Chapter XV: The Treaty of Björkö and Its Annulment (1)

I

By forcing France in July to submit the Moroccan question to an international conference, the German government asserted its power and restored its country’s prestige; but it had had to employ means which could not often be repeated with impunity. The future of Germany’s international position remained uncertain. While the Entente Cordiale had become firmer, the Triple Alliance was still unsteady and unreliable. King Edward and his nephew, the Emperor William, were having one of their numerous quarrels.[865] The German government believed positively that in case of a Franco-German war Great Britain would actively support France.[866] Although relations with President Roosevelt and with Russia remained intimate, these close friendships did not give Germany the security and power which she had enjoyed before the conclusion of the Entente Cordiale. Then suddenly, out of a clear sky, came the possibility of Germany’s becoming master of the situation again. The Emperor William and Czar Nicholas arranged a meeting at Björkö, and the Emperor requested that a copy of the projected Russo- German treaty of the previous autumn be sent to him.

In the latter half of July the Emperor and the Czar were both cruising: the one in the Baltic Sea, the other in the Finnish Gulf. As it was the hope of both the Chancellor[867] and the Emperor that a meeting with the Czar might occur during these cruises, William II suddenly telegraphed to his cousin on July 18 that he would shortly pass the entrance to the gulf. “Should it give you any pleasure to see me . . . ., I of course am always at your disposal.” Nicholas immediately replied: “Delighted with your proposal. Would it suit you meet at Bjoerkoe-sund . . . .? . . . . Look forward with intense pleasure to seeing you.” Upon receiving this answer the Emperor requested Prince Bülow to send him the draft.

The Chancellor, who was at Norderney at the time, forwarded the request to Herr von Holstein. While he was dubious about the affair, he wrote to Herr von Holstein that the meeting would at least be a useful means of keeping in close touch with Russia and finding out something about her future foreign and internal policy. Germany could not intervene in favor of Russia during the peace negotiations, he stated, but it would be advantageous to engage the Czar so far that M. Witte and Count Lamsdorff would be unable to prepare for a Franco-Russo-British entente immediately after peace was established.[868]

Herr von Holstein’s long replies to the Chancellor were not very hopeful. The final draft of the treaty of the previous autumn was acceptable, he thought, if the clause added by Russia—“Their entente cordiale will also hold in the case of difficulties which may arise at the time of the negotiations of peace between Russia and Japan”—were omitted. In fact, he was willing to accept a change in Article I making the alliance valid in case of an attack by two Powers instead of by one. He no longer believed it necessary for Russia and Germany to be in complete accord before negotiations with France were begun, because M. Rouvier’s cabinet would not “so absolutely oppose Germany’s joining [the Dual Alliance] as Delcassé had,” and because, as Russia was more dependent upon France for loans than she had been six months previously, she would take no step without the latter’s approval. Herr von Holstein expected M. Witte, Count Lamsdorff, the mother and wife of the Czar, and the French government to oppose the project and to favor an Anglo-Russo- French grouping. In his opinion almost the only reason for Russia to prefer a German alliance to the other grouping was that it could be concluded in time to be of value to Russia in the forthcoming negotiations for peace with Japan. Herr von Holstein therefore advised that if the treaty were concluded it be published immediately. Fearing rejection of the German proposal by Count Lamsdorff and an exploitation of the Russian refusal, he wished the Emperor not to take the initiative in proposing an alliance, at least until Nicholas II manifested a desire to pursue a common policy with Germany. Herr von Holstein’s telegrams formed the basis for the instructions sent to the Emperor on July 22.[869]

The story of Björkö is one of drama and mystery. The two sovereigns agreed that their meeting should be kept secret until it occurred; and, although the news immediately leaked out in the Russian press, the company on the Emperor’s yacht did not know where it was going or for what purpose. The rulers met, July 23-24, in Björkö Bay, far away from civilization, with only the sea and the forest-clad shore around them. The Emperor prepared himself for the interview by lifting up his hands and asking God to guide and aid him, or at least not to aid the Czar. When his yacht steamed into the bay, the Czar had already arrived. The Emperor immediately went on board the “Polar Star.” After a touching exchange of embraces the two monarchs withdrew for a long conversation. “Willy” found “Nicky” feeling discouraged, forlorn, and friendless except for him; and Count Lamsdorff was not there to give him backbone. The gathering force of the Russian revolution, the defeat by Japan, anger at Great Britain and France, and deep appreciation for the friendly attitude of Germany and William II toward him and his country during their troubles had prepared this weak monarch to throw himself into the arms of the far stronger, confident, and brilliantly seductive Emperor. As William II asserted later, the Czar was in a mood to subscribe to almost anything.

