Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:03:40.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Waning of a Traditional Alliance: Russia and Germany after the Portsmouth Peace Conference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Bernard F. Oppel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War in 1904, the traditionally close relationship between Imperial Germany and Tsarist Russia appeared as cordial as ever. Russia had an alliance with France but, except for its lucrative financial advantages for the Russians, this Dual Alliance remained largely an untested one vis-à-vis Germany. Less than a year after the conclusion of peace between Russia and Japan meaningful friendship between Russia and Germany ceased to exist. Within another year, Russia settled her major Asiatic differences with Great Britain, thus completing the process of isolating Germany diplomatically. The culminating period in this deterioration of Russo-German friendship occurred during the seven-month interval between the end of the Portsmouth Peace Conference in September 1905 and Germany's refusal to participate in the international loan to Russia in April 1906. This paper seeks to examine the causes of Russo-German estrangement within the framework of interrelated and often conflicting considerations of German Weltpolitik, Russian military defeats, the Revolution of 1905, and the international aspects of the Moroccan question.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 1972 , pp. 318 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1972

Access options

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

References

1. This theme is the subject of a recent, highly perceptive doctoral dissertation by Long, James W., entitled “The Economics of the Franco-Russian Alliance, 1904–1906” (University of Wisconsin, 1968).Google Scholar

2. Renewed interest in the policies of the European Powers prior to 1914 has been demonstrated by the recent number of excellent works based on unpublished materials, including Andrew, Christopher, Théophile Delcassé and the Making of the Entente Cordiale (London, 1968);CrossRefGoogle ScholarMonger, George, The End of Isolation: British Foreign Policy, 1900–1907 (London, 1963);Google ScholarRich, Norman, Friedrich von Holstein (2 vols., Cambridge, 1965)Google Scholar; and Bridge, F. R., From Sadowa to Sarajevo: The Foreign Policy of Austria-Hungary, 1866–1914 (Boston, 1972).Google Scholar Yet the abundance of scholarly studies has not given us a critical examination of relations between Russia and Germany. Too often Russia is treated lightly; her impact on European balance-of-power politics is minimized. The period under discussion in this paper merely reflects the tip of the iceberg. The paper was presented in slightly different form at the 1970 meeting of the Pacific Coast Branch of the American Historical Association. It is part of a larger study of the impact of new forces—industrialism, military technology, nationalism, and imperialism—on the traditional relationship between Russia and Germany during the years 1871–1914.

3. Nicholas II to William II, June 1, 1904, No. 6034 in Germany, Auswärtiges Amt, Die Grosse Politik der Europäischen Kabinette, 1871–1914. Sammlung der Diplomatischen Akten des Auswärtiges Amtes, ed. Lepsius, Johannes, Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Albrecht, and Thimme, Friedrich (Berlin, 1922–1927), XIX, 182 (cited as GP);Google Scholar Bülow to Auswärtige Amt (AA), July 31, 1904, German Foreign Ministry Archives, 1867–1920 (cited as GFMA), I.A.A.b., Deutschland 131, Nr. 2, secr., “Den deutsch-russischen Handelsvertrag,” University of California microfilm, Series I, Reel 4 (cited UCI/4), VI, No. 12441; Bülow to William II, July 15, 1904, GFMA, Deutschland 131, secr., “Der Verhältnis Deutschlands zu Russland,” UCI/154, X, No. 989; Richthofen to Alvensleben, March 15, 1905, GFMA, I.B., Japan 20, Nr. 4, secr., “Krieg zwischen Russland und Japan: Frage eines Intervention und russisch-japanische Friedensverhandlungen,” UC II/31, I, No. 341; Bülow to Stern-burg, May 16, 1905, No. 6036 in GP, XIX, 600–602; White, John A., The Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War (Princeton, 1964), pp. 93–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Witte, Sergei Iu., The Memoirs of Count Witte, edited by Yarmolinsky, Abraham(New York, 1921), p. 413;Google ScholarCecil, Lamar J. R., “Coal for the Fleet That Had to Die,” American Historical Review, LXIX (1964), 990–1005;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Alvensleben to AA, Dec. 30, 1904, GFMA, I.A.B.i., Russland 71, “Die russische Finanzen,” UC I/273, XLII, No. 20417; Shebeko to Nicholas II, Jan. 22, 1905, Russia, Izdatel'stvo, Gosudarstvo, “Vil'gel'm II o russko-iaponskoi voine i revoliutsii 1905 goda,” Krasnyi Arkhiv: Istoricheski Zhurnal, ed. Maksakov, V. V., Polonskov, V. P., and Fritshe, V. M. (Moscow, 1922–1941), IX (1925), 63 (cited as KA).Google Scholar

