Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T21:02:15.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

French War Aims and the American Challenge, 1914–1918*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

David Stevenson
David Stevenson
Affiliation:
Downing College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Between 1917 and 1919 the United States made its first, spectacular intrusion into European power politics. For President Wilson, entry into the First World War was a chance not only to eliminate an immediate threat to American interests but also to transform international relations. The time had come to weld the industrialized countries into a community of interest, based on a shared loyalty to representative government and the market economy, expressed by membership of a League of Nations, and in which economic and territorial causes of tension would have been removed. But hardly had the German obstacle to this programme been overcome before, at the peace conference of 1919, Wilson ran up against almost equally determined obstruction from his former allies. This article examines one source of that antagonism, in the latent conflict before the armistice between American war aims and those of France. It argues that French policy was moulded by a tension between the Paris leaders' own desires for the settlement with Germany and their need to preserve a system of alliances deemed essential for French security in the future as well as for the war itself. By 1917 French governments were already confronted with dilemmas which were to harass them for the succeeding twenty years.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 1979 , pp. 877 - 894
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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 article does not attempt to throw new light on American policy; but on these themes see, for example, Levin, N. G. Jr, Woodrow Wilson and world politics: America's response to war and revolution (New York, 1968)Google Scholar, and Parrini, C., Heir to empire:United States economic diplomacy, 1916–1923 (Pittsburgh, 1969)Google Scholar, although these writers give an anachronistic colouring to Wilson's views.

2 The expression ‘the Allies’ in this article will be taken as including the Americans after April 1917, although strictly the United States entered the war only as an ‘associated power’.

3 For French colonial war aims, which this article does not discuss, see Andrew, C. M. and Kanya-Forstner, A. S., ‘The French colonial party and French colonial war aims, 1914–1918’, Historical Journal, xvii, 4 (1974), 79–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the same authors' forthcoming book, French imperial expansion: the final phase. On French aims within Europe see two excellent articles: Renouvin, P., ‘Les buts de guerre du gouvernement francais, 1914–1918’, Revue Historique, CCXXXV (1966), 1–38Google Scholar, and Soutou, G.-H., ‘La France et les marches de l'est, 1914–1918’, Revue Historique, no. 528 (1978), 341–88Google Scholar. Both of these confine themselves to Western European territorial questions. I have worked on similar material to M. Soutou, whose work I saw as this article was going to press, but our conclusions have been arrived at independently and, on certain points, differ. French war aims in the earlier part of the war are being studied by Mr J. A. Neufeld, who is preparing a Ph.D. thesis at the London School of Economics. Finally, for Franco-American relations, see the thesis of Nouailhat, Y.-H., ‘La France et les Etats-Unis, août 1914-avril 1917’ (Paris, 1975)Google Scholar, and Kaspi, A., Le temps des Américains: le concours américain à la France en 1917–1918 (Paris, 1976)Google Scholar.

4 Isvolski (Russian ambassador in Paris) to Sazonov, 5 Aug. 1914, reporting conversation with the French foreign minister. Stieve, F. (ed.), Im Dunkel der Europaĩschen Geheimdiplomatie: Isvolskis Kriegspolitik in Paris,1911–1917 (Berlin, 1926), p. 245Google Scholar.

5 My emphasis. Paléologue to Delcassé, 4 Mar. 1915, A. E. Paléologue MSS 2. The day before, the tsar had assured the French ambassador of his support for whatever claims France made of Germany in the west. Paléologue to Delcassé, 3 Mar. 1915, ibid. In the autumn of 1914 the Russians had presented a detailed programme of European aims to the French government, on which the latter had refrained from comment.

6 On British war aims generally, see Rothwell, V. H., British war aims and peace diplomacy, 1914–1918 (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar.

7 See Trachtenberg, M., ‘A new economic order: Etienne Clémentel and French economic diplomacy during the First World War’, French Historical Studies, X (1977)Google Scholar.

8 Briand, circular telegram, 21 Dec. 1915, A.E. Y Internationale 206.

9 Letters exchanged between Clémentel and Runciman, 12 and 27 Feb. 1916, A. E. Guerre 1216.

10 Text of these resolutions in A.N. F12 8104.

11 Paul Cambon to Briand, 10 Sept. 1916, A.E. Paul Cambon MSS 27, dossier 23. Grey to Bertie, 24 Aug. 1916, F.O. 371/2804.

12 Contrast Bertie to Hardinge, 4 and 20 Sept. 1916, F.O. 800/168.

13 Stevenson, ‘French war aims’, pp. 87–105.

14 Briand to Paul Cambon, 12 Jan. 1917, A.E. Pichon MSS 4. Published in part in Suarez, G., Briand: sa vie – son ceuvre (Paris, 1939–1940), iv, 128–30Google Scholar.

15 Letters exchanged between Paléologue and Pokrovski, 14 Feb. 1917. Printed in, for example, Röhl, J. C. G. (ed.), From Bismarck to Hitler: the problem of continuity in German history (London, 1970), pp. 78–9Google Scholar.

16 Briand to Isvolski, 10 Mar. 1917. Printed in ibid. pp. 79–80.

17 Briand to Paléologue, 16 Feb. 1917, A.E. A Paix 164. For a fuller discussion of the problems raised in this paragraph, Stevenson, ‘French war aims’, pp. 122–34.

18 French governments varied in their preference between these frontiers. Although differing in detail, both included the majority, but not all, of the Saar coalfield.

19 For example, Delcassé, the foreign minister in 1914–15. Isvolski to Sazonov, 30 Sept. 1914, Stieve, F. (ed.), Isvolski und der Weltkrieg (Berlin, 1924), pp. 267–8Google Scholar.

20 Poincaré, R., Au service de la France (10 vols., Paris, 1926–1933), v, 314–16Google Scholar.

21 Delcassé, circular telegram, 6 Nov. 1914, A.E. A Paix 1. Viviani to Chevalley, 22 Oct. 1915, A.E. A Paix 5. Briand to Bertie, 1 July 1916, A.E. Paul Cambon MSS 5, dossier 13.

22 A. Pingaud, Histoire diplomatique de la France pendant la Grande Guerre (