In the first conversation between the two rulers[870] they both relieved themselves of their anger at Great Britain and King Edward VII. Nicholas II was particularly enraged at the British, whose unfriendliness toward Russia during the current war was fresh in his mind. When he described King Edward as “the greatest mischief-maker and most insincere as well as the most dangerous intriguer in the world,” the Emperor agreed with him heartily. King Edward “has a passion to begin something with every Power, to make ‘a little agreement,’” said William. The Czar replied as he struck the table with his fist, “Well I can only say, he shall not get one from me, and never in my life against Germany or you, my word of honor on it.” When they brought up the Moroccan affair, the Czar, pleased with the Franco-German agreement, strongly seconded the Emperor’s hope that out of that agreement a permanent understanding with France might develop. When the Emperor remarked that “in spite of English incitements France has absolutely refused to go to war with us [Germany], and so has shown that she will no longer fight for the sake of the lost provinces,” Nicholas II replied incisively: “Yes that I saw, it is quite clear the Alsace-Lorraine question is closed once for all, thank God.” As they were going on deck again the Czar once more embraced the Emperor and thanked him for coming.[871]

That night the two groups celebrated together until daybreak. During the festivities some of the Russian officials in close touch with their master spoke openly in favor of a Continental alliance. The Emperor therefore concluded that the ground was prepared for his project. Before going to breakfast with the Czar and Grand Duke Michael the next morning, William II opened his _Losungen der Brüdergemeinde für 1905_[872] upon the following text: “Each will receive his reward according to his work.” So, full of hope, he put a copy of the treaty in his pocket and set out. He found the Czar in the same mood as before. They spoke of the Anglo-French fraternization, behind which the Emperor suspected lay a “little agreement.” The Czar’s head drooped in dejection. “That is too bad,” he grieved. “What shall I do in this disagreeable situation.” “I felt that the moment had come,” wrote the Emperor later to Prince Bülow, in reporting this interview.

Since the ally has preserved the policy of the free hand and of reinsurance without consulting or informing the Czar [he said to Nicholas II], it is quite permissible for him . . . . to do the same. How would it be if we also made a little agreement? We discussed one in the previous winter, but it failed because of Delcassé and tension with France. Now that is all past, we shall be good friends with the French. So does not every obstacle fall? “Oh yes to be sure, I remember well, but I forgot the contents of it, what a pity I havent got it here.” I possess a copy which by chance I have in my pocket. The Czar seized me by the arm, drew me into his father’s cabin, and closed all the doors. “Show it me please.” The dreamy eyes sparkled. I drew the envelope from my pocket, unfolded the sheet on the writing desk of Alexander III before the pictures of the Czar’s mother, between photographs from Fredensborg and Copenhagen, and laid it before the Czar. He read the text once, twice, thrice. . . . . I prayed the dear God to be with us and guide the young ruler. It was deathly still; only the sea murmured and the sun shone joyfully and clear in the cozy cabin, and directly before me lay the Hohenzollern and high in the morning air waved the imperial standard. I was just reading the letters on the black cross, God with us, when the Czar said, “That is quite excellent. I quite agree!” My heart beat so loudly that I could hear it. I pulled myself together and said casually, “Should you like to sign it? It would be a very nice souvenir of our entrevue.” He read it once more and replied, “Yes I will.” I opened the ink-well, extending to him the pen, and he wrote with a firm hand “Nicolas.” Then he passed it to me, I signed it, and as I arose he, deeply moved, folded me in his arms and said, “I thank God and I thank you, it will be of most beneficial consequences for my country and Yours; You are Russia’s only real friend in the whole world, I have felt that through the whole war and I know it.” Tears of joy stood in my eyes—to be sure the sweat poured from my brow and back—and I thought of Frederick William III, Queen Louise, Grandfather and Nicholas I. Were they near at that moment? At any rate they saw it all and were overjoyed.

The terms of the treaty were as follows: The Czar and the Emperor, “to assure the maintenance of peace in Europe, have agreed upon the following articles of a treaty of defensive alliance.” Article I read: “In case one of the two Empires is attacked by an European Power, its ally will aid it in Europe with all its forces on land and sea.” According to Article II, “The high contracting parties engage not to conclude a separate peace with a common enemy.” Article III was as follows: “The present treaty becomes valid as soon as peace is concluded between Russia and Japan and will remain valid until it is denounced a year in advance.” By Article IV the Czar agreed “after the coming into force of the treaty” to take “the steps necessary to initiate France into the accord and to associate herself in it as ally.”[873]

Thus the act was accomplished. How was it possible? The Emperor’s explanation was simple and satisfying—God did it.[874] For he was present, as were various spirits and shades of dead and departed kinsmen. A humble and depressed Czar and an inspired Emperor with his _Losungen der Brüdergemeinde_, tears and sighs and embraces, many a dainty dish and flask of old wine, many a satisfying outburst of anger at absent enemies—no wonder the Björkö treaty was signed!

The Emperor had visions of illimitable possibilities for the alliance. On July 27 he wrote to Nicholas II as follows:

In times to come it may not be impossible that even Japan may feel inclined to join it [the alliance]. This would cool down English self- assertion and impertinence, as she is her ally too. The 24th of July 1905 is a cornerstone in European Politics and turns over a new leaf in the history of the world; which will be a chapter of peace and goodwill among the great Powers of the European Continent, respecting each other in friendship, confidence and in pursuing the general Policy on the lines of a community of interests. The moment the news of the new “groupement” will have become known in the world, the smaller nations, Holland, Belgium, Danmark, Sweden, Norway will all be attracted to this new great centre of gravity, by quite natural laws of the attraction of smaller bodies by the larger and compacter ones. They will revolve in the orbit of the great block of powers (Russia, Germany, France, Austria, Italy) and feel confidence in leaning on and revolving around this mass. The dual Alliance combining with the Triple Alliance gives a Quintupel Alliance, well able to hold all unruly neighbours in order, to impose peace even by force, if there should be a power hairbrained enough to wish to disturb it.[875]

