Chapter VII: Part I

[Footnote 207: Eckardstein, II, 235 ff.; Hatzfeldt to F. O., Jan. 18, 1901, _G.P._, XVII, 14 ff., No. 4979. In the same month Lansdowne expressed to the German government the desire to remain in “complete harmony” with it on Chinese affairs. See Lascelles to Lansdowne, Jan. 4, 1901, _B.D._, II, 20 f., No. 25; Lascelles to Lansdowne, Jan. 18, 1901, _ibid._, 21 f., No. 26.]

[Footnote 208: On those far eastern troubles see _G.P._, Vol. XVI; _B.D._, Vol. II, chap. ix.]

[Footnote 209: _B.D._, II, 43, No. 54. On Anglo-Russian relations see also Newton, pp. 215 f.]

[Footnote 210: Quoted in Lee, II, 11. This was against Bülow’s advice (Bülow to William II, Jan. 21, 1901, _G.P._, XVII, 20 f., No. 4983). On the Emperor’s visit see Eckardstein to F. O., Jan. 29, 1901, _ibid._, 23 f., No. 4986; William II to Bülow, Jan. 29, 1901, _ibid._, 24 ff., No. 4987; Lansdowne’s memo., Jan., 1901, Newton, p. 199. The Emperor had been given an enthusiastic welcome in England. The Harmsworth press had called him “A Friend in Need” (Newton, p. 198).]

[Footnote 211: Memo. by Mühlberg, Jan. 28, 1901, _G.P._, XVI, 286, No. 4785, and following documents.]

[Footnote 212: Lansdowne to Lascelles, March 18, 1901, Newton, pp. 199 f.]

[Footnote 213: Eckardstein, II, 279.]

[Footnote 214: He naturally did not report this statement to Berlin (_ibid._, pp. 280 f.).]

[Footnote 215: _Ibid._, pp. 277 ff.; Eckardstein to F. O., March 19, 1901, _G.P._, XVII, 41 f., No. 4994; Lansdowne to Lascelles, March 18, 1901, _B.D._, II, 61, No. 77; Newton, pp. 199 f. As the Ambassador was ill during most of this time, Eckardstein carried on the negotiations.]

[Footnote 216: Eckardstein has written in his memoirs that in his private correspondence with Holstein he took the latter’s peculiarities into account and used expressions that were adapted to his “complex mentality.” “For instance, I very often avoided using the word _alliance_ and spoke of a _defensive arrangement_; then I emphasized that the whole affair was yet in embryo, although in fact the negotiations progressed very smoothly and were on the point of conclusion, etc. As soon as the negotiations began to run smoothly and lightly, Holstein became suspicious, and if the other party were willing to accede to our wishes, smelled a rat.” The truth seems to be that for this very reason Eckardstein sent home not less but more favorable reports of the British desire for an alliance than was really the case, and by stretching his instructions to the utmost in his ardent desire to ally the two Powers, may have been responsible for the contradiction mentioned above (Eckardstein, II, 273).]

[Footnote 217: Hatzfeldt to F. O., March 23, 1901, _G.P._, XVII, 46 ff., No. 4997; Eckardstein, II, 321 ff.]

[Footnote 218: Lansdowne to Lascelles, March 29, 1901, _B.D._, II, 62, No. 79; Eckardstein, II, 326 ff.]

[Footnote 219: Lansdowne to Lascelles, April 9, 1901, _B.D._, 62 f., No. 80; Eckardstein, II, 335.]

[Footnote 220: Bülow to Hatzfeldt, Jan. 20, 1901, _G.P._, XVII, 17 f., No. 4981.]

[Footnote 221: Holstein to Metternich, Jan. 21, 1901, _ibid._, 22, No. 4984. Metternich accompanied the Emperor to England at that time.]

[Footnote 222: See his minutes to the dispatch from Holstein to Hatzfeldt, Feb. 11, 1901, _ibid._, 37, No. 4989; Bülow to Hatzfeldt, Jan. 20, 1901, _ibid._, 17 f., No. 4981; Bülow to William II, Jan. 21, 1901, 20 f., No. 4983.]

[Footnote 223: The two formulations were in no way identical, but the negotiations never proceeded far enough to permit their being discussed.]

