Epirus, under the form of a rectification of frontiers. At first the sultan refused to act on this recommendation, but in March 1881 a compromise was effected by which Greece obtained Thessaly without Epirus. Bosnia and Herzegovina were to be occupied and administered by Austria-Hungary, and the Austrian authorities were to have the right of making roads and keeping garrisons in the district of Novi-Bazar, which lies between Servia and Montenegro. In all the provinces of European Turkey for which special arrangements were not made in the treaty, the Porte undertook (Art. 23) to introduce organic statutes similar to that of Crete, adapted to the local conditions. This article, like many of the subordinate stipulations of the treaty, remained a dead letter. We may mention specially Art. 61, in which the Sublime Porte undertook to realize without delay the ameliorations and reforms required in the provinces inhabited by Armenians, and to guarantee their safety against the Circassians and Kurds. Equally unreliable proved the scheme of Lord Beaconsfield to secure good administration throughout the whole of Asia Minor by the introduction of reforms under British control, and to prevent the further expansion of Russia in that direction by a defensive alliance with the Porte. A convention to that effect was duly signed at Constantinople a few days before the meeting of the congress (4th June 1878), but the only part of it which was actually realized was the occupation and administration of Cyprus by the British government. The new frontiers stipulated in the treaty of San Stefano, and subsequently rectified by the treaty of Berlin, are shown in the accompanying sketch-map.

Russian resentment against Bismarck.

The secret schemes of Russia and Austria, in so far as they were defined in the agreement of Reichstadt and the subsequent Austro-Russian treaty of Vienna, had thus been realized. Russia had recovered the lost portion of Bessarabia, and Austria had practically annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, though the nominal suzerainty of the sultan over the two provinces was maintained. But Russia was far from satisfied with the results, which seemed to her not at all commensurate with the sacrifices imposed on her by the war, and her dissatisfaction led to a new grouping of the powers. Before the opening of the Berlin congress Bismarck had announced publicly that he would refrain from taking sides with any of the contending parties, and would confine himself to playing the part of an honest broker. The announcement was received by the Russians with astonishment and indignation. What they expected was not an impartial arbiter, but a cordial and useful friend in need. In 1871 the emperor William, as we have seen, had spontaneously declared to the tsar that Germany owed to His Majesty the happy issue of the war, and that she would never forget it, and we may add that on that occasion he signed himself "Your ever grateful Friend." Now, in 1878, when the moment had come for paying at least an instalment of this debt, and when Russia was being compelled to make concessions which she described as incompatible with her dignity, Bismarck had nothing better to offer than honest brokerage. The indignation in all classes was intense, and the views commonly held regarding Bismarck's "duplicity" and "treachery" were supposed to receive ample confirmation during the sittings of the congress and the following six months. On the 4th of February 1879 Prince Gorchakov wrote to the ambassador in Vienna: "Needless to say, that in our eyes the Three Emperors' Alliance is practically torn in pieces by the conduct of our two allies. At present it remains for us merely to terminate the liquidation of the past, and to seek henceforth support in ourselves alone." The same view of the situation was taken in Berlin and Vienna, though the result was attributed, of course, to different causes, and the danger of serious complications became so great that Bismarck concluded with Andrassy in the following October (1879) a formal defensive alliance, which was avowedly directed against Russia, and which subsequently developed into the Triple Alliance, directed against Russia and France.

The causes of the rupture are variously described by the different parties interested. According to Bismarck the Russian government began a venomous campaign against Germany in the press, and collected, with apparently hostile intentions, enormous masses of troops near the German and Austrian frontiers, whilst the tsar adopted in his correspondence with the emperor William an arrogant and menacing tone which could not be tolerated. On the other hand, the Russians declare that the so-called Press-Campaign was merely the spontaneous public expression of the prevailing disappointment among all classes in Russia, that the military preparations had a purely defensive character, and that the tsar's remarks, which roused Bismarck's ire, did not transgress the limits of friendly expostulation such as sovereigns in close friendly relations might naturally employ. Subsequent revelations tend rather to confirm the Russian view. After an exhausting war and without a single powerful ally, Russia was not likely to provoke wantonly a great war with Germany and Austria. The press attacks were not more violent than those which frequently appear in newspapers which draw their inspiration from the German foreign office, and the accusations about the arrogant attitude and menacing tone of Alexander II. are not at all in harmony with his known character, and are refuted by the documents since published by Dr Busch. The truth seems to be that the self-willed chancellor was actuated by nervous irritation and personal feeling more than by considerations of statecraft. His imperial master was not convinced by his arguments, and showed great reluctance to permit the conclusion of a separate treaty with Austria. Finally, with much searching of heart, he yielded to the importunity of his minister; but in thus committing an unfriendly act towards his old ally, he so softened the blow that the personal good relations between the two sovereigns suffered merely a momentary interruption. Bismarck himself soon recognized that the permanent estrangement of Russia would be a grave mistake of policy, and the very next year (1880), negotiations for a treaty of defensive alliance between the two cabinets were begun. Nor did the accession to the throne of Russia of Alexander III., who had long enjoyed the reputation of being systematically hostile to Germans, produce a rupture, as was expected. Six months after his father's death, the young tsar met the old kaiser at Danzig (September 1881), and some progress was made towards a complete renewal of the traditional friendship. Immediately afterwards a further step was taken towards re-establishing the old state of things with regard also to Austria. On his return to St Petersburg, Alexander III. remembered that he had received some time previously a telegram of congratulation from the emperor Francis Joseph, and he now replied to it very cordially, referring to the meeting at Danzig, and describing the emperor William as "that venerable friend with whom we are united in the common bonds of a profound affection." The words foreshadowed a revival of the Three Emperors' League, which actually took place three years later.