Notwithstanding this optimism, the treaty caused difficulty from the start. The absence of a countersignature by the Chancellor was not considered serious.[876] But against the advice of Herr von Tschirschky, the representative of the foreign office on the cruise, the Emperor had without consulting the Chancellor introduced very important changes in the draft of the treaty. In the first article he had added the words “en Europe,” while he had re-worded the third article so that the alliance should not become effective before the conclusion of the Russo-Japanese War.[877] Prince Bülow was very dubious about the value of the treaty after those changes were made, particularly the change in Article I, “because in Europe,” he wrote to Herr von Holstein, “Russia can be of no use at all to us against England.” He requested the latter’s advice before acting.[878]

Herr von Holstein approved decidedly of the treaty even in its changed form, although he regretted that the Emperor had not obtained more while the Czar was so pliant. He said that the treaty should be kept absolutely secret.[879] Otherwise he feared that Great Britain and perhaps also France would seek to prolong the Russo-Japanese War with the result that the Czar would be deposed, and that Great Britain, if she had aggressive plans, might hurriedly attack Germany before the alliance came into operation. He thought that the suspensive clause was especially disadvantageous to Germany in that the treaty, if effective at once, would have a calming effect upon any bellicose spirit on the part of both France and Great Britain. Moreover, he believed that France could be brought to join the alliance at the time; whereas if the action to bring her in were postponed, she would align herself more closely with Great Britain. The inclusion of the phrase “en Europe” he also regretted as being advantageous only to Russia.

In case of an Anglo-German war, Russia need not advance against India. . . . . But even with the best will Russia will not be able to help us in Europe. . . . . The only positive value from the changed treaty is the assurance that Russia can no longer enter the Quadruple Alliance.[880] The circle around Germany can no longer close. That is something. But we could have obtained more and we must expect that the publication of this treaty will cause little disquietude in England and will not be considered as a great success of German diplomacy.[881]

The Chancellor regarded the inclusion of the suspensive clause as an advantage under the circumstances; but he had grave objections to the inclusion of the phrase “en Europe.”[882] When he telegraphed these to the Emperor, the latter replied that he had made the change “after ripe deliberation” in order to prevent Germany from being obliged to aid Russia in Asia. He did not believe possible an attack by Russia on India, nor did anyone else, he stated. The advantage from the treaty lay, not in the expectation of any active help from Russia in case of a war with Great Britain but rather in the assurance that Germany would enjoy full freedom and security on her eastern frontier, that she would be able to throw all her forces against one front, that is, France, instead of against two—“naturally provided France mobilizes to help England, which is not impossible.” He and General Moltke looked upon the situation in this way:

If England declares or otherwise begins war with us, you [the Chancellor] must immediately send dispatches to Brussels and Paris with a demand to state within six hours whether for or against us. We must immediately march into Belgium no matter what the reply. As to France it depends upon whether she remains neutral,—which I do not consider entirely impossible even if the probability is small;—in that case the Russian _casus foederis_ does not enter into effect. If she [France] mobilizes, that is a war-threat against us in favor of England, and then the Russian regiments must march with ours. . . . . It should eventually be considered whether France could not be offered as an enticement for good behavior toward us perhaps a part of Belgium as compensation for the lost provinces.[883]

The Chancellor fully approved the Emperor’s remarks concerning Belgium; but neither he nor Herr von Holstein thought that it would be possible to permit French neutrality in case of a British attack on Germany.[884] Nor was he convinced by the Emperor’s other arguments. He continued to regard the inclusion of the phrase “en Europe” as “pernicious.” He declared that he could not uphold the treaty before the German people unless Russia were bound to give aid in both Asia and Europe, and sought ways of bringing about a change to that effect.[885] While he had accepted the treaty at first and had congratulated the Emperor upon achieving it, and while he had thought that there was plenty of time in which to eliminate the objectionable phrase,[886] he suddenly reversed his attitude. On August 3 he stated that he could not accept the responsibility for the treaty in the present form or for bringing about the necessary changes. He therefore offered his resignation.[887]

Knowing that he had his master in a quandary, since German public opinion was already complaining about too much imperial initiative in foreign affairs, the Chancellor apparently did not expect his resignation to be accepted. He continued as before to seek means of altering the treaty without ruining it entirely.[888] And, as a matter of fact, the Emperor collapsed, agreed to anything, and on August 11 wrote a hysterical letter to his Chancellor.

