Chapter XVII: The Conference of Algeciras (3)

[Footnote 1178: Germany also refused to recede on the police in return for French concessions on the bank (Nicolson to Grey, March 10 and 11, 1906, _B.D._, III, 294 f., Nos. 338 f.).]

[Footnote 1179: Nicolson to Grey, March 11 and 12, 1906, _ibid._, 295 f., No. 339; 297 ff., Nos. 341 f.]

[Footnote 1180: Bertie to Grey, March 11, 1906, _ibid._, 296 f., No. 340.]

[Footnote 1181: Crowe’s minutes to the dispatch from Nicolson to Grey, March 12, 1906, _ibid._, 299, No. 342; Grey to Nicolson, March 12, 1906, _ibid._, 300, No. 344.]

[Footnote 1182: Nicolson to Grey, March 11, 12, 14, 1906, _ibid._, 295, No. 339; 298, No. 341; 303, No. 349. Rouvier also approved this plan. See Hardinge to Nicolson, March 15, 1906, _ibid._, 305, No. 354.]

[Footnote 1183: The number of censors was later increased to four, one each from Great Britain, Spain, France, and Germany. See Radowitz to F. O., March 8 and 11, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 263 f., No. 7078; 272 f., No. 7089; _L.j., 1906_, pp. 152 f., 182, 189 ff.; Tardieu, pp. 291 f.]

[Footnote 1184: Radowitz to F. O., March 12, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 279, No. 7094.]

[Footnote 1185: Radowitz to F. O., March 11, 1906, _ibid._, 273, No. 7089.]

[Footnote 1186: Radowitz to F. O., March 12, 1906, _ibid._, 274, No. 7090.]

[Footnote 1187: Quoted in _ibid._, p. 274 n.; and in Tardieu, p. 316.]

[Footnote 1188: _G.P._, XXI, 274 ff., Nos. 7091 ff.; Tardieu, p. 318; Bishop, I, 495 ff. Bülow also sent a condensed telegram to the German banker, Mendelssohn, then in St. Petersburg negotiating a loan with Witte.]

[Footnote 1189: Schoen to F. O., March 13, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 279 f., No. 7095; Monts to F. O., March 13, 1906, _ibid._, 280 f., No. 7097; Wedel to F. O., March 13, 1906, _ibid._, 281 f., No. 7099; Metternich to F. O., March 13, 1906, _ibid._, 282 ff., No. 7100; Grey to Lascelles, March 13, 1906, _B.D._, III, 301 f., Nos. 347 f.]

[Footnote 1190: Sternburg to F. O., March 7, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 259 ff., No. 7074; Bishop, I, 493 ff.; Tardieu, pp. 251 f., 297.]

[Footnote 1191: Bülow to Sternburg, March 12, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, No. 7093; Bishop, I, 495 ff.; Tardieu, p. 335. The President’s intervention was extremely embarrassing to Bülow, who, after calling Sternburg’s attention to the difference between the original wording of the promise to Roosevelt sent from Berlin in the previous June and that sent to the President by Sternburg, threatened to disavow the Ambassador (_G.P._, XXI, 277 f., No. 7093). However, he did not do so.]

[Footnote 1192: Sternburg to F. O., March 14, 1906, _ibid._, 285 f., No. 7102.]

[Footnote 1193: Bertie to Grey, March 15, 16, 17, 1906, _B.D._, III, 306, Nos. 355 f.; 307 f., No. 358; 309 f., No. 361; Grey, I, 102 ff.]

[Footnote 1194: Tardieu, pp. 327 f., 343; Radolin to F. O., March 14 and 15, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 291 f., No. 7104; 295 ff., No. 7107; Bertie to Grey, March 16, 1906, _B.D._, III, 307 f., No. 358.]

[Footnote 1195: Grey to Bertie, March 14, 1906, _B.D._, III, 303, No. 350; 304, No. 352. In private both Sir Edward Grey and Sir Charles Hardinge greatly deplored the French refusal. On March 15 the former wrote to Sir Francis Bertie as follows: “I think the French made a great mistake in not closing at once with the German concession at Algeciras; they could have made it appear to be a diplomatic victory for themselves. . . . . Even the _Times_ correspondent of Algeciras thinks France ought not to break off on such a wretched point as Casa Blanca, which I believe is a useless hole. However, if she does, we shall back her up” (_ibid._, 304 f., No. 353). And on the same day Sir Charles Hardinge wrote to Sir Arthur Nicolson as follows: “. . . . If the Conference breaks up over such an absurd point as the Casablanca proposal _we_ shall be in a disagreeable position, as I remember well your opinion that the French position will not be difficult for Germany to undermine in Morocco and we shall then be exposed to any violent action which the French may take to retrieve their losses and shall find ourselves compelled to support France in a war against Germany. If the Conference is broken off I shall not like the outlook. I felt very strong about telling Cambon that in our opinion the Austrian proposal should be accepted rather than allow the Conference to fall through” (_ibid._, 305, No. 354).]