Growth of the Triple Alliance.

The removal of all immediate danger of a Franco-Russian alliance did not prevent Bismarck from strengthening in other ways the diplomatic position of Germany, and the result of his efforts soon became apparent in the alliance of Italy with the two central powers. Ever since the Franco-German War of 1870-71, and more especially since the congress of Berlin in 1878, the Italian government had shown itself restless and undecided in its foreign policy. As it was to France that Italy owed her emancipation from Austrian rule, it seemed natural that the two countries should remain allies, but anything like cordial co-operation was prevented by conflicting interests and hostile feeling. The French did not consider the acquisition of Savoy and Nice a sufficient compensation for the assistance they had given to the cause of Italian unity, and they did not know, or did not care to remember, that their own government was greatly to blame for the passive attitude of Italy in the hour of their great national misfortunes. On the other hand, a considerable amount of bitterness against France had been gradually accumulating in the hearts of the Italians. As far back as the end of the war of 1859, popular opinion had been freely expressed against Napoleon III., because he had failed to keep his promise of liberating Italy "from the Alps to the Adriatic." The feeling was revived and intensified when it became known that he was opposing the annexation of central and southern Italy, and that he obtained Savoy and Nice as the price of partly withdrawing his opposition. Subsequently, in the war of 1866, he was supposed to have insulted Italy by making her conclude peace with Austria, on the basis of the cession of Venetia, before she could wipe out the humiliation of her defeats at Custozza and Lissa. Then came the French protection of the pope's temporal power as a constant source of irritation, producing occasional explosions of violent hostility, as when the new Chassepot rifles were announced to have "worked wonders" among the Garibaldians at Mentana. When the Second Empire was replaced by the Republic, the relations did not improve. French statesmen of the Thiers school had always condemned the imperial policy of permitting and even encouraging the creation of large, powerful states on the French frontiers, and Thiers himself publicly attributed to this policy the misfortunes of his country. With regard to Italy, he said openly that he regretted what had been done, though he had no intention of undoing it. The first part of this statement was carefully noted in Italy, and the latter part was accepted with scepticism. In any case his hand might perhaps be forced, for in the first republican chamber the monarchical and clerical element was very strong, and it persistently attempted to get something done in favour of the temporal power. Even when the party of the Left undertook the direction of affairs in 1876, the government did not become anti-clerical in its foreign policy, and Italian statesmen resigned themselves to a position of political isolation. The position had its advantages. Events in the Balkan Peninsula foreshadowed a great European war, and it seemed that in the event of Europe's being divided into two hostile camps, Italy might have the honour and the advantage of regulating the balance of power. By maintaining good relations with all her neighbours and carefully avoiding all inconvenient entanglements, she might come forward at the critical moment and dictate her own terms to either of the contending parties, or offer her services to the highest bidder. This Machiavellian policy did not give the expected results. Being friends with everybody in a general way may be the best course for an old, conservative country which desires merely the maintenance of the _status quo_, but it does not secure the energetic diplomatic support required by a young enterprising state which wishes to increase its territory and influence. At the congress of Berlin, when several of the powers got territorial acquisitions, Italy got nothing. The Italians, who were in the habit of assuming, almost as a matter of principle, that from all European complications they had a right to obtain some tangible advantage, were naturally disappointed, and they attributed their misfortune to their political isolation. The policy of the free hand consequently fell into disrepute, and the desire for a close, efficient alliance revived. But with what power or powers should an alliance be made? The remnants of the old party of action, who still carried the _Italia Irredenta_ banner, had an answer ready. They recommended that alliances should be concluded with a view to wresting from Austria the Trentino and Trieste, with Dalmatia, perhaps, into the bargain. On the other hand, the Conservatives and the Moderates considered that the question of the Trentino and Trieste was much less important than that of political influence in the Mediterranean. A strong Austria was required, it was said, to bar the way of Russia to the Adriatic, and France must not be allowed to pursue unchecked her policy of transforming the Mediterranean into a French lake. Considerations of this kind led naturally to the conclusion that Italy should draw closer to the powers of central Europe. So the question appeared from the standpoint of "la haute politique." From the less elevated standpoint of immediate political interests, it presented conflicting considerations. A _rapprochement_ with the central powers might prevent the conclusion of a commercial treaty with France, and thereby increase the financial and economic difficulties with which the young kingdom was struggling, whereas a _rapprochement_ with France would certainly excite the hostility of Bismarck, who was retiring from the _Kulturkampf_ and journeying towards Canossa, and who might possibly conciliate the pope by helping him to recover his temporal sovereignty at the expense of Italy. Altogether the problem was a very complicated one. The conflicting currents so nearly balanced each other, that the question as to which way the ship would drift might be decided by a little squall of popular sentiment. A very big squall was brewing.