I thought that I had worked and had accomplished something special for you. Then you send me a couple of cold lines and your resignation!!! Please excuse me, dear Bülow, from depicting the condition of my soul to you. To be so treated by my best, most intimate friend, without giving a single plausible reason, has been such a fearful blow to me that I have completely collapsed and fear a grave nervous sickness. You say that the situation has become so serious because of the treaty with “en Europe” that you cannot assume responsibility; before whom? And in the same breath you believe that before God you can assume responsibility of deserting your Emperor and master to whom you have sworn fidelity, who has loaded you with love and honors, your fatherland and, as I believed, your truest friend, in the situation regarded by you as critical and serious!? No, dear Bülow, that you will not do! We have both been called by God and created for each other to work for our dear German fatherland. If in your opinion a graver situation has really been made by my error—which I do not believe—, it has been done with the best intentions. You know me well enough to recognize that. Your person is 100,000 times more valuable to me and our country than all the treaties in the world. I have immediately taken steps with the Czar which shall weaken or eliminate those words. Do not forget that you sent me to Tangier against my will in order to achieve a success in your Moroccan policy. Read my telegrams before the visit to Tangier. You have admitted to me yourself that you were so anxious that when you received the announcement of my safe departure you had a nervous fit of weeping. For your sake because the fatherland needed it I landed, mounted a strange horse in spite of my crippled left arm, and the horse nearly caused my death—all of which was your affair! I rode through Spanish anarchists because you wished it and your policy would profit thereby! and now you want abruptly to desert me, when I have done everything—and, as I honestly believe, far more—for you, because my situation appears to you too serious. Bülow, I have not deserved that of you. No, my friend, you remain in office and with me and shall continue to work with me _ad majorem Germaniae gloriam_. You plainly owe me that because of my service this year. You can and dare not forsake me. Therewith your whole policy of this year would be disavowed by you yourself and I blamed forever. That I cannot survive. Grant me a few days to rest and collect myself before you come, for the nervous excitement caused by your letter is too great, I am now unable to argue in quiet. . . . . I appeal to your friendship for me, and let us hear no more of your intention to resign. Telegraph me “all right” after this letter; then I shall know that you will remain! For the morning after the arrival of your resignation will find the emperor no longer alive! Think of my poor wife and children![889]

How were the mighty fallen! The Chancellor had won, and of course telegraphed “All right.”

In the meantime various proposals to eliminate the phrase “en Europe”[890] were being combated by Herr von Holstein, who feared that the opponents of the treaty in Russia, particularly Count Lamsdorff, might use such opportunity to propose changes on their side, to annul the treaty entirely, or at least to undermine its prestige. He wrote:

The treaty even in its present crippled form is still too valuable to risk in hazardous play. Its value lies in the crushing effect which it will have upon France and in the indirect reaction through France upon England. . . . . Through the inclusion of “en Europe” and through the introduction of the suspensive article, the value of the treaty is lowered 50 per cent. But this 50 per cent remains to us and should not be risked.

He urged against proposal for a change until time for the treaty to come into effect or until the Emperor and the Czar had another meeting. Prince Bülow acceded to these views.[891]

II

Occurring at a crisis in world-affairs, when the Moroccan difficulty was still unsettled, when the Russo-Japanese negotiations for peace were about to begin, when the choice of a king by Norway was not yet made, the news of the unexpected and secret interview at Björkö caused a furor in the diplomatic world and in the press.[892] Especial alarm was shown by the British, jealous and mistrustful as they were of Russo-German intimacy. The English press suspected the German Emperor of seeking the Norwegian crown for a Hohenzollern and of endeavoring to close the Baltic Sea to all except the Baltic nations.[893] Sir Francis Bertie, British ambassador at Paris, was reported to have remarked that Germany seemed to harbor Napoleonic tendencies, which Great Britain would oppose as she had the original ones.[894] Mr. Spring Rice, after consulting Lord Lansdowne, wrote to President Roosevelt as follows:

The most serious aspect of the question is the general balance of power in Europe. . . . . Two of the great powers have practically disappeared so far as active intervention in European affairs is concerned, Russia and Austria. Germany is by far the most powerful of the remaining powers, and she has an old feud to settle with France. If France is attacked, there is no Russia to help her and the English Army is at present practically negligible for a continental campaign. If France is forced to accept German hegemony, England remains the only independent great power, and we are in much the same position as during the Napoleonic wars. We consider it therefore our duty to prepare for contingencies.

. . . . Of course, nobody here, except the small body of hot-heads who exist everywhere, desires to attack Germany. Our interest in peace is supreme and in fact perhaps too dominant. But we all have an uncomfortable feeling that always and everywhere we encounter the fixed and determined hostility of Germany, and that, when opportunity offers, this hostility will take an active form.[895]

Late in July, forthcoming British maneuvers in the Baltic Sea were suddenly announced in the press without any previous notification to the various governments. Following so closely after the meeting at Björkö, that announcement had a sinister significance which the Russian and the German presses interpreted as a warning to their countries that Great Britain was still mistress of the seas and that no change should occur against her will. Germany feared a British attack and, without an adequate fleet, felt herself defenseless.[896]

The British press denounced these fears as preposterous. In the House of Commons, Earl Percy, undersecretary of state for foreign affairs, declared on August 3 that “the situation in Europe presented no special cause for anxiety” and would present even less cause if certain “irresponsible persons were not perpetually attributing to this country Machiavellian motives of which we were quite innocent and who were always imagining that we could not enter into arrangements with one country for mutual convenience without having a hostile intent against some other country.”[897] Lord Lansdowne immediately explained to the German and Russian governments that the lack of notification had been an oversight; he denied that the maneuvers were intended as a demonstration in any way.[898]

