Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T21:10:23.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Failure of Peace by Negotiation in 1917*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

David Stevenson
David Stevenson
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The First World War was launched in the belief that force could be an effective instrument of policy. Underlying the decisions of July and August 1914 was a hard core of calculation, based on the advice to governments that the fighting would be fierce but short, and that its political and economic repercussions could be contained. In addition, because the two sides were closer to military equivalence than in previous crises, both could believe that they had a reasonable prospect of victory. But such equivalence, given the weapons technology of the day, might also deny either coalition a speedy, surgical triumph. And it is from the prolongation of the war as well as its inception – from its not being over by Christmas – that its historical importance derives. Among the consequences were eight million dead, and the dislocation of the Western economic system. Without the war it is unlikely that either Lenin, or Mussolini, or even Hitler, would have come to office. As far as such things can be said with certainty, the First World War was a precondition of the Second. A four-month rather than a four-year conflagration would have had other, now unknowable, consequences. It would not, presumably, have had these.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 65 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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 Many of the points referred to in this article are discussed more fully in my book The First World War and international politics (Oxford, 1988)Google Scholar and my earlier French war aims against Germany, 1914–1919 (Oxford, 1982)Google Scholar. In the notes I have used the following abbreviations. AMAE: Archives of the Ministère des affaires étrangères, Paris. B & K: Browder, R. P. and Kerensky, A. F. (eds.), The Russian provisional government, 1917 (3 vols., Stanford, 1961)Google Scholar. CAB: British cabinet papers on microfilm in the Seeley historical library, Cambridge. CAEC.AC: Commission des affaires extérieures of the French Chamber of Deputies, hearings on L' Affaire Czernin, April–May 1918, Box C. 7491, Archives nationales, Paris. CAES: minutes of the Commission des affaires étrangères of the French Senate, Senate archives, Paris. FO: Foreign Office papers, Public Record Office. FRUS: Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States. JO: Journal officiel de la République française: Débats parlementaires: Chambre des députés/Sénat; Compte-rendu in extenso. S & G: Scherer, A. and Grüinewald, J. (eds.), L'Allemagne et les problèmes de la paix pendant la Première Guerre Mondiale (4 vols., Paris, 1966–1978)Google Scholar.

2 Cf. Farrar, L. L. Jr, The short-war illusion: German policy, strategy, and domestic affairs, August–December 1914 (Santa Barbara, 1973)Google Scholar.

3 Becker, J.-J., The Great War and the French people (Leamington Spa, 1985), p. 195Google Scholar.

4 Cf. Weber, E., Peasants into Frenchmen: the modernization of rural France, 1870–1914 (London, 1977)Google Scholar.

5 Ritter, G., The sword and the sceptre: the problem of militarism in Germany (4 vols., London, 1969–1973), III, 385Google Scholar.

6 de Bourbon, Prince Sixte, L' Offre de paix séparée de l' Autriche, 5 déc. 1916–12 oct. 1917 (Paris, 1920), pp. 96–8Google Scholar.

7 For this declaration, Scott, J. B. (ed.), Official statements of war aims and peace proposals, December 1916 – November 1918 (Washington, 1921), pp. 35–8Google Scholar.

8 Page to Lansing, 11, 20, 21 Feb. 1917, FRUS 1917 Supplement I (Washington, 1931), pp. 41–4, 55–6Google Scholar.

9 CAEC:AC, Hearing of Cambon, Jules, 7 05 1918Google Scholar; Sixte, , L'Offre, pp. 67–8Google Scholar.

10 Sixte-Karl, conversation, 8 May 1917, ‘La Mission secrète du prince Sixte de Bourbon’, L' Opinion, XIII (3 01 1920), p. 22Google Scholar.

11 Ribot, A., Journal d'Alexandre Ribot et correspondances inédites, 1914–1922 (Paris, 1936), pp. 67–70, 125Google Scholar; Lowe, C. J. and Dockrill, M. L., The mirage of power: British foreign policy, 1914–1922 (3 vols., London, 1972), II, 225Google Scholar; Sixte, , L' Offre, p. 262Google Scholar.