[Footnote 1196: Grey to Bertie, March 15, 1905, _ibid._, 307, No. 357; Grey to Nicolson, March 14, 1906, _ibid._, 304, No. 351; Nicolson to Grey, March 15, 1906, _ibid._, 304 n., No. 351; Spring Rice to Lamsdorff, March 17, 1906, quoted in Grey, I, 107 f.; Tardieu, pp. 311 f.]

[Footnote 1197: Grey, I, 107 f.; Tardieu, pp. 329 f., 347.]

[Footnote 1198: Radolin to F. O., March 17, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 303 f., No. 7114; Tardieu, pp. 343 f.; Nicolson to Grey, March 18, 1906, _B.D._, III, 311, No. 363.]

[Footnote 1199: _Journal officiel. Debats parlem._ (Chambre, March 14 and 19, 1906), pp. 1290, 1438 f.]

[Footnote 1200: The conversation on March 15 between Bourgeois and the Austrian Ambassador also pointed in this direction. See Bertie to Grey, March 16, 1906, _B.D._, III, 307 f., No. 358. See also Nicolson to Grey, March 17, 18, 21, 1906, _ibid._, 308, No. 359; 310 f., No. 362; 311 f., No. 364; 314 f., No. 368; Grey to Bertie, March 17, 1906, _ibid._, 308 f., No. 360.]

[Footnote 1201: Bülow to Sternburg, March 16, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 293 ff., No. 7106.]

[Footnote 1202: Sternburg to F. O., March 17 and 18, 1906, _ibid._, 300 ff., Nos. 7112 f.; 305 ff., No. 7115; Bishop, I, 497 ff.]

[Footnote 1203: Bülow to Radowitz, March 16, 19, 22, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 298 f., No. 7110; 307 ff., No. 7117; 311, No. 7120; Radowitz to F. O., March 17, 18, 21, 1906, _ibid._, 299 f., No. 7111; 306 f., No. 7116; 310 f., No. 7119; Tardieu, pp. 344 ff.; Bülow to Sternburg, March 19, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 309 f., No. 7118.]

[Footnote 1204: Dennis, pp. 505 f.; Grey to Durand, March 22, 1906, _B.D._, III, 317, No. 374.]

[Footnote 1205: Grey to Goschen, March 21, 1906, _B.D._, III, 315 f., No. 371.]

[Footnote 1206: On this episode see Nicolson to Grey, March 19, 21, 23, 1906, _ibid._, 312 ff., Nos. 365 ff.; 315, No. 370; 318, No. 376; 319 f., No. 379; Grey to de Bunsen, March 21, 1906, _ibid._, 316, No. 372; Bertie to Grey, March 22, 1906, _ibid._, 317 f., No. 375; Grey to Durand, March 22 and 23, 1906, _ibid._, 317, No. 374; 318, No. 377; Durand to Grey, March 24, 1906, _ibid._, 320 f., Nos. 380 f.; de Bunsen to Grey, March 27, 1906, _ibid._, 325 f., No. 385; Tardieu, pp. 385 ff.; Sternburg to F. O., March 21 and 22, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 311 f., No. 7121; 321, No. 7126; Radowitz to F. O., March 21, 1906, _ibid._, 310 f., No. 7119.]

[Footnote 1207: The Austrian government was opposed to trying to mediate upon the basis of Roosevelt’s proposal (unsigned and undated memoir handed by Szogyeny to the German government, March 23, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 321, No. 7127).]

[Footnote 1208: France could afford to make the concession on the bank because she had assured herself of the votes of Italy, Great Britain, Spain, Belgium, and the United States, which with her own three votes would constitute a majority. On this discussion see Tardieu, pp. 297, 342, 347 ff.; _L.j., 1906_, pp. 196 ff.; Bülow to Radowitz, March 24, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 322 f., No. 7129; Radowitz to F. O., March 16, 23, 25, 26, 1906, _ibid._, 297, No. 7109; 322, No. 7128; 324 ff., No. 7131; 326 f., Nos. 7132 f.; Nicolson to Grey, March 23, 1906, _B.D._, III, 319 f., No. 379.]