As neither side wanted trouble, this explanation cleared up the difficulty. The press became calmer and the visit of the British fleet to Swinemünde and Neufahrwasser, August 27-September 1, was used by both the British and the Germans for demonstrations of good will.[899] Yet the fact that for the first time in years the British fleet was practicing in the Baltic was not without significance. Furthermore, King Edward VII was still at odds with the German Emperor. In August and September, with the approval of his government, he refused to meet his nephew until Franco-German relations improved.[900] And at some time in August the British government learned from a member of the German Emperor’s party at Björkö that at that meeting William II had seemed nervous and preoccupied, that he had been seized by sudden fits of talkativeness and of silence, and that he had advocated his ideas of a coalition of Germany, Russia, and France to the exclusion of Great Britain. Lord Lansdowne’s comment to that information was as follows: “The description of the Kaiser’s language and demeanour fills me with disquiet. What may not a man in such a frame of mind do next?”[901]

III

When the report reached Paris on July 23 that the interview at Björkö was to occur, M. Rouvier immediately asked M. Witte, who was in Paris on his way to Portsmouth, whether it was true. M. Witte, equally in the dark, replied that he did not believe the rumor.[902] When the authentic news of the meeting came a few hours later, the French government and people were alarmed, for the Czar’s meeting with the German Emperor signified a lack of regard for French feeling and seemed to belie M. Witte’s assurances of Russia’s devotion to the Dual Alliance.[903] Moreover, M. Witte’s private advocacy of closer co-operation between the three great Continental Powers against the great naval Powers, that is, against France’s friend, Great Britain, no doubt increased the concern of the French government.[904]

On July 22 M. Bompard, French ambassador in St. Petersburg, demanded an explanation from Count Lamsdorff of the report of the forthcoming meeting. The Foreign Minister assured the French government that it was a strictly private interview, devoid of any political character.[905] Nevertheless, after the meeting occurred the French government continued to feel uneasy.[906] Although M. Bompard believed that Count Lamsdorff, faithful to the Dual Alliance, hoped that the meeting had had no significance, the Ambassador strongly suspected that the Minister had again not been consulted beforehand by his master.[907] Believing that the Emperor William II was trying through his personal relations with the Czar to destroy the Dual Alliance, he feared the results of an interview between the two sovereigns. When he learned that some sort of document had been signed by the two rulers, he surmised that it was a personal agreement of friendship by which they promised not to participate in any enterprise directed against the other and to exchange any information which came to their knowledge.[908]

Faced by the immense possibilities of the meeting at Björkö, M. Rouvier determined to forestall any Russian initiative looking toward a change in the Dual Alliance by frankly explaining his foreign policy to the Russian ambassador, M. Nelidow. On August 9, the Ambassador reported the Minister’s words as follows:

The Minister assured me that the basis of his policy must remain the alliance with Russia; France needs no other. “Wherein does my policy differ from that of my predecessor?” he said to me. “Therein that I wish to establish good relations with England and Germany; but we do not intend thereby to make a closer agreement with the latter, just as on the other hand we do not desire to weaken the understanding already existing with England.” Upon my remarking that several newspapers have gone so far as to speak of a German alliance, M. Rouvier replied emphatically that that would be “absolutely impossible.”[909]

IV

The Czar, who probably felt guilty about not having consulted his Foreign Minister before signing the Björkö treaty, did not tell Count Lamsdorff of it until September 12.[910] He probably did so then because peace with Japan, signed on September 6 and soon to be officially ratified, would bring the Björkö accord into force.[911] Count Lamsdorff was horrified at the news. On October 9 he wrote to his friend M. Nelidow that the German Emperor had endeavored in the previous year to persuade “our poor monarch” to sign a treaty of defensive alliance with the obligation for France to join it. He continued:

I succeeded in preventing this crude attempt. But during the fateful meeting at Björkö, the Emperor William was able with the aid of base flattery to convince our dear Emperor that he alone was his true friend and his support, and that the only salvation for Russia and for Europe lay in a new Triple Alliance which in his opinion France would gladly join.

After informing M. Nelidow of the treaty signed at Björkö, he went on: “There you have the new mess into which we have been plunged after so many unusual adventures during the past two years. You can imagine how comforting this is.”[912]

From the first Count Lamsdorff was determined to destroy the treaty. After comparing it with the terms of the Dual Alliance, he concluded that the one was a flagrant violation of the other.[913] In fact, he thought that in case of a Franco-German war arising out of the Moroccan affair, Russia was bound by this treaty to support Germany against her own ally. He wrote to M. Nelidow:

From long years of experience I have become convinced that the alliance with France is necessary in order to have really good relations with Germany. Otherwise we lose our independence; for I know nothing heavier than the German yoke. Without sacrificing the most intimate relations with Berlin, we have very tactfully repulsed all attempts to compromise us.