12 Ribot, , Journal, p. 67Google Scholar.

13 Rothwell, V. H., British war aims and peace diplomacy, 1914–1918 (Oxford, 1971), pp. 66, 80Google Scholar.

14 ‘La mission secrète’, pp. 7, 11, 12, 20 (see note 10 above).

15 Ritter, , Sword, III, 377Google Scholar. See also Kann, R. A., Die Sixtusaffäre und die gehtimen Friedensverhandlungen Österreich-Ungams im ersten Weltkrieg (Vienna, 1966), pp. 31–6Google Scholar.

16 For a discussion of ‘paradiplomacy’, Hopwood, R. F., ‘Czernin and the fall of Bethmann Hollweg’, Canadian Journal of History, II, 2 (1967), 49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Epstein, K., ‘The development of German–Austrian war aims in the spring of 1917’, Journal of Central European Affairs, XVII, 1 (1957), 24–47Google Scholar.

17 Minutes on conferences of 16 and 26 Mar. 1917, S & G, II, docs. 20, 33. Ritter, , Sword, III, 386–97Google Scholar.

18 Hindenburg to Bethmann, 5 Apr. 1917, Bethmann to Hindenburg, 16 Apr. 1917, Bethmann to Grünau, 18 Apr. 1917, Grünau to Zimmerman, 20 Apr. 1917, S & G, II, docs. 49, 71, 76, 82.

19 Grünau to Bethmann, 24 Apr. 1917, ibid. doc. 87.

20 Grünau to Auswärtiges Amt, 13 May 1917, ibid. doc. 115.

21 Bethmann minute, 25 Apr. 1917, ibid. doc. 87. Bethmann written statement, 1 May 1917, Feldman, G. D. (ed.), German imperialism, 1914–1918: the development of a historical debate (New York, 1972)Google Scholar, doc. 10.

22 Hopwood, , ‘Czernin’, pp. 51–3Google Scholar; Grünau to Bethmann (enclosing Karl letter and Czernin report), 14 Apr. 1917, S & G, II, doc. 68.

23 Bethmann to Wilhelm II, 4 May 1917, ibid. doc. 104.

24 Note by Bethmann and Czernin, 18 May 1917, ibid. doc. 123.

25 Epstein, K., Matthias Erzberger and the dilemma of German democracy (Princeton, 1959), pp. 173–4 and ch. VIIIGoogle Scholar.

26 Text of the resolution in Feldman(ed), German imperialism, doc. 12.

27 Erzberger to Michaelis, 18 July 1917, S & G, II, doc. 169. Epstein, , Erzberger, pp. 203–4Google Scholar.

28 Ibid. p. 206.

29 Minutes of Austro-German conference of 1 Aug. 1917; Lersner to kühlmann, 15 Aug. 1917; Michaelis to Czernin, 17 Aug. 1917, S & G, II docs. 181, 207, 211.

30 B & K, II, doc. 948.

31 Wade, R. A., ‘Iraki Tsereteli and Siberian Zimmerwaldianism’, Journal of Modem History, XXXIX, 4 (1967), 425–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the same author's ‘Why October? The search for peace in 1917’, Soviet Studies, XX, 1 (1968), 36–45Google Scholar.

32 Miliukov press interview, 23 Mar. 1917, B & K, II, doc. 908. Buchanan, G., My mission to Russia and other diplomatic memories (2 vols., London, 1923), II, 117–18Google Scholar.

33 Ibid. p. 116. Daily Chronicle interview with Kerensky, , 22 03 1917Google Scholar. B & K, 11, doc. 922.

34 Epstein, , Erzberger, pp. 166–78Google Scholar, for a general account. See also Erzberger to Zimmermann, 31 Mar. 1917; Erzberger to Langwerth, 21 Apr. 1917; Grünau to Zimmermann, 25 Apr. 1917; Zimmerman to Grünau, 26 Apr. 1917, S & G, II, docs. 40, 85, 88, 90.