[Footnote 1209: Tardieu, pp. 362, 365 ff.; Radowitz to F. O., March 26, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, Nos. 7132 f.; Nicolson to Grey, March 26, 27, 1906, _B.D._, III, 321, No. 382; 322 ff., No. 383.]

[Footnote 1210: This publication, which was another answer to the exaggerated article in the _Lokalanzeiger_ on March 12, angered the German government. A short time previously Bülow had asked the Russian government to use its influence in moderating the anti-German campaign of the French press, especially of Tardieu in _Le Temps_. Instead of doing so, the Russian government issued this denial that it had ever advised France to accept the Austrian police proposal and asserted that Russia had never ceased and would not cease from acting toward France as a faithful ally. The German government complained to the Russian government against its so manifestly taking the French side, and threatened to refuse German participation in the forthcoming Russian loan. Both Lamsdorff and Witte were impressed by the vigor of the complaints, and tried to explain the affair away. Nelidow had endeavored to influence Tardieu, they said, and had spoken to him in general terms of the instructions which he had just received. To the Ambassador’s amazement, he had discovered an entirely false account of these instructions published in _Le Temps_. On demanding an explanation from Tardieu, the latter said that he had obtained his information in the French foreign office. Both ministers as well as the Ambassador expressed their regrets over the affair, and Lamsdorff published a correct version of the instructions. But as Schoen said, the latter version did not change the previous one much. Osten-Sacken weakened the Russian explanation by admitting to Tschirschky that Nelidow himself had given an “excerpt” of the instructions to the offending journalist. So the German government was not appeased by the excuses (see Bülow to Schoen, March 22, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 312 f., No. 7122, and following documents). As a matter of fact, those instructions were published on purpose to impress upon Germany that Russia held to the Dual Alliance and did not regard the Björkö accord as binding. See Witte, pp. 298 ff.; Iswolsky, _Recollections of a Foreign Minister_, pp. 23 f.; Tardieu, pp. 330 ff.; Nicolson to Grey, March 21, 1906, _B.D._, III, 315, No. 369; Spring Rice to Grey, March 21, 1906, _ibid._, 316 f., No. 373.]

[Footnote 1211: Even the Russian and Spanish delegates considered this matter of no importance. See Tardieu, pp. 361 ff.; Radowitz to Bülow, March 28, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 330 f., No. 7137.]

[Footnote 1212: Sternburg to F. O., March 24, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 324, No. 7130.]

[Footnote 1213: Radowitz to F. O., March 26 and 27, 1906, _ibid._, 326 ff., Nos. 7132 ff.; Radowitz to Bülow, March 28, 1906, _ibid._, 330 f., No. 7137; Nicolson to Grey, March 27, 1906, _B.D._, 324 f., No. 384; Tardieu, pp. 371 ff.]

[Footnote 1214: On these negotiations see Tardieu, pp. 378 ff. Almodovar tried to reopen the question of Tangier with the French on April 1 but had no success (_ibid._, pp. 394 ff.; see also _L.j., 1906_, p. 239).]

[Footnote 1215: A Swiss was selected at France’s wish because Switzerland was so little interested in Morocco. See Nicolson to Grey, March 28, 1906, _B.D._, III, 326 f., No. 386.]

[Footnote 1216: Tardieu, pp. 396 ff.; _L.j., 1906_, p. 210; Lee, II, 362.]

[Footnote 1217: _L.j., 1906_, pp. 196 ff.; Radowitz to F. O., March 27 and 31, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 328 ff., Nos. 7134 ff.; 331 f., No. 7138; Radowitz to Bülow, March 28, 1906, _ibid._, 330 f., No. 7137; Tardieu, pp. 396 ff. The final act is found in _L.j., 1906_, pp. 262 ff.]

[Footnote 1218: Bishop, I, 492, 494, 496 ff.]

[Footnote 1219: Rosen to Bülow, May 17, 1906, _G.P._, XXI, 601 f., No. 7276.]

[Footnote 1220: Lowther to Grey, April 22, 1906, _B.D._, III, 338, No. 402.]

[Footnote 1221: Grey to Nicolson, March 12, 1906, _ibid._, 299 f., No. 343; Nicolson to Grey, March 13, April 3, 1906, _ibid._, 301, No. 346; 330, No. 392; Lowther to Grey, April 17 and 22, 1906, _ibid._, 337 ff., Nos. 401 f.; 346 f. and inclosure, No. 412; memo. by Geoffray, Aug. 31, 1906, _ibid._, 341 ff., No. 405; Tardieu, pp. 425 ff.]