[Footnote 224: Bülow to Hatzfeldt, March 24, 1901, _ibid._, 49, No. 4998; Bülow to Hatzfeldt, May 11, 1901, _ibid._, 54 ff., No. 5003; Richthofen to Hatzfeldt, May 18, 1901, _ibid._, 60 ff., No. 5007; Richthofen to Hatzfeldt, May 20, 1901, _ibid._, 64 f., No. 5009; and the following documents.]

[Footnote 225: Lansdowne to Lascelles, April 13, 1901, _B.D._, II, 63, No. 81; Lansdowne to Lascelles, March 18, 1901, Newton, pp. 199 f.]

[Footnote 226: Memo. by Salisbury, May 29, 1901, _B.D._, II, 68 f., No. 86.]

[Footnote 227: Memo. by Sanderson, May 27, 1901, _ibid._, 66 ff., No. 85; Lansdowne to Eckardstein, May 24, 1901, _ibid._, 66, No. 84; Lansdowne to Lascelles, May 30, 1901, _ibid._, 69 ff., No. 87 and inclosures; Hatzfeldt to Lansdowne, May 30, 1901, _ibid._, 71, No. 88; Hatzfeldt to F. O., May 27, 1901, _G.P._, XVII, 68 f., No. 5012; and the following documents.]

[Footnote 228: Lascelles to Lansdowne, Aug. 25, 1901, _B.D._, II, 73, No. 90; memo. by Holstein, June 14, 1901, _G.P._, XVII, 83 ff., No. 5019. Late in October, 1901, Holstein and Bülow had long talks with Valentine Chirol of the _London Times_ to a like effect. See memo. by Holstein, Oct. 31, Nov. 1, 1901, _G.P._, XVII, 101 ff., Nos. 5026 f.; Sir Valentine Chirol, _Fifty Years in a Changing World_ (London, 1927), pp. 288 ff.]

[Footnote 229: On April 13, 1901, Lansdowne had written to Lascelles: “Things in Morocco look ugly. Do you hear anything?” See _B.D._, II, 64, No. 81; Lansdowne to Monson, July 3, 1901, _ibid._, 261, No. 318.]

[Footnote 230: Eckardstein gives the following story:

Early in July, soon after the arrival of the Moroccan embassy in London, Sir Arthur Nicolson, British minister in Morocco, told him that France was intriguing in that land for the establishment of a protectorate. At Lansdowne’s request he suggested the co-operation of Great Britain and Germany for the maintenance of the _status quo_ in Morocco. Then he touched upon the subject of a common Anglo-German peaceful penetration of that country, which should be inaugurated by a commercial treaty with the Sultan. Between the two European states an agreement should be made to determine which concessions each should receive. He proposed that Germany be given, among others, the right of supplying all railway and electrical materials and of installing them, and that all further political, financial, or economic measures should be carried through by the two Powers together. Eckardstein states that he sent a long telegram to Berlin in regard to this conversation, but received no reply (Eckardstein, II, 357 f.). The editors of _G.P._, however, found no such telegram (_G.P._, XVII, 333 n.), nor is there any mention of the proposal in any of the documents published by them or by the British. Still the offer may have been made, as will be evident later. Hammann, director of the press department in the German foreign office at that time, has also written that on the dismissal of el-Menebhi, the British government proposed common action to the German government, but that it was refused (Otto Hammann, _Zur Vorgeschichte des Weltkrieges. Erinnerungen aus den Jahren 1897-1906_ [Berlin, 1918], pp. 139 f.).]

[Footnote 231: Eckardstein to F. O., July 29, 1901, _G.P._, XVII, 338 f., No. 5182.]

[Footnote 232: Memo. by Mühlberg, Aug. 8, 1901, _ibid._, 339 f., No. 5183; Holstein to Bülow, Aug. 8, 1901, _ibid._, 341, No. 5184; Bülow to F. O., Aug. 9, 1901, _ibid._, 341 f., No. 5185.]

[Footnote 233: _B.D._, Vol. II, chap. x; Newton, pp. 221 ff.]