Not only did he expect France to refuse flatly to enter the new grouping, but he also considered it bad policy to give up the Dual Alliance in favor of a doubtful combination _à trois_. He considered the treaty to be altogether in favor of Germany, for she was bound to aid Russia only in Europe although Russia had most cause to fear Asiatic conflicts. Count Lamsdorff held that this alliance might involve Russia in the Anglo-German rivalry and might draw her into a war in which she had no interest. Preferring a policy of peace and good will with all Powers, he believed that Russia should next settle her difficulties with Great Britain, in spite of the fact that the renewal of the Anglo- Japanese Alliance in August had angered him. He was determined to extricate Russia from this situation with the least possible damage to Russo-German relations but above all without a breach in the Dual Alliance.[914]

When the Russian Foreign Minister marshaled these arguments before the Czar, the latter refused to yield. Without showing much consideration for French interest in the matter, Nicholas II replied that the alliance would be of benefit to both Russia and France and maintained that the latter would join it.[915] Although he was strongly skeptical about this possibility, the Foreign Minister was forced to inquire of M. Nelidow on September 14 whether or not France would do so.[916]

Without consulting anyone, M. Nelidow replied decidedly no. The Dual Alliance, together with the Entente Cordiale, every day becoming more intimate, he wrote, formed the foundation of the French foreign policy, whereas Franco-German relations were far from satisfactory. This new triple alliance, manifestly aimed at Great Britain, might, he continued, involve France in a war, which she wished above all to avoid, especially a war against Great Britain for the defense of German interests. Furthermore, such an alliance would mean the renunciation of all hopes of revenge for France. In fact, he thought that the slightest hint in favor of a Continental grouping would only shake France’s trust in her ally. Nevertheless, he promised to investigate further.[917]

Not convinced by these arguments, the Czar clung to his plan. Just at this juncture M. Witte arrived in St. Petersburg with a letter from William II which forced a decision about the alliance.

M. Witte’s ideas on foreign policy were confused. Early in May, 1905, he spoke of Germany to Mr. Spring Rice in hostile terms. In July, immediately before he left St. Petersburg for Portsmouth to negotiate peace with Japan, he was upholding among his friends and to the Czar the plan that at Portsmouth he should not only make peace but should also negotiate an “all-round arrangement” with Japan which Great Britain and France should adhere to or at least recognize.[918] A few days later at Paris he advocated the formation of a Continental grouping against the overseas Powers.[919] The renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance increased his antagonism to Great Britain.[920] On his return to Paris in September, he refused an invitation from King Edward to visit England as well as an offer of British participation in the proposed Russian loan, and aided in settling the Moroccan difficulty in order to make possible a Franco-German _rapprochement_.[921]

As M. Witte had to pass through Germany on his trip home, the Emperor William obtained permission from the Czar for him to stop over and to be initiated into the secret of Björkö.[922] After a cordial interview with Prince Bülow at Berlin,[923] M. Witte journeyed to Rominten where he received an almost royal welcome from the Emperor (September 26). When William II informed him of the signing of the alliance at Björkö, the Russian statesman, according to the Emperor, wept tears of joy. M. Witte proposed that the German and the Russian ambassadors be given instructions to co-operate on all possible questions as a means of persuading France to enter the new grouping voluntarily and of preparing the world for this momentous event. In the meantime, he advised that the accord be kept closely secret. He promised to do his part in “using this foundation for the construction of a good house.” Overjoyed at his success, William II accepted these suggestions. In a letter to the Czar carried by M. Witte he made this proposal for the co-operation of their foreign representatives:[924] “This common exposal of a common cause,” he wrote, “will not fail to impress the world that our relations have become closer and thus slowly prepare your Allies the French for the new orientation which their policy must take for the entry into our treaty.”[925]

In the conversations with M. Witte, who was not shown a copy of the treaty itself, the Emperor represented the accord as much less binding upon Franco-Russian relations than was really the case.[926] On his side, M. Witte, anxious to have the support of William II in regaining the good graces of the Czar and harboring some vague ideas about the desirability of a Continental grouping, was easily charmed by the Emperor into approval of the project. When he reached St. Petersburg, September 28, he urged upon the French Ambassador the need of a Dual Alliance-German coalition as a reply to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. M. Bompard naturally rejected the idea.[927] When Count Witte (he had just been ennobled) protested to him the Emperor William’s love for France and his attachment to the Dual Alliance, the Ambassador significantly asked, “Does not the Emperor’s love for the Dual Alliance extend so far that he wished to join it?”[928] Count Lamsdorff, even less sympathetic, showed to Count Witte the actual treaty and wrathfully denounced it. The latter began to recover from the social intoxication of his visit to Germany and to perceive that the treaty would have to be annulled.[929]

Count Lamsdorff, Count Witte, M. Nelidow, and the Grand Duke Nicholas, who was initiated into the secret, all joined forces in persuading the Czar. By appealing to their master’s sense of honor and loyalty to the alliance made by his revered father, they succeeded in winning the unhappy ruler’s consent to a compromise. He acknowledged that the treaty of Björkö and the terms of the Dual Alliance were in contradiction, and agreed that before the former became operative either Germany should be brought to change it in such a way that it would not affect France or that the French government should be moved to a scrutiny of the terms of the Dual Alliance “in the sense of a more or less close association with this defensive Triple Alliance.” Thus, simultaneous attempts were to be made to persuade either France or Germany to change the terms of her alliance.[930]