France and Tunis.

During the congress of Berlin the French government was very indignant when it discovered that Lord Beaconsfield had recently made a secret convention with the sultan for the British occupation of Cyprus, and in order to calm its resentment Lord Salisbury gave M. Waddington to understand that, so far as England was concerned, France would be allowed a free hand in the Regency of Tunis, which she had long coveted. Though the conversations on the subject and a subsequent exchange of notes were kept strictly secret, the Italian government soon got wind of the affair, and it was at first much alarmed. It considered, in common with Italians generally, that Tunis, on the ground of historic right and of national interests, should be reserved for Italy, and that an extension of French territory in that direction would destroy, to the detriment of Italy, the balance of power in the Mediterranean. These apprehensions were calmed for a time by assurances given to the Italian ambassador in Paris. M. Gambetta assured General Cialdini that he had no intention of making Italy an irreconcilable enemy of France, and M. Waddington declared, on his word of honour, that so long as he remained minister of foreign affairs nothing of the sort would be done by France without a previous understanding with the cabinet of Rome. M. Waddington honourably kept his word, but his successor did not consider himself bound by the assurance; and when it was found that the Italians were trying systematically to establish their influence in the Regency at the expense of France, the French authorities, on the ground that a Tunisian tribe called the Kroumirs had committed depredations in Algeria, sent an armed force into the Regency, and imposed on the bey the Bardo treaty, which transformed Tunis into a French protectorate.

Triple Alliance signed 1882.

The establishment of a French protectorate over a country which the Italians had marked out for themselves as necessary for the defence and colonial expansion of the kingdom had the effect which Gambetta had foreseen--it made Italy, for a time at least, the irreconcilable enemy of France. Whilst the French were giving free expression to their patriotic exultation, and even Gambetta himself, in defiance of what he had said to Cialdini, was congratulating Jules Ferry on having restored France to her place among the nations, the Italians were trying to smother their indignation and to discover some means of retrieving what they had lost. The only remedy seemed to be to secure foreign alliances, and there was now no hesitation as to where they should be sought. Simple people in Italy imagined that if an alliance had been concluded sooner with Germany and Austria, these powers would have prevented France from trampling on the sacred interests of Italy. This idea was entirely erroneous, because Austria had little or no interest in the Tunisian Question, and Bismarck was not at all sorry to see France embark on an enterprise which distracted her attention from Alsace-Lorraine and removed all danger of a Franco-Italian alliance. The illusion, however, had a powerful influence on Italian public opinion. The government was now urged to conclude without further delay an alliance with the central powers, and the recommendation was not unwelcome to the king, because most of the Italian Gallophils had anti-dynastic and republican tendencies, and he was naturally disposed to draw nearer to governments which proclaimed themselves the defenders of monarchical institutions and the opponents of revolutionary agitation. After protracted negotiations, in which Italy tried in vain to secure protection for her own separate interests in the Mediterranean, defensive treaties of alliance were concluded with the cabinets of Vienna and Berlin in May 1882. Though the Italian statesmen did not secure by these treaties all they wanted, they felt that the kingdom was protected against any aggressive designs which might be entertained by France or the Vatican, and when the treaties were renewed in 1887 they succeeded in getting somewhat more favourable conditions.

Dreikaiserbund revived 1884.

By the creation of this Triple Alliance, which still subsists, the diplomatic position of Germany was greatly strengthened, but Bismarck was still haunted by the apprehension of a Franco-Russian alliance, and he made repeated attempts to renew the old cordial relations with the court of St Petersburg. He was bold enough to hope that, notwithstanding the Austro-German treaty of October 1879, avowedly directed against Russia, and the new Triple Alliance, by which the Austro-German Alliance was strengthened, he might resuscitate the Three Emperors' League in such a form as to ensure, even more effectually than he had done on the former occasion, the preponderance of Germany in the arrangement. With this object he threw out a hint to the Russian ambassador, M. Sabourof, in the summer of 1883, that the evil results of the congress of Berlin might be counteracted by a formal agreement between the three emperors. The suggestion was transmitted privately by M. Sabourof to the tsar, and was favourably received. Alexander III. was disquieted by the continuance of the Nihilist agitation, and was not averse from drawing closer to the conservative powers; and as he desired tranquillity for some time in the Balkan Peninsula, he was glad to have security that his rival would do nothing in that part of the world without a previous understanding. M. de Giers, who had now succeeded Prince Gorchakov in the direction of foreign affairs, was accordingly despatched to Friedrichsruh to discuss the subject with Bismarck. The practical result of the meeting was that negotiations between the two governments were begun, and on the 21st of March 1884 a formal document was signed in Berlin. About six months later, in the month of September, the three emperors met at Skiernevice and ratified the agreement. Thus, without any modification of the Triple Alliance, which was directed against Russia, the old Three Emperors' League, which included Russia, was revived. Germany and Austria, being members of both, were doubly protected, for in the event of being attacked they could count on at least the benevolent neutrality of both Russia and Italy. France was thereby completely isolated.