5. Holstein to Bülow, Jan. 17, 1904, No. 819, in von Holstein, Friedrich, The Holstein Papers, ed. Rich, Norman and Fisher, M. H. (Cambridge, 1955–1963), IV, 277–78 (cited as HP).Google Scholar

6. William II to Nicholas II, Oct. 27, 1904, “Russko-germanskii dogovor 1905 goda, zakliuchennyi v B'ërke,” KA, v (1924), 5–6; Bülow to William II, Oct. 30, 1904, No. 6120 and Anlage in GP, XIX, 305–308.

7. William II to Bülow, July 25, 1905, No. 6220 in GP, XIX, 458–65.

8. Holstein to Bülow, July 25, 1905, GFMA, Deutschland 131, Nr. 4, secr., “Deutschrussische Verhandlungen (1904) über russisch-japanisches Krieges,” National Archives Microcopy T-120, Serial 1862, Reel 3314 (cited NA 1862/3314), III, No. 8073; Holstein to Bülow, Aug.14, 1905, No. 6239 in GP, XIX, 501; Memorandum by Bülow, Aug. 18, 1905, No. 6240 in GP, XIX, 502–503.

9. Lamsdorf to Nelidov, Oct. 8 and 9, 1905, KA, V, 29–30, 35–37.

10. Izvol'skii, Aleksandr, Recollections of a Foreign Minister, translated by Seeger, C. L. (New York, 1921), pp. 44, 49; Lamsdorf to Nelidov, Oct. 6, 1905, KA, V, 33–34.Google Scholar

11. Nelidov to Lamsdorf, Aug. 9, Oct. 5, and Oct. 18, 1905, KA, V, 26–27, 30–33, 41–43.

12. Lamsdorf to Nelidov, Oct. 27, 1905, ibid., pp. 43–44.

13. Lamsdorf to Osten-Sacken, Nov. 1905, ibid., pp. 44–46; Nicky to Willy, Nov. 23, 1905, No. 6254 and Anlage in GP, XIX, 522–24; Osten-Sacken to Lamsdorf, Nov. 29–30, 1905, KA, V, 47–49.

14. Holstein to von Brandt, Maximilian, Dec. 23, 1905, No. 917 in HP, IV, 376–78.Google Scholar

15. Memoranda by von Klehmet, Reinhold for Bülow, Dec. 1 and 5, 1905, GFMA, I.B., Marokko 4, secr., “Die marokkanische Frage,” NA 8176/3314, XIII, Nos. 1422 and 1442; Bülow to Radowitz, Jan. 3, 1906, No. 6922 in GP, XXI, 38–45.Google Scholar

16. Secret instructions to the First Russian Delegate at Algeciras, Nov. 22, 1905, “Rossiia i Alzhezirasskaia Konferentsia,” KA, XLI (1930), 7–11; Lamsdorf to Cassini, Jan. 29, 1906, ibid., p. 13; Schoen to Bülow, Feb. 13, 1906, GFMA, Marokko 4, Nr. 1, “Verhandlungen der Marokko-Konferenz in Algeciras (1906),” NA 8187/3315, III, No. 3294.

17. For example, during the height of revolutionary upheaval (Aug. 1905–Jan. 1906),150,000,000 rubles (16% of total deposits) were withdrawn from both state and private banks. The Russian government also faced a 15% inflationary increase in paper currency, a substantial decline in tax revenues, the need for funds to demobilize the Far Eastern armies, serious proposals to abandon the gold standard, the need to repay the German loan of 1905, and nearly 640,000,000 rubles in actual and anticipated state military and revolutionary expenses. See Sidorov, A. L., ed., “Denezhnoe obrashchenie i finansovoe polozhenie Rossii (1904–1907 gg.),” Istoricheskii Arkhiv, III (1956), 113–20Google Scholar, and “Finansovoe polozhenie tsarskogo samoderzhaviia v period russko-iaponskoi voiny i pervoi russkoi revoliutsii,” ibid., II (1955), 125–33, 140–41; Russia, Ministry of Finance, Proposed Budget of the Empire for 1907 (St. Petersburg, 1906), p. 22;Google ScholarRussia, Ministerstvo finansov, Ministerstvo finansov, 1904–1913 (St. Petersburg, 1913), pp. 18ff.;Google ScholarKokovtsov, Vladimir Nikolaevich, Out of My Past: Memoirs of Count Kokovtsov (Stanford, 1935), pp. 84–88;Google ScholarMiller, Margaret S., The Economic Development of Russia, 1905–1914 (London, 1926), pp. 112–13;Google ScholarPasvolsky, Leo and Moulton, Harold G., Russian Debts and Russian Reconstruction (New York, 1924), pp. 50–52, 192.Google Scholar