It very soon became apparent that the French government would never accept the Björkö treaty. When M. Nelidow broached to M. Rouvier on October 4 the idea of alliance with Germany which his government claimed President Roosevelt also favored, the Premier repeated his former assertions on this question. He, in turn, stated his complete approval of an Anglo-Russian accord.[931] Again on October 18 the Russian Ambassador reported that during a most intimate conversation with M. Rouvier he had pressed the arguments in favor of a Continental alliance against Great Britain only to receive from the Premier the following emphatic reply:

We have aggressive intentions toward no one. We have given clear proof of our love of peace. Thirty-five years ago after a war unfortunate for us two provinces were taken away and we had to pay several billion francs for peace. Our nation submitted, and since then we have endeavored to avoid any cause for conflict or misunderstanding. To avoid difficulties which threatened to come to a head, I recently ventured to wound the pride of my country a little. But one cannot demand more of us. The nation would not tolerate a closer _rapprochement_ with Germany. It cannot forget what it has suffered from her, of which suffering it has just been reminded in a careless and purposeless way. An alliance with Germany is impossible. The government is obliged to regard the feelings of the country.

As M. Nelidow commented in his dispatch, this was M. Rouvier’s final reaction. It destroyed the possibility of France’s entering a Continental alliance so completely that even the Czar had to acknowledge the fact.[932]

In the meantime, the Czar’s letter of October 7 to William II arrived in Berlin. It read as follows:

The great question is to draw France into our new defensive Alliance. . . . . But if France were to refuse to join us, then, not only would Art. IV drop away, but also the meaning of Art. I would change radically, because its obligations in the _present wording_ point at any European Power and France too—Russia’s ally. During your stay at Bjorkoe I did not have with me the documents signed by my Father. . . . . The first steps taken with the object of trying to find out, whether the French Government could be induced to join our new treaty, showed us that it is a difficult task and that it will take a long time to prepare to bring it over of its free will. . . . . Therefore I think that the coming into force of the Bjorkoe treaty ought to be _put off until_ we know how France will look upon it. In case she absolutely refuses to join our two countries, it will be necessary to change the wordings of articles I and IV so as to bring them into full accordance with Russia’s obligations towards France, since the formation of the Triple Alliance in 1890. I shall do my best to get France to join us.[933]

Without consulting the Chancellor, William II replied on October 12 with a refusal:

I fully agree with you, that it will cost time, labour and patience to induce France to join us both, but the reasonable people will in future make themselves heard and felt! Our Moroccan business is regulated to entire satisfaction so that the air is free for better understanding between us. Our treaty is a very good base to build upon. We joined hands and signed _before God_ who heard our vows! I therefore think that the treaty can well come into existence. But if you wish any changes in the wording or clauses or provisions for the future or different emergencies—as for instance the absolute refusal of France, which is improbable—I gladly await any proposal you will think fit to lay before me. Till these have been laid before me and are agreed upon, the Treaty must be adhered to by us as it is.[934]

The Czar, who had expected an acquiescence,[935] was in an unhappy plight; no matter which way he turned he would be accused of breaking his word. Since France had the prior claim and since the pressure upon him in St. Petersburg was pro-French, he wrote to William II on November 23 that to fulfil with equal loyalty the clauses of the Dual Alliance and those of the treaty of Björkö he would have to add the following declaration to the latter:

In view of the difficulties in the way of an immediate adhesion by the French Government to the treaty of defensive alliance signed at Björkoe . . . . it is understood that Article I of that act shall not have any application in the eventuality of a war with France and that the mutual engagements which unite the latter to Russia will be maintained in full until the establishment of an accord _à trois_.

To soften his refusal the Czar reported that Great Britain was “trying hard to get us round for an understanding about Asiatic frontier questions”; but he assured William II that he had not “the slightest intention of opening negotiations with her.”[936]

This reply destroyed the entire force of the treaty; it spelled the failure of Germany’s second effort to ally with Russia. The German Emperor and his government were bitterly disappointed. In the answer to the Czar on November 28, based upon a memorandum by Herr von Holstein, William II did not absolutely say yes or no, but left it to be understood that Germany still considered the treaty as binding in spite of the Czar’s declaration.[937] On December 2 the Czar refused to accept the accord without the proposed declaration.[938] There the matter rested.

On January 21, 1906, the Czar wrote to William II that in keeping with “the real sense of our Bjorkoe treaty,” he had accepted a proposal of President Loubet’s to attach a French general to his person.

I think that this courtesy to France will bring her still closer to Russia. As long as I can hold her tight she will remain peaceful and quiet. It seems to me therefore that the continent’s interests and still more so the interests of Germany can only gain from it. And with God’s help some day Your right idea of forming a new “triple alliance” will become a solid reality.

In sending this letter to Prince Bülow on January 23 the Emperor wrote:[939]

I am sending you herewith another precious, bungling effort from the youthful idealist on the Russian throne! The latest phase of the Russo- Gallic Alliance borders on the ridiculous, but show’s how in Paris—at London’s suggestion?—a counter blow is immediately struck against every _rapprochement_ between the two Emperors; every time, the little Czar by reason of the “ancient alliance” immediately falls or is won over by Lamsdorff. That he speaks on “my” idea of a triple alliance, as if I were receiving a special favor thereby, is really more than childish or naïve! . . . . And all that is served to me from behind a tear-drenched mask of eternal, most intimate friendship! How long will it be until he will have an “English general” at his side, naturally only in order to realize “my” ideal of world peace, and then a Japanese general to calm the oriental peoples, and finally an American general! His Majesty ought to be ashamed before his and my ancestors and before me to do such things, to write such letters to me, which Lamsdorff has dictated to him!

