Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T10:04:50.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Calais Conference of December 1915

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

D. J. Dutton
D. J. Dutton
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Allies' conduct of the Great War has frequently been castigated by historians as inept and amateurish. But it is perhaps the conduct of their diplomacy which most merits this description. Until the creation of the Supreme War Council at the end of 1917 there existed, apart from a number of liaison officers, no machinery to synchronise the strategy and diplomacy of Great Britain and France other than the periodic meetings of the politicans and generals of the two countries. Yet, as David Lloyd George came to realize, these were not really conferences at all, but rather meetings of men with pre-conceived ideas who desired only to find a formula which could obscure the underlying differences of opinion from the general view. They were really nothing but a ‘tailoring’ operation at which different plans were stitched together. What was required was the construction of an inter-Allied General Staff, designed to examine and give advice on the changing military situation. Obviously no government could abdicate its right to issue orders, but if the Central Powers were to be defeated the Allies needed to concede that there was far more to participation in a coalition than the mere lip-service to unity involved in the periodic gatherings of soldiers and statesmen. An examination of the Calais Conference of December 1915, called at a time when Allied operations on all fronts were showing a marked lack of success, will illustrate many of the failings and dangers of this primitive form of war diplomacy.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 1978 , pp. 143 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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 War Cabinet, 30 Oct. 1917, CAB 23/13/259a.

2 George, D. Lloyd, War memoirs (6 vols., London, 1933–1936), iv, 2407.Google Scholar

3 Joffre to Gallieni, no. 16651, 30 Nov. 1915, Archives de Guerre 16N3014; Note d'Introduction à la Conférence du 5 décembre, 30 Nov. 1915, A. de G. 16N3056.

4 Note by William Martin, 1 Dec. 1915, 16N3162.

5 Mahon to Kitchener, 1 Dec. 1915, F.O. 371/2280/183443.

6 Poincaré, R., Au service de la France (10 vols., Paris 1926–1933), vii, 295.Google Scholar

7 Briand to Cambon, no. 4093–5, 1 Dec. 1915, Archives du Ministère des Affaires Entrangères, série ‘Guerre’, vol. 285.

8 Poincaré, Au service, VII, 309; Cambon to Briand, no. 2809, 1 Dec. 1915, M.A.E. vol. 1034.

9 Grey to Bertie, 1 Dec. 1915, F.O. 371/2278/182529.

10 Bertie, Lord of Thame, , Diary, ed. Lennox, Lady A. G. (2 vols., London 1924), i, 271Google Scholar; Bertie to Grey, 1 Dec. 1915, F.O. 371/2278/182517.

11 Briand to Cambon, no. 4109, 2 Dec. 1915, M.A.E. vol. 1034.

12 Briand to Cambon, no. 4101–07, 2 Dec. 1915. ibid.

13 Cambon to Briand, no. 2818, 2 Dec. 1915, ibid.

14 Doumayrou to Gallieni, no. 3575, 2 Dec. 1915, ibid.

15 Doumayrou to ‘mon colonel’, 2 Dec. 1915, A. de G. 5N151.

16 Poincaré, , Au service, vii, 303Google Scholar; Briand to Cambon, no. 4115–17, 2 Dec. 1915, M.A.E. vo. 285.

17 Joffre to Sarrail, no 7843, 3 Dec. 1915, A. de G. 16N3136.

18 Grey to Bertie, no. 2830–1, 2 Dec. 1915, F.O. 371/2278/183275.

19 Ibid., 3 Dec. 1915, F.O. 371/2280/184537.

20 Panouse to Gallieni, 2 Dec. 1915, A. de G. 5N151.

21 Asquith to George V, 3 Dec. 1915, CAB 37/139/7.

22 Commander-in-chief of the British army in France.

23 Blake, R. (ed.), The private papers of Douglas Haig (London 1952), p. 115.Google Scholar

24 SirMagnus, P., Kitchener: portrait of an imperialist (London 1958), p. 288.Google Scholar

25 Churchill, W. S., The world crisis, 1915 (London 1923), p. 175.Google Scholar

26 Magnus, , Kitchener, p. 374.Google Scholar

27 Churchill, , Crisis 1915, p. 172.Google Scholar

28 Grey to Bertie, 3 Dec. 1915, F.O. 371/2278/184182; cf. the rather strange statement of George, Lloyd (War memoirs, i, 526Google Scholar): ‘As yet the British Cabinet had not reached a definite decision upon the issue.’

29 Cambon to Briand, no. 2829, 3 Dec. 1915, M.A.E. vol. 1034.

30 Bertie to Grey, 3 Dec. 1915, F.O. 371/2278/184113.

31 Bertie Memorandum, 4 Dec. 1915, Bertie MSS, F.O. 800/172/GR/15/26.

32 The royalist Resident-General of Morocco.

33 ‘Petite note pour le président du conseil’, 4 Dec. 1915, M.A.E. vol. 981.