35 Lersner to Zimmermann, 29 Apr. 1917; Leopold of Bavaria to Dragomirow, 12 May 1917, ibid. docs. 98, 114.

36 Fischer, F., Germany's aims in the First World War (London, 1967), p. 238Google Scholar.

37 Bethmann, to Hertling, , 26 01 1918, Feldman, (ed.), German imperialism, doc. 28Google Scholar.

38 Dallin, A. et al. , Russian diplomacy and Eastern Europe,1914–1917 (New York, 1963)Google Scholar, ch. 1.

39 Komarnicki, T., Rebirth of the Polish Republic: a study in the diplomatic history of Europe, 1914–1920 (London, 1957), p. 156Google Scholar.

40 For the declaration (forwarded on 18 Apr.) and the British, French and Italian replies (26–27 Apr.), B & K, II, docs. 909, 964, 972–4.

41 Tereshchenko note of 13 June 1917; Tereshchenko to Bakhmetev, 28 July 1917, ibid. docs. 986, 989.

42 Sevastopoulo to Jules Cambon, 5 July 1917; Ribot to Noulens, 13 Aug. 1917; Noulens to Ribot, 17 Aug. 1917, AMAE A ‘Paix’ (164). Tereshchenko to Sevastopoulo, 24 Sept. 1917, FRUS 1917 Supplement II, II, i. pp. 506–7.

43 Generally on Stockholm see Kirby, D., ‘International socialism and the question of peace: the Stockholm conferenceof 1917’ Historical Journal, XXV, 3 (1982), 709–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meynell, H., ‘The Stockholm conference of 1917’, International Review ofSocial History, v (1960), 1–25, 202–25Google Scholar; Mayer, A. J., Political origins of the New Diplomacy, 1917–1918 (New Haven, 1959)Google Scholar.

44 FRUS, The Lansing papers 1914–1920 (2 vols., Washington, 1940), II, 17Google Scholar. M. Fainsod, International socialism and the World War (repr., New York, 1973), pp. 113, 140.

45 War cabinet, 21 May 1917, CAB 23/2.

46 War cabinet, 8, 10 Aug. 1917, CAB 23/3. George, D. Lloyd, War memoirs (6 vols., London, 1933–1936), IV, 1881–1924Google Scholar.

47 Ribot, , Journal, p. 138Google Scholar.

48 Paléologue, M., La Russie des tsars pendant la Grande Guerre (3 vols., Paris, 1921–1922), III, 313–18Google Scholar. Ribot, A., Lettres à un ami: souvenirs de ma vie politique (Paris, 1924), pp. 234–5Google Scholar.

49 Minutes of Anglo-French conference, 28–9 May 1917, CAB 28/2.

50 Paul Cambon to de Fleuriau, 2 June 1917, Cambon, P., Correspondance, 1870–1924 (ed. Cambon, H.) (3 vols., Paris, 1940–1946), III, 171–2Google Scholar. Ribot, . Journal, p. 138Google Scholar. Poincaré, R., Au service de la France. Neuf années de souvenirs (10 vols., Paris, 1926–1933), IX, 149Google Scholar.

51 Printed in Bonnefous, G., La Grande Guerre (1914–1918) (2nd edn, Paris, 1967), p. 265Google Scholar.

52 Ribot speech, 6 June 1917. Appended to JO (Sénat), 1968, pp. 764–7.

53 Grünau to Bethmann, 3 July 1917; Zimmermann note, 24 July 1917, ibid. docs. 157, 175. Hollweg, T. von Bethmann, Betrachtungen zum Weltkriege (2 vols., Berlin, 1919), II, 210–14Google Scholar.