Thus the results of Björkö upon Russo-German relations were entirely different from those anticipated by the two rulers. By overreaching himself, by seeking a too-brilliant success without adequate preparation, the German Emperor alienated the Czar, who felt that he had played an ignominious rôle.[940] The consequence was that Russia again drew nearer to France[941] and began to look with more favor upon British overtures. Germany’s effort to restore her dominant position in Europe and to prevent the dreaded encirclement by means of a Russian alliance resulted, therefore, in preparing the ground for the very act which Germany most feared, the formation of an Anglo-Russo-French entente.

V

The German bid at Björkö for Russia’s friendship and the rumors of what had happened there—approaching more and more nearly the truth by October[942]—inevitably aroused rival efforts by Great Britain. The British policy of obtaining an understanding with Russia was complex. Defeat by Japan and revolution within made Russia discouraged and powerless, and broke the prestige of the chauvinistic, militaristic groups for the time being.[943] To complete the prophylactic work of fixing adequate restraints to the Russian expansive energy, Great Britain renewed prematurely her alliance with Japan in August, 1905, modifying the terms so that the alliance became effective in case of an attack by one Power and not only China specifically but also the “regions of Eastern Asia and of India” were included within its scope.[944] Then the British government hoped that Russia, with no other alternative, would make a satisfactory settlement of their Asiatic differences.[945]

In the previous May, Sir Charles Hardinge, British ambassador at St. Petersburg, had carried King Edward’s most cordial greetings to the Russian Foreign Minister. With marked pleasure, Count Lamsdorff had replied that the maintenance of peace and good relations with Great Britain was _mon culte et ma religion_. Remarking to the Ambassador that “interested parties” were trying to stir up discord between their countries, the Count said that these endeavors must be frustrated. Count Lamsdorff, wrote the Ambassador to his government,

thoroughly realized the actual difficulties of the situation, but he was full of confidence that at the end of this miserable war both Governments would find a means of arriving at a satisfactory arrangement of all outstanding differences in the same manner as the Anglo-French arrangement had been made.[946]

Russia and Japan agreed upon terms of peace on September 5. Three days later, Sir Charles Hardinge notified Count Lamsdorff of the new Anglo- Japanese Alliance, and assured him most earnestly that it was one of national insurance, that Great Britain was absolutely sincere in her desire for peace and friendly relations, and that she had no wish “to interfere with the legitimate activity of Russia” or “to seek a policy of aggrandizement at her expense.” Count Lamsdorff replied that he remained convinced of the value of an agreement and repeated that a third party was trying to arouse hostility between Great Britain and Russia. However, when Sir Charles Hardinge alluded to the possibility of resuming the previous negotiations at a future date, the Foreign Minister responded “that he was most anxious that they should be brought to a successful issue but that they should not be unduly hastened.”[947]

This cool reply to the British sounding was caused partly by the pressing need at that time to annul the Björkö treaty, but primarily by the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, whose renewal at that moment Russia had not expected. Interpreting it as another blow to a state already humiliated by defeat, Russian public opinion denounced the treaty.[948] Thinking that the Russian animosity would pass, Lord Lansdowne proposed on October 3 a way of bringing the two countries closer together.

My own feeling was [he said to the Russian ambassador] that it would be a mistake to attempt too much, or to allow it to be understood that the two countries were on the eve of a comprehensive transaction analogous to that which had taken place between France and Great Britain. My idea of the procedure to be followed was rather that we should take up in detail any outstanding points as to which differences of opinion had manifested themselves and endeavour to dispose of these, and that we should then pass on to others, if we found that our work proceeded successfully.

Although the Russian Foreign Minister was gratified at the expression of British good will, he replied that

he could give no answer of a definite character, but, speaking privately, he could say that the Treaty had had a very bad effect and had left an unpleasant impression upon the mind of the Emperor, and he would recommend our Ambassador, as a friend, not to press for an answer as it might be a disagreeable one, nor to open negotiations as to a definite treaty between England and Russia as to their interests in Asia.

Count Benckendorff even remarked that “any arrangement . . . . should not be conceived in a spirit of hostility towards Germany”—an implication which the British Foreign Secretary repudiated with force.[949]

Greatly alarmed at Russian soundings about a Continental coalition against Great Britain, the French government in October tried several times to bring Russia and Great Britain together, even on any minor question.[950] In view of the Russian reserve, no definite proposals were made.[951] By October 21, however, the French and British governments were certain that the danger of a Russo-German combination was past.[952] Shortly thereafter President Roosevelt, to the content of those governments, entirely denied that he favored a Continental grouping against the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.[953] When King Edward learned the truth about the Björkö affair in the autumn, he could with some relief describe his nephew, the Emperor William, as “the most brilliant failure in history.”[954]