In drawing up the secret treaty of Skiernevice, which may be regarded as the _chef-d'oeuvre_ of Bismarckian diplomacy, the German chancellor's chief aims evidently were to paralyse Russia by yoking her to Germany and Austria, to isolate France, and to realize his old scheme of holding the balance between Russia and Austria in the Balkan Peninsula. With a view to attaining the first two objects it was stipulated that if any one of the three powers were forced to make war on a fourth power, the two other contracting parties should observe a benevolent neutrality towards their ally. If we may believe a well-informed Russian authority, Bismarck wished it to be understood that in the event of _two_ of the powers being at war with a fourth, the stipulation about benevolent neutrality should still hold good, but Alexander III. objected, on the ground that he could not remain a passive spectator of a duel in which France would be confronted by two antagonists. In his third object Bismarck was successful, for it was expressly laid down that in all cases of a disagreement between two of the parties in the affairs of the Balkan Peninsula, the third power should decide between them. This meant, of course, that in all discussions between Russia and Austria, the two great rivals in the Eastern Question, Bismarck should always have a casting vote. In return for all this, Russia obtained two small concessions: firstly, that Germany and Austria should seek to restrain the sultan from permitting the passage of the Dardanelles to an English fleet, as he had done in 1878, when the Russian army was before Constantinople; and, secondly, that they should not oppose the union of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia, if it was accomplished by the force of things and within the limits traced by the congress of Berlin.

Bulgarian crisis.

This new form of the Three Emperors' League had all the organic defects of its predecessor, and was destined to be still more short-lived. The claims of Russia and Austria might be reconcilable in theory, but in practice they were sure to conflict; and however much Bismarck might try to play the part of an honest broker, he was certain to be suspected of opposing Russia and favouring Austria. It was therefore only during a period of political stagnation in south-eastern Europe that the arrangement could work smoothly. The political stagnation did not last long. Prince Alexander of Bulgaria had for some time been fretting under the high-handed interference of the Russian agents in the principality, and had begun to oppose systematically what the Russians considered their legitimate influence. Relations between Sofia and St Petersburg had consequently become strained, when a crisis was suddenly brought about by the revolution of Philippopolis in September 1885. The conspirators arrested and expelled the governor-general, who had been appointed by the sultan with the assent of the powers, and at the same time proclaimed the union of the autonomous province of Eastern Rumelia with the principality of Bulgaria, in defiance of the stipulations of the treaty of Berlin. The revolution had been effected with the connivance and approval of the regularly accredited Russian agents in Philippopolis, but it had not received the sanction of the Russian government, and was resented as a new act of insubordination on the part of Prince Alexander. When he arrived in Philippopolis and accepted the declaration of union, the cabinet of St Petersburg protested against any such infraction of the Berlin treaty, and the Porte prepared to send an army into the province. It was restrained from taking this step by the ambassadors in Constantinople, so that an armed conflict between Turks and Bulgarians was prevented; but no sooner had the Bulgarians been relieved from this danger on their eastern frontier, than they were attacked from the west by the Servians, who were determined to get ample compensation for any advantage which the Bulgarians might obtain. The Bulgarian army defeated the Servians at Slivnitza (November 19-20, 1885), and was marching on Belgrade when its advance was stopped and an armistice arranged by the energetic intervention of the Austrian government. Following the example of the Servians, the Greeks were preparing to exact territorial compensation likewise; but as their mobilization was a slow process, the powers had time to restrain them from entering on active hostilities, first by an ultimatum (April 26, 1886), and afterwards by a blockade of their ports (May 1886). By that time, thanks to the intervention of the powers, a peace between Bulgaria and Servia had been signed at Bucharest (March 3); and with regard to Eastern Rumelia a compromise had been effected by which the formal union with the principality was rejected, and the prince was appointed governor-general of the province for a term of five years. This was in reality union in disguise.

The diplomatic solution of the problem averted the danger of a European war, but it left a great deal of dissatisfaction, which soon produced new troubles. Not only had Prince Alexander escaped punishment for his insubordination to Russia, but he and the anti-Russian party among the Bulgarians had obtained a decided success. This could not well be tolerated. Before six months had passed (August 21, 1886) Prince Alexander was kidnapped by conspirators in his palace at Sofia and conveyed secretly to Russian Bessarabia. As soon as the incident was reported to the tsar, the prince was released, and he at once returned to Sofia, where a counter-revolution had been effected in his favour; but he considered his position untenable, and formally abdicated. A fortnight after his departure General Kaulbars arrived from St Petersburg with instructions from the tsar to restore order in accordance with Russian interests. In St Petersburg it was supposed that the Bulgarian people were still devoted to Russia, and that they were ready to rise against and expel the politicians of the Nationalist party led by Stambolof. General Kaulbars accordingly made a tour in the country and delivered speeches to the assembled multitudes, but Stambolof's political organization counteracted all his efforts, and on the 20th of November he left Bulgaria and took the Russian consuls with him. Stambolof maintained his position, suppressed energetically several insurrectionary movements, and succeeded in getting Prince Ferdinand of Coburg elected prince (July 7, 1887), in spite of the opposition of Russia, who put forward as candidate a Russian subject, Prince Nicholas of Mingrelia. Prince Ferdinand was not officially recognized by the sultan and the powers, but he continued to reign under the direction of Stambolof, and the Russian government, passively accepting the accomplished facts, awaited patiently a more convenient moment for action.