18. “Telegramma stats-sekretariia Kokovtsova, V. N. iz Parizha predsedateliu Soveta ministrov S. Iu. Vitte o khode peregovorov o zaime,”Google Scholar Akademiia nauk SSSR, Institut istorii, Revoliutsiia 1905–1907 gg. v Rossii. Dokumenty i materialy: Vysskii pod'em revoliutsii 1905–1907 gg.; Vooruzhennye vosstaniia noiabr'-dekabr' 1905 goda (Moscow, 1955), I, 177;Google Scholar Report by Kokovtsov to Committee of Finance, Jan. 15, 1906, “K peregovoram Kokovtseva o zaime V 1905–1906 gg.,” KA, X (1925), 23–30.

19. Instructions to First Russian Delegate, KA, XLI, 10–11; Kokovtsov, p. 90; Preobrazhenskii, E. A., ed., Russkie finansy i evropeiskaia birzha v 1904–1906gg. Dokumenty tsentrarkhiva (Moscow-Leningrad, 1926), p. 247.Google Scholar

20. Nelidov to Lamsdorf, Feb. 1, 7, and 8, 1906, KA, XLI, 14, 16–18; Cassini to Lamsdorf, Feb. 6, 1906, ibid., pp. 14–15; Osten-Sacken to Lamsdorf, Feb. 10, 1906, ibid., pp. 19–20.

21. Lamsdorf to Nicholas II, Feb. 10, 1906, ibid., p. 21; Schoen to AA, Feb. 12, 1906, No. 6998 in GP, XXI, 156–57.

22. Schoen to AA, Feb. 16 and 20, 1906, Nos. 7017 and 7025 in GP, XXI, 178–79, 192; Eulenburg to William II, Feb. 22, 1906, GFMA, Russland 71, secr., “Die russische Finanzen,” UC I/99, I, No. 189; Witte to Eulenburg, Feb. 20, 1906, GFMA, UC I/99, I, No. 185.

23. Lamsdorf to Cassini, Feb. 19, 1906, KA, XLI, 24.

24. Eulenburg to Witte, Feb. 22, 1906, GFMA, UC I/99, I, No. 185.

25. Osten-Sacken to Lamsdorf, Feb. 20, 1906, KA, XLI, 26.

26. Lamsdorf to Osten-Sacken, Feb. 22, 1906, ibid., pp. 30–31.

27. Spring-Rice to Grey, Feb. 28, 1906, No. 320 in Great Britain, Foreign Office, British Documents on the Origins of the War, 1898–1914, ed. Gooch, G. P. and Temperly, Harold (London, 1926–1938), III, 278–79.Google Scholar

28. Lamsdorf to Osten-Sacken, Mar. 29, 1906, KA, XLI, 50–54.

29. The official text of the Algeciras Convention may be found in a number of sources, one of which is American Journal of International Law, I (1907), Supplement I, 47–77.Google Scholar

30. Holstein to Radolin, Mar. 28, 1906, No. 947 in HP, IV, 403–404; Memorandum by Holstein and Tschirschky, Apr. 1, 1906, GFMA, NA 8188/3315, XI, No. 6290.

31. Schoen to Bülow, Mar. 4, 1906, GFMA, UC I/154, X, No. 4683 and marginal note by William II: “They [Russians] have grown fat off us long enough.”

32. Nelidov to Foreign Ministry, Mar. 7, 1906, KA, XLI, 34–36; Nelidov to Lamsdorf, Mar. 19, 1906, ibid., p. 44.

33. Entry for Mar. 14, 1906, “Dnevnik A. A. Polovtseva (1905–1908 gg.),” KA, IV, 100; Crisp, Olga, “The Russian Liberals and the 1906 Anglo-French Loan to Russia,” Slavic and East European Review, XXXIX (1960–1961), 497–98.Google Scholar

34. Bülow to von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, ErnstGoogle Scholar, Apr. 4, 1906, GFMA, UC I/99, I, No. 3941 (Bülow's warning served to force the other German banks out of the proposed consortium); Mendelssohn-Bartholdy to Witte, Apr. 15, 1906, GFMA, UC I/154, X, No. 386.