54 Text of the note in Scott, (ed.), War aims, pp. 129–31Google Scholar.

55 Michaelis to Grünau, 21 Aug. 1917; Kühlmann to Wedel, 27 Aug. 1917, ibid. docs. 216, 225.

56 See articles on the conversations in L' Opinion, XIII, 10, 24, 31 07 1920Google Scholar.

57 Undated report by Col. Goubet, , L' Opinion, XIII, 24 07 1920, p. 87Google Scholar.

58 CAEC:AC Hearings of Ribot and Painlevé, 30 Apr. 1918.

59 Kessler to Zimmermann, 14 Mar. and 17 Apr. 1917. S & G, II, docs. 18, 72. CF. Szeps, B., My life and history (London, 1938), pp. 177–92Google Scholar.

60 Kühlmann to Michaelis, 30 Aug. 1917, Kühlmann notes, 2 and 3 Sept. 1917, S & G, II, docs. 231. 233. 235.

61 War cabinet, 20 Aug. 1917, CAB 23/3. Balfour to de Salis, 21 Aug. 1917, with note by ‘C.H.S.’, 22 Aug. 1917, FO 371/3083. Ribot, , Journal, p. 188Google Scholar.

62 Pacelli to Michaelis, 30 Aug. 1917, S & G, II, doc. 230.

63 See generally Farrar, L. L. Jr, ‘Opening to the west: German efforts to conclude a separate peace with England, July 1917 – March 1918‘, Canadian Journal of History, X, 1 (1975), 73–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar. George, Lloyd, War memoirs, iv, 2083 ffGoogle Scholar.

64 Balfour, , ‘Peace negotiations’, 20 09 1917Google Scholar, ibid. pp. 2093–7. War cabinet, 24 Sept. 1917, Lowe, and Dockrill, , Mirage, III, doc. 121Google Scholar.

65 Wakenitz, O Freiherr von der Lancken, Meine dreissig Dienstjahre, 1888–1918 (Berlin, 1931), p. 258Google Scholar. Lancken to Zimmermann, 28 Apr. 1917, S & G, II, doc. 97.

66 Suarez, G., Briand: sa vie – son oeuvre (6 vols., Paris, 1938–1952), IV, 226–62Google Scholar. Lancken to Zimmermann, 4 July 1917, S & G, II, doc. 160.

67 Briand to Ribot, 20 Sept, 1917, Suarez, , Briand, IV, 272–4Google Scholar. Ribot circular telegram, 20 Sept. 1917, read by Ribot in JO (Chambre), Comité secret of 16 Oct. 1917, appended to JO (Chambre) 2 Apr. 1933, pp. 547–8.

68 Paul Cambon and Barrère to Ribot, 21 Sept. 1917; Ribot, , Journal, pp. 212–14Google Scholar. Jusserand to Ribot, 26 Sept. 1917, AMAE Jusserand MSS (48). Minute by Col. Helbronner on Boulogne conference, 25 Sept. 1917, Pedroncini, G., Les Négotiations secrètes pendant la Grande Guerre (Paris, 1969), p. 114Google Scholar.

69 War cabinet, 27 Sept. 1917, Lowe and Dockrill, Mirage, III, doc. 122.

70 Ribot, , Journal, p. 95Google Scholar, and see above, note 52.

71 This was the proposal in the Armand-Revertera conversation of 22 Aug. 1917.

72 Minutes of Prussian crown council, 4 Sept.: 1917; Ludendorff memorandum, 14 Sept. 1917; Kühlmann memorandum, 3 Sept. 1917, S & G, II, docs. 236, 251, 235.

73 Kühlmann in Reichstag, Scott, (ed.), War aims, p. 159Google Scholar. Ribot, in Chamber of Deputies, 12 Oct. 1917, JO (Chambre), 1917, pp. 2695–7Google Scholar. Lloyd George statement, II Oct. 1917, Scott, (ed.), War aims, p. 161Google Scholar.