Russian hostility to Germany.

These events in the Balkan Peninsula necessarily affected the mutual relations of the powers composing the Three Emperors' League. Austria could not remain a passive and disinterested spectator of the action of Russia in Bulgaria. Her agents had given a certain amount of support to Prince Alexander in his efforts to emancipate himself from Russian domination; and when the prince was kidnapped and induced to abdicate, Count Kalnoky had not concealed his intention of opposing further aggression. Bismarck resisted the pressure brought to bear on him from several quarters in favour of the anti-Russian party in Bulgaria, but he was suspected by the Russians of siding with Austria and secretly encouraging the opposition to Russian influence. This revived the hatred against him which had been created by his pro-Austrian leanings after the Russo-Turkish War. The feeling was assiduously fomented by the Russian press, especially by M. Katkoff, the editor of the _Moscow Gazette_, who exercised great influence on public opinion and had personal relations with Alexander III. On the 31st of July 1886, three weeks before the kidnapping of Prince Alexander, he had begun a regular journalistic campaign against Germany, and advocated strongly a new orientation of Russian policy. M. de Giers, minister of foreign affairs, was openly attacked as a partisan of the German alliance, and his "pilgrimages to Friedrichsruh and Berlin" were compared to the humiliating journeys of the old Russian grand-princes to the Golden Horde in the time of the Tatar domination. The moment had come, it was said, for Russia to emancipate herself from German diplomatic thraldom, and for this purpose a _rapprochement_ with France was suggested. The idea was well received by the public, and it seemed to be not unpalatable to the tsar, for the _Moscow Gazette_ was allowed to continue its attacks on M. de Giers's policy of maintaining the German alliance. In Berlin such significant facts could not fail to produce uneasiness, because one of the chief aims of Bismarck's policy had always been to prevent a Russo-French _entente cordiale_. The German press were instructed to refute the arguments of their Russian colleagues, and to prove that if Russia had really lost her influence in the Balkan Peninsula, the fact was due to the blunders of her own diplomacy. The controversy did not produce at once a serious estrangement between the two cabinets, but it marked the beginning of a period of vacillation on the part of Alexander III. When the treaty of Skiernevice was about to expire in 1887, he positively refused to renew the Three Emperors' League, but he consented to make, without the cognizance of Austria, a secret treaty of alliance with Germany for three years. Not satisfied with this guarantee against the danger of a Franco-Russian alliance, Bismarck caused attacks to be made in the press on Russian credit, which was rapidly gaining a footing on the Paris bourse, and he imprudently showed his hand by prohibiting the Reichsbank from accepting Russian securities as guarantees. From that moment the tsar's attitude changed. All his dormant suspicions of German policy revived. When he passed through Berlin in November 1887, Bismarck had a long audience, in which he defended himself with his customary ability, but Alexander remained unmoved in his conviction that the German government had systematically opposed Russian interests, and had paralysed Russian action in the Balkan Peninsula for the benefit of Austria; and he failed to understand the ingenious theory put forward by the German chancellor, that two powers might have a severe economic struggle without affecting their political relations. Bismarck had to recognize that, for the moment at least, the Three Emperors' League, which had served his purposes so well, could not be resuscitated, but he had still a certain security against the hostility of Russia in the secret treaty. Soon, however, this link was also to be broken. When the treaty expired in 1890 it was not renewed. By that time Bismarck had been dismissed, and he subsequently reproached his successor, Count Caprivi, with not having renewed it, but in reality Count Caprivi was not to blame. Alexander III. was determined not to renew the alliance, and was already gravitating slowly towards an understanding with France.

Franco-Russian entente.

No treaty or formal defensive engagement of any kind existed between Russia and France, but it was already tolerably certain that in the event of a great war the two nations would be found fighting on the same side, and the military authorities in both countries felt that if no arrangements were made beforehand for concerted action,--such arrangements having been long ago completed by the powers composing the Triple Alliance--they would begin the campaign at a great disadvantage. This was perfectly understood by both governments; and after some hesitation on both sides. Generals Vannovski and Obruchev, on the one side, and Generals Saussier, Miribel and Boisdeffre on the other, were permitted to discuss plans of co-operation. At the same time a large quantity of Lebel rifles were manufactured in France for the Russian army, and the secret of making smokeless powder was communicated to the Russian military authorities. The French government wished to go further and conclude a defensive alliance, but the tsar was reluctant to bind himself with a government which had so little stability, and which might be induced to provoke a war with Germany by the prospect of Russian support. Even the military convention was not formally ratified until 1894. The enthusiastic partisans of the alliance flattered themselves that the tsar's reluctance had been overcome, when he received very graciously Admiral Gervais and his officers during the visit of the French fleet to Cronstadt in the summer of 1891, but their joy was premature. The formal _rapprochement_ between the two governments was much slower than the unofficial _rapprochement_ between the two nations. More than two years passed before the Cronstadt visit was returned by the Russian fleet, under Admiral Avelan. The enthusiastic ovations which the admiral and his subordinates received in Toulon and Paris (October 1893) showed how eager and anxious the French people were for an alliance with Russia, but the Russian government was in no hurry to gratify their wishes. Of the official action all we know with certainty is, that immediately after the Cronstadt visit in 1891 a diplomatic protocol about a defensive alliance was signed; that during the special mission of General Boisdeffre to St Petersburg in 1892 negotiations took place about a military convention; that in 1894 the military convention was ratified; that in the summer of 1895 M. Ribot, when prime minister, first spoke publicly of an alliance; and that during the visit of the president of the French Republic to St Petersburg, in August 1897, France and Russia were referred to as allies in the complimentary speeches of the tsar and of M. Felix Faure. Though we are still in the dark as to the precise terms of the arrangement, there is no doubt that close friendly relations were established between the two powers, and that in all important international affairs they sought to act in accord with each other. It is equally certain that for some years Russia was the predominant partner, and that, in accordance with the pacific tendencies of the tsar, she systematically exercised a restraining influence on France.