[Footnote 234: On that meeting see Lee, II, 130 f.; Lascelles to Lansdowne, Aug. 25, 1901, _B.D._, I, 259, No. 323; Lascelles to Lansdowne, Aug. 23, 1901, _ibid._, II, 73, No. 90; memo. by William II, Aug. 23, 1901, _G.P._, XVII, 94 ff., No. 5023. For the meeting Lansdowne gave to King Edward a memorandum on the questions which might be brought up. “With regard to Morocco,” he wrote, “the policy of the German and British Governments would appear to be identical. Both desire the maintenance of the _status quo_, and both would probably resent any indignity offered to the Moorish Envoy who lately visited, and was received with honours at the German and British Courts” (_ibid._, 124, No. 5033). By mistake King Edward gave a copy of this memorandum to the Emperor, whose government responded with a similar communication to the British government. The statement about Morocco was as follows: “In Morocco we follow a policy of reserve. The Morocco question by itself is not sufficiently important for us to justify a policy by which Germany might incur the risk of serious international complications” (_ibid._, 129, No. 5025, Anlage).]

[Footnote 235: Memo. by Lansdowne (very secret), Nov. 11, 1901, _B.D._, II, 78, No. 92. Late in July, Lascelles had expressed to Eckardstein his personal opinion that an alliance between Great Britain and the Triple Alliance was hardly possible, that at most one between Great Britain and Germany was all that could be expected (Eckardstein to F. O., July 29, 1901, _G.P._, XVII, 91, No. 5021).]

[Footnote 236: Memo. by Lansdowne, Nov. 11 and Dec. 4, 1901, _B.D._, II, 76 ff., Nos. 92 f.]

[Footnote 237: Memo. by Lansdowne, Dec. 4, 1901, _ibid._, 79 f., No. 93, and Salisbury’s minutes.]

[Footnote 238: Lansdowne to Lascelles, Dec. 19, 1901, _ibid._, 80 ff., No. 94; memo. by Metternich, Dec. 28, 1901, _G.P._, XVII, 111 ff., No. 5030.]

[Footnote 239: Lee, II, 133 ff.]

[Footnote 240: Lascelles to Lansdowne, Jan. 16, 1902, _B.D._, I, 268, No. 331; Plunkett to Lansdowne, April 11, 1902, _ibid._, 274 f., No. 340; Lascelles to Lansdowne, Jan. 3, 1902, _ibid._, II, 84, No. 95; memo. by Mühlberg, Dec. 27, 1901, _G.P._, XVII, 109 f., No. 5028; William II to Edward VII, Dec. 30, 1901, _ibid._, 110 f., No. 5029.]

[Footnote 241: He was quoting Frederick the Great (Bülow, I, 242). See Metternich to Bülow, Nov. 19, 1901, _G.P._, XVII, 194 f., No. 5073; Bülow to Metternich, Nov. 26, 1901, _ibid._, 195 ff., No. 5074; Metternich to F. O., Nov. 26, 1901, _ibid._, 197 ff., No. 5075; Buchanan to Lansdowne, Nov. 20, 1901, _B.D._, I, 263, No. 325; Lansdowne to Buchanan, Nov. 26 and Dec. 3, 1901, _ibid._, 263, No. 326; 265, No. 328; Lansdowne to Lascelles, Jan. 14, 1902, _ibid._, 266 f., Nos. 329 f.; Lascelles to Lansdowne, Jan. 16, 1902, _ibid._, 268 f., No. 332. Cf. Chirol, p. 297; Gwynn, I, 350.]

[Footnote 242: Lee, II, 138 ff.; _B.D._, I, Nos. 334 ff.]

[Footnote 243: Bülow to Metternich, March 13, 1902, _G.P._, XVII, 149 ff., No. 5046.]

[Footnote 244: Newton, pp. 247 f.]

[Footnote 245: Bülow to F. O., Sept. 12 and 14, 1901, _G.P._, XVIII, 28 f., Nos. 5393 f.; memo. by Bülow, Sept. 14, 1901, _ibid._, 29 ff., No. 5395.]

[Footnote 246: Alvensleben to F. O., Feb. 19, 1902, _ibid._, XVII, 156 f., No. 5049; Bülow to Alvensleben, Feb. 22, 1902, _ibid._, 157 ff., No. 5050; memo. by Bülow, Feb. 25, 1902, _ibid._, 160 ff., No. 5051; and the following documents.]

[Footnote 247: See below.]

[Footnote 248: Memo. by Holstein, Dec. 31, 1901, _ibid._, XVIII, 737, No. 5844.]

[Footnote 249: Eckardstein, III, 93.]

[Footnote 250: Hammann, _Zur Vorgeschichte des Weltkrieges_, pp. 144 f.]