74 George, Lloyd, War memoirs, IV, 2100–1Google Scholar.

75 Kühlmann memorandum, 8 Sept. 1917, in Michaelis, W., ‘Der Reichskanzler Michaelis und die päpstliche Friedensaktion von 1917: Neue Dokumente’, Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unlerricht, XII, 7 (1961), pp. 418–34, doc. 2Google Scholar.

76 Louis, W. R., Great Britain and Germany's lost colonies, 1914–1919 (Oxford, 1967), esp. ch. IIIGoogle Scholar.

77 Rothwell, , War aims, pp. 32, 51–2, 262Google Scholar.

78 Ritter, , Sword, IV, 52–4Google Scholar.

79 Ludendorff memorandum, 14 Sept. 1917, S & G, II, doc. 251.

80 For Wilhelm, , Michaelis, , ‘Neue Dokumente’, doc. 3Google Scholar; and the same author's ‘Der Reichskanzler Michaelis und die päpstliche Friedensaktion’, Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, VII, 1 (1956), p. 19Google Scholar.

81 Michaelis to Hindenburg, 12 Sept. 1917, S & G, II, doc. 247.

82 Hindenburg to Michaelis, 15 Sept. 1917, ibid. doc. 251.

83 See note 74 above.

84 Suarez, , Briand, IV, 270–1Google Scholar. Ribot, testimony in CAES, 14 11 1917Google Scholar.

85 Kühlmann note for Lancken's conversation, 20 Sept. 1917; Kühlmann memorandum, 3 Sept. 1917: Rosen to Michaelis, 7 Aug. 1917, S & G, 11, docs. 259, 235, 189.

86 Balfour to Bertie, 2 July 1917, F.O. 371/2937; Paul Cambon to Ribot, 10 07 1917, AMAE Pichon MSS (4).

87 Poincaré, , Au service, IX, 208Google Scholar. Bertie to Lloyd George, 24 Sept. 1917, F.O. 800/169.

88 War cabinet, 24 and 27 Sept. 1917, Lowe and Dockrill, Mirage, III, docs. 121 and 122. Woodward, D. R., ‘David Lloyd George, a negotiated peace with Germany, and the Kühlmann peace kite of September 1917’, Canadian Journal of History, VI, 1 (1971), 75–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 Burk, K., ‘Great Britain in the United States, 1917–1918:the turning point’, International History Review, I, 2 (1979), 233Google Scholar.

90 Kaspi, A., Le temps des ameŕicains: le concours américain à la France en 1917–1918 (Paris, 1976), p. 75Google Scholar.Fowler, W. B., British-American relations, 1917–1918: the role of Sir William Wiseman (Princeton, 1969). P. 37Google Scholar.

91 Michaelis to Czernin, 17 Aug. 1917; Ludendorff memorandum, 14 Sept. 1917, S & G, II, Docs. 211, 251.

92 George, Lloyd, War memoirs, iv, 2104Google Scholar; Ribot, to Jusserand, , 30 09 1917, AMAEGoogle Scholar Jusserand MSS (32).

93 Fowler, , Wiseman, pp. 43–4Google Scholar.

94 Martin, L. W., Peace without victory: Woodrow Wilson end the British Liberals (New Haven, 1958), p. 141Google Scholar. My emphasis.

95 Wilson to Benedict, XV, 17 Aug. 1917, Scott, (ed.), War aims, pp. 133–5Google Scholar.

96 Fischer, , Aims, p. 414Google Scholar. Clemenceau in chamber of deputies, 8 Mar. 1918, JO (Chambre), 1918, P. 857.

97 Kissinger, H. A., A world restored: Metternich, Castlereagh, and the problem of peace, 1812–1812 (London, 1957), p. 2Google Scholar.

98 George, Lloyd, War memoirs, IV, 2107–9Google Scholar.

99 Speech at Baltimore, 6 Apr. 1918, Scott, (ed.), War aims, pp. 309–12Google Scholar.