The Triple entente and the Triple Alliance.

The great expectations excited among the French people by the _entente cordiale_ were consequently not realized, and there appeared gradually premonitory symptoms of a reaction in public opinion, but the alliance between the two governments was maintained, and though the Triple Alliance was weakened by the internal troubles of Austria-Hungary and by a tendency on the part of Italy to gravitate towards France, the grouping of the great powers was not radically changed till the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5. By that war the balance of power in Europe was seriously disturbed. Russia inadvertently provoked a struggle with Japan which made such a drain on her energies and material resources that her political influence in Europe necessarily suffered a partial eclipse. Thus the Triple Alliance outweighed its rival, and there was a danger of the German emperor's taking advantage of the situation to secure for himself a diplomatic predominance in Europe. France at once perceived that there was a grave danger for herself, and naturally looked about for some diplomatic support to replace that of Russia, which had lost much of its value. From her uncomfortable isolation there were only two possible exits--a _rapprochement_ with Germany or a _rapprochement_ with England. Both of these demanded sacrifices. The former required a formal abandonment of all ideas of recovering Alsace and Lorraine; the latter a formal recognition of British predominance in Egypt. Under the influence of M. Delcasse the French government chose what seemed the lesser of two evils, and concluded with the English foreign office in April 1904 a general agreement, of which the most important stipulation was that France should leave England a free hand in Egypt, and that England in return should allow France, within certain limits, a free hand in Morocco. On that basis was effected a _rapprochement_ between the two governments which soon developed into an _entente cordiale_ between the two nations. The efforts of the German emperor to undermine the _entente_ by insisting on the convocation of a conference to consider the Morocco question caused M. Delcasse to resign, and produced considerable anxiety throughout Europe, but the desired result was not attained. On the contrary, the conference in question, which met at Algeciras in January 1906, ended in strengthening the _entente_ and in accentuating the partial isolation of Germany.

The grouping of the great continental states into two opposite but not necessarily hostile camps helped to preserve the balance of power and the peace of Europe. The result was that the causes of conflict which arose from time to time up to the end of the 19th century were localized. Some of the principal questions involved may be more particularly mentioned.

Armenia.

The Armenian Question was brought prominently before Europe by the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78. In the treaties of San Stefano and Berlin the Sublime Porte undertook "to carry out without delay the ameliorations and reforms required by local needs in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their security against the Circassians and the Kurds." This stipulation remained a dead letter, and the relations between the Armenians and the Mussulmans became worse than before, because the protection of the powers encouraged in the oppressed nationality far-reaching political aspirations, and the sultan regarded the political aspirations and the intervention of the powers as dangerous for the integrity and independence of his empire. For some fifteen years the Armenians continued to hope for the efficacious intervention of their protectors, but when their patience became exhausted and the question seemed in danger of being forgotten, they determined to bring it again to the front. Some of them confined themselves to agitating abroad, especially in England, in favour of the cause, whilst others made preparations for exciting an insurrectionary movement in Constantinople and Asia Minor. These latter knew very well that an insurrection could be suppressed by the Turkish government without much difficulty, but they hoped that the savage measures of repression which the Turks were sure to employ might lead to the active intervention of Europe and ensure their liberation from Turkish rule, as the famous "atrocities" of 1876 had led to the political emancipation of Bulgaria. In due course--1895-1896--the expected atrocities took place, in the form of wholesale massacres in Constantinople and various towns of Asia Minor. The sultan was subjected to diplomatic pressure and threatened with more efficient means of coercion. In the diplomatic campaign England took the lead, and was warmly supported by Italy, but Germany, Austria and France showed themselves lukewarm, not to say indifferent, and Russia, departing from her traditional policy of protecting the Christians of Turkey, vetoed the employment of force for extracting concessions from the sultan. In these circumstances the Porte naturally confined itself to making a few reforms on paper, which were never carried out. Thus the last state of the Armenians was worse than the first, but the so-called European concert was maintained, and the danger of a great European war was averted.

Crete.