34 Note by Bertie, 6 Dec. 1915, Bertie MSS, F.O. 800/172/Gr/15/29.

35 Note on the conference, CAB 37/139/15.

36 Procès-verbal of conference, CAB 28/I.C.4.

37 Elliot to Grey, no. 1363, 4 Dec. 1915, F.O. 371/2280/184890.

38 Note by Berthelot, 4 Dec. 1915, M.A.E. vol. 1034; Bréal, A., Philippe Berthelot (Paris 1937), p. 144Google Scholar; Cassar, G. H., France and the Dardanelles (London 1971), pp. 231–2.Google Scholar The significance of the document is not that it called for the Calais decision to be reversed, as Cassar maintains, but that it shows that the French had agreed to evacuation. Berthelot merely wanted the French government to relieve itself of all responsibility for the decision. Cassar appears to base his argument on the attempt of Berthelot's biographer to exaggerate the role played by his subject in reversing the Calais agreement (Bréal, , Berthelot, p. 145).Google Scholar

39 Suarez, G., Briand: sa vie, son œuvre (Paris 1938–1952), iii, 213Google Scholar: ‘Au fond le désaccord restait entier. Briand avait obtenu l'ajournement de l'évacuation. Joffre avait suggéré l'installation du camp retranché, mais chaque parti restait sur ses positions.’ For the truthful assessment of one of the French delegates see Ribot, A. F. J., Letters to a friend (London 1926), p. 300.Google Scholar

40 Asquith, H. H., Memories and reflections (London 1928), ii, 111.Google Scholar

41 Poincaré, , Au service, vii, 309.Google Scholar

42 Ibid. pp. 311–12; Cassar, , Dardanelles, pp. 232–3Google Scholar; Cambon, P., Correspondance 1870–1924, ed. Cambon, H. (3 vols., Paris, 1946), iii, 91.Google Scholar For Gallieni's vivid description of the chaos of this meeting of the Conseil des Ministres, see Leblond, M. A., Gallieni Parle (Paris 1920), p. 195.Google Scholar

43 Paul Cambon to Jules Cambon, 6 Dec. 1915, Jules Cambon MSS, vol. i.

44 Cambon, P., Correspondance, iii, 91.Google Scholar

45 Ibid. p. 92.

46 Briand to Cambon, no. 4176, 5 Dec. 1915, M.A.E. vol. 1034.

47 Presumably Albert Thomas.

48 Henry Wilson to Bonar Law, 6 Dec. 1915, Bonar Law MSS 52/1/15. The choice of Lloyd George shows that the French government was fully aware of his partiality for the Salonica venture. Lloyd George assumes almost the role of a fifth-columnist in the English ministry at this point. C.f. private note by Austen Chamberlain, 29 June 1916, Chamberlain MSS A.C. 12/35. ‘I was afraid that the P.M. would find himself landed in considerable difficulties owing to the intrigues of Lloyd George with French politicians in opposition to our own military advisers.’

49 Bertie, , Diary, i, 274.Google Scholar

50 Grey to Bertie, 6 Dec. 1915, F.O. 371/2280/187477.

51 Note by Grey, 6 Dec. 1915, Lloyd George MSS, D23/5/10.

52 Palmer, A., The gardeners of Salonica (London 1965), p. 50.Google Scholar

53 Minute on Bertie to Grey, no. 968, 7 Dec. 1915, F.O. 371/2278/185902.

54 Minutes, CAB 42/6/3.

55 Paul Cambon to Jules Cambon, 6 Dec. 1915, Jules Cambon MSS, vol. i.

56 Poincaré, , Au service, vii, 312.Google Scholar

57 As note 55.

58 M.A.E. vol. 1034 contains two versions of the procès-verbal with Briand's handwritten alterations on one, or, as de Margerie puts it, ‘corrigé par M. Briand’.

59 As note 55.

60 Cambon, P., Correspondance, iii, 92.Google Scholar

61 George, Lloyd, War memoirs, i, 453.Google Scholar

62 Bertie, , Diary, i, 274.Google Scholar

63 Kitchener to Robertson, 7 Dec. 1915, Robertson MSS, 1/13/31.

64 Bertie to Grey, 7 Dec. 1915, F.O. 371/2278/185903.

65 Briand to Cambon, no. 4208–9, 6 Dec. 1915, M.A.E. vol. 1035.

66 Minutes, CAB 42/6/6.

67 Plan of action proposed by the French to the Coalition, W.O. 159/4

68 Procès-verbal of Chantilly conference, Robertson MSS 1/10/10.

69 Draft of Joffre to Sarrail, n.d., A. de G. 16N3056.

70 Joffre to Sarrail, no. 2967, 6 Dec. 1915, ibid. 16N3136.

71 Sarrail to Joffre, no. 6193, 7 Dec. 1915, ibid.

72 War Committee, 8 Dec. 1915, CAB 42/6/6.

73 Grey to Bertie, 8 Dec. 1915, Grey MSS, F.O. 800/58.

74 Callwell to Robertson, 9 Dec. 1915, Robertson MSS, 1/8/28.

75 Procès-verbal, CAB 37/139/24.

76 Bertie to Foreign Office, 9 Dec. 1915, F.O. 371/2278/188147.

77 Selborne to A. Chamberlain, 10 Dec. 1915, Chamberlain MSS, A.C. 13/3/94.

78 Asquith to George V, 14 Dec. 1915, CAB 37/139/27.

79 War Committee, 13 Dec. 1915, CAB 42/6/7.

80 Bertie, , Diary, i, 276.Google Scholar

81 Some accounts have grossly misrepresented this complicated episode in inter-allied diplomacy. Joffre suggested that it was the news of King Constantine's declaration that he would not attack the allies and would consent to the defensive organization of Salonica which made the British ministers more amenable when they arrived in Paris (Joffre, J. J. C., The memoirs of Marshal Joffre, trans. Mott, T. Bentley (2 vols., London, 1932), ii, 425Google Scholar). Joffre's liaison officer, Herbillon, argued that, having returned from Calais, the British ministers were struck by Briand's arguments and agreed to review the question. The episode was therefore ‘un beau et brillant succès pour notre Premier’ (Herbillon, E. E., Du Général en Chef au Gouvernement (2 vols., Paris, 1930), i, 216Google Scholar). This tendency to convert an exercise in rather base political expediency on Briand's part into a triumph of statesmanship is repeated by Robert David for whom the incident was ‘the decisive moment when he [Briand] best understood and served the interests of France’ (David, R., Le Drame ignoré de l'armée d'orient (Paris 1927), p. 123).Google Scholar