35. AA to Schoen, Apr. 5, 1906, GFMA, UC I/99, I, No. 344 II; Kokovtsov, p. 113; Witte, Memoirs, pp. 306–307; “Dnevnik A. A. Polovtseva,” KA, iv, 100; Lamsdorf to Nelidov and Benckendorff, Apr. 6, 1906, KA, XLI, 58; Schoen to Bülow, Apr. 11, 1906, GFMA, UC I/273, XLVIII, No. 6976.

36. Directive by Bülow, Mar. 21, 1906, GFMA, UC I/273, XLVII, No. 5594; AA to Schoen, Mar. 22, 1906, ibid., No. 5635.

37. Note by William II on Bülow to William II, Mar. 31, 1906, GFMA, I.A.B.b., England 83, “Beziehungen Englands zu Russland,” UC I/202, XIII; Schoen to Bülow, Apr. 6, GFMA, Deutschland 131, “Das Verhältnis Deutschlands zu Russland,” UC I/18, XXVII, No. 6730 (on the subject of Russian mediation at Algeciras, William II wrote: “Lies! They wanted money from France.”); Osten-Sacken to Lamsdorf, Berlin, Apr. 6, 1906, KA, XLI, 58–60.

38. Memorandum by Below, Apr. 4, 1906, GFMA, UC I/99, I, No. 345.

39. State Secretary of Reich Treasury von Stengel to Bülow, Mar. 26, 1906, GFMA, UC I/99, I, No. 308, secret; Reichsbank Director Koch to Bülow, Mar. 26, 1906, ibid., No. 309, secret.

40. Mendelssohn-Bartholdy to Bülow, Apr. 1, 1906, ibid., Nos. 333 and 334.

41. Russia, Ministerstvo vnutrennikh del', Tsentral'nyi statisticheskii komitet, Ezhegodnik Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1906), II (1905), 234–37, 681–92;Google ScholarRaffalovich, Arthur L., ed., Russia: Its Trade and Commerce (London, 1918), pp. 35–51.Google Scholar

42. This economic fact of life prompted Lamsdorf to observe that termination of the Franco-Russian alliance by either side was highly unlikely. See Shliapnikov, Aleksandr, ed., Kto dolzhnik? Sbornik dokumentirovannykh statei po voprosy ob otnosheniiakh mezhdu Rossiei, Frantsiei, i drugimi derzhavami antanty do voiny 1914 g., vo vremia voiny i v period interventsei (Moscow, 1926), p. 26.Google Scholar

43. Nötzold, Jürgen, Wirtschaftspolitische Alternativen der Entwicklung Russlands in der Ära Witte und Stolypin (Berlin, 1966), pp. 178–79;Google Scholar[Riesser, J.]Google Scholar, U. S. Senate, National Monetary Commission, German Great Banks and Their Concentration in Connection with the Economic Development of Germany, Report No. 593, 3rd ed., 61st Cong., 2nd Sess., 1910, pp. 469–526.

44. Stolper, Gustav et al. , The German Economy, 1870 to the Present (New York, 1967), p. 33;Google ScholarHale, Oron J., The Great Illusion, 1900–1914 (New York, 1971), pp. 74–76.Google Scholar

45. Sept. 28, 1908, GFMA, UC I/99, II, No. 15939.

46. Havenstein, President of Preussische Seehandlung, to Bülow, Mar. 29, 1906, ibid., No. 321, secret.

47. Neidov to Lamsdorf, Apr. 7, 1906, KA, XLI, 60; Reports by von Jacobi, Military AttachéGoogle Scholar, Apr. 8 and May 1, 1906, in von Lambsdorff, Gustav, Die Militärbevollmachtigten Kaiser Wilhelms II am Zarenhofe, 1904–1914 (Berlin, 1937), pp. 253–55; Schoen to Bülow, Apr. 11, 1906, GFMA, UC I/273, XLVIII, No. 6976.Google Scholar

48. Schoen to AA, Apr. 21, 1906, GFMA, UC I/158, XXVIII, No. 7457.

49. Henry White to Roosevelt, TheodoreGoogle Scholar, Apr. 8, 1906, Theodore Roosevelt MSS, Library of Congress.

50. Memorandum by Bülow and Tschirschky for William II, May 31, 1906, GFMA, I.A.A.l., Österreich 95. secr., “Beziehungen Österreich zu Deutschland,” UC I/101, II, No. 520.