The next attempt to raise the Eastern Question was made by the Greeks. In 1896 a semi-secret society called the Ethnike Hetairia began a Panhellenic agitation, and took advantage of one of the periodical insurrections in Crete to further its projects. In February 1897 the Cretan revolutionary committee proclaimed the annexation of the island to the Hellenic kingdom, and a contingent of Greek regular troops landed near Canea under the command of Colonel Vassos to take possession of the island in the name of King George. The powers, objecting to this arbitrary proceeding, immediately occupied Canea with a mixed force from the ships of war which were there at the time, and summoned the Greek government to withdraw its troops. The summons was disregarded, and the whole of the Greek army was mobilized on the frontier of Thessaly and Epirus. In consequence of a raid into Turkish territory the Porte declared war on the 17th of April, and the short campaign ended in the defeat of the Greeks. The powers intervened to put an end to the hostilities, and after prolonged negotiations a peace was concluded by which Greece had to consent to a strategical rectification of frontier and to pay a war indemnity of L4,000,000. Thus a second time the European concert acted effectually in the interests of peace, but it did not stand the strain of the subsequent efforts to solve the Cretan Question. Finding the Turks less conciliatory after their military success, and being anxious to remain in cordial relations with the Porte, Germany withdrew from further co-operation with the powers, and Austria followed her example. They did not, however, offer any active opposition, and the question received a temporary solution by the appointment of Prince George, second son of the king of Greece, as high commissioner and governor-general of the island. (See CRETE.)

Africa.

The conflicting desires of several of the powers to obtain colonial possessions in various parts of the world, and to forestall their competitors in the act of taking possession, were bound to introduce complications in which England, as the greatest of colonial powers, would generally be involved; and as the unappropriated portions of the earth's surface at the beginning of the period under discussion were to be found chiefly in Africa, it was in the Dark Continent that the conflicts of interests mostly took place. England's chief competitors were France and Germany. Her traditional policy, except in the south of the continent, where the conditions of soil and climate were favourable to European colonists, had been purely commercial. She had refrained from annexation of territory, as involving too much expenditure and responsibility, and confined her protection to the trading stations on the coast. When France came into the field this policy had to be abandoned. The policy of France was also commercial in a certain sense, but the methods she adopted were very different. She endeavoured to bring under her authority, by annexation or the establishment of protectorates, the largest possible extent of territory, in order to increase her trade by a system of differential tariffs; she encroached on the hinterland of British settlements, and endeavoured to direct artificially the native inland trade towards her own ports. A glance at the map of the African West Coast will suffice to show the success with which this policy was carried out. When the British government awoke to the danger, all that could be done was to prevent further encroachments by likewise annexing territory. The result is shown in the article AFRICA: Sec. 5. In her dealings with France about the partition of Africa, England was generally conciliatory, but she was always inflexible in guarding carefully the two entrances to the Mediterranean. There was, therefore, a permanent danger of conflict in Egypt and Morocco. When England in 1882 considered it necessary to suppress the Arabi insurrection, she invited France to co-operate, but the French government declined, and left the work to be done by England alone. England had no intention of occupying the country permanently, but she had to take precautions against the danger of French occupation after her withdrawal, and these precautions were embodied in an Anglo-Turkish convention signed at Constantinople in May 1887. France prevented the ratification of the convention by the sultan, with the result that the British occupation has been indefinitely prolonged. She still clung persistently, however, to the hope of obtaining a predominant position in the valley of the Nile, and she tried to effect her purpose by gaining a firm foothold on the upper course of the river. The effort which she made in 1898 to attain this end, by simultaneously despatching the Marchand mission from her Congo possessions and inciting the emperor Menelek of Abyssinia to send a force from the east to join hands with Major Marchand at Fashoda, was defeated by the overthrow of the Khalifa and the British occupation of Khartum. For a few days the two nations seemed on the brink of war, but the French government, receiving no encouragement from St Petersburg, consented to withdraw the Marchand mission, and a convention was signed defining the respective spheres of influence of the two countries.

In Morocco the rivalry between the two powers was less acute but not less persistent and troublesome. France aspired to incorporate the sultanate with her north African possessions, whilst England had commercial interests to defend and was firmly resolved to prevent France from getting unfettered possession of the southern coast of the Straits of Gibraltar. As in Egypt, so in Morocco the dangers of conflict were averted, in 1904, by a general agreement, which enabled France to carry out in Morocco, as far as England was concerned, her policy of pacific penetration, but debarred her from erecting fortifications in the vicinity of the straits. Germany thereafter strongly opposed French claims in Morocco, but after a period of great tension, and the holding of an ineffectual conference at Algeciras in 1906, an understanding was come to in 1909 (see MOROCCO: _History_).

With Germany likewise, from 1880 onwards, England had some diplomatic difficulties regarding the partition of Africa, but they never reached a very acute phase, and were ultimately settled by mutual concessions. By the arrangement of 1890, in which several of the outstanding questions were solved, Heligoland was ceded to Germany in return for concessions in East Africa. A conflict of interests in the southern Pacific was amicably arranged by the Anglo-German convention of April 1886, in which a line of demarcation was drawn between the respective spheres of influence in the islands to the north and east of the Australian continent, and by the convention of 1899, in virtue of which Germany gained possession of Samoa and renounced in favour of England all pretensions to the Tonga Archipelago.

Asia.

In Asia the tendencies of the European powers to territorial expansion, and their desire to secure new markets for their trade and industry, have affected from time to time their mutual relations. More than once England and Russia have had disputes about the limits of their respective spheres of influence in central Asia, but the causes of friction have steadily diminished as the work of frontier delimitation has advanced. The important agreement of 1872-1873 was supplemented by the protocol of the 22nd of July 1887 and the Pamir delimitation of 1895, so that the Russo-Afghan frontier, which is the dividing line between the Russian and British spheres of influence, has now been carried right up to the frontier of the Chinese empire. The delimitation of the English and French spheres of influence in Asia has also progressed. In 1885 France endeavoured to get a footing on the Upper Irrawaddy, the hinterland of British Burma, and England replied in the following year by annexing the dominions of King Thebaw, including the Shan States as far east as the Mekong. Thereupon France pushed her Indo-Chinese frontier westwards, and in 1893 made an attack on the kingdom of Siam, which very nearly brought about a conflict with England. After prolonged negotiations an arrangement was reached and embodied in a formal treaty (January 1896), which clearly foreshadows a future partition between the two powers, but guarantees the independence of the central portion of the kingdom, the Valley of the Menam, as a buffer-state. Farther north, in eastern China, the aggressive tendencies and mutual rivalries of the European powers have produced a problem of a much more complicated kind. Firstly Germany, then Russia, next England, and finally France took portions of Chinese territory, under the thin disguise of long leases. They thereby excited in the Chinese population and government an intense anti-foreign feeling, which produced the Boxer movement and culminated in the attack on the foreign legations at Pekin in the summer of 1900. (See CHINA: _History_.)

In 1899-1901 the relations of the European powers were disturbed by the Boer War in South Africa. In nearly every country of Europe popular feeling was much excited against England, and in certain influential quarters the idea was entertained of utilizing this feeling for the formation of a coalition against the British empire; but in view of the decided attitude assumed by the British government, and the loyal enthusiasm displayed by the colonies, no foreign government ventured to take the initiative of intervention, and it came gradually to be recognized that no European state had any tangible interest in prolonging the independence and maladministration of the Boer republics.

One permanent factor in the history of Europe after the war of 1870-71 was the constant increase of armaments by all the great powers, and the proportionate increase of taxation. The fact made such an impression on the young emperor of Russia, Nicholas II., that he invited the powers to consider whether the further increase of the burdens thereby imposed on the nations might not be arrested by mutual agreement; and a conference for this purpose was convened at the Hague (May 18-July 29, 1899), but the desirable object in view was not attained. (See ARBITRATION, INTERNATIONAL.) (D. M. W.)

Progress of the Peace movement.

Though neither the first Hague Conference nor the second, which met in 1907, did much to fulfil the expectations of those who hoped for the establishment of a system which should guarantee the world against the disasters of war, they undoubtedly tended to create a strong public opinion in favour of peaceful methods in the solution of international problems which has not been without its effect. Any attempt to organize the concert of the powers must always fail, as it failed in the early part of the 19th century, so long as the spirit of national and racial rivalry is stronger than the consciousness of common interests; and the early years of the 20th century showed no diminution, but rather an accentuation of this rivalry. The court of arbitration established at the Hague early in 1901 may deal effectively with questions as to which both parties desire a _modus vivendi_, and the pacific efforts of King Edward VII., which did so much to prevent misunderstandings likely to lead to war, resulted from 1903 onwards in a series of arbitration treaties between Great Britain and other powers which guaranteed the Hague court an effective activity in such matters. But more perilous issues, involving deep-seated antagonisms, have continued to be dealt with by the methods of the old diplomacy backed by the armed force of the powers. How far the final solution of such problems has been helped or hindered by the general reluctance to draw the sword must for some time to come remain an open question. Certainly, during the early years of the 20th century, many causes of difference which a hundred years earlier would assuredly have led to war, were settled, or at least shelved, by diplomacy. Of these the questions of Crete, of Armenia, and of contested claims in Africa have already been mentioned. Other questions of general interest which might have led to war, but which found a peaceful solution, were those of the separation of Norway and Sweden, and the rivalry of the powers in the northern seas. In October 1905 Sweden formally recognized the separate existence of Norway (see NORWAY: _History_ and SWEDEN: _History_). On the 23rd of April 1908 were signed the "Declarations"; the one, signed by the four Baltic littoral powers, recognized "in principle" the maintenance of the territorial _status quo_ in that sea; the other--to which Great Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Holland were the parties--sanctioned a similar principle in regard to the North Sea. These were followed, in June of the same year, by two agreements intended to apply the same principles to the southern European waters, signed by France and Spain and Great Britain and Spain respectively. Another agreement, that signed between Russia and Great Britain in 1907 for the delimitation of their spheres of influence in Persia and the northern borders of the Indian empire, though having no direct relation to European affairs, exercised considerable influence upon them by helping to restore the international prestige of Russia, damaged by the disasters of the war with Japan and the internal disturbances that followed. The new cordial understanding between the British and Russian governments was cemented by the meeting of King Edward VII. and the emperor Nicholas II. at Reval in June 1908.

Revival of the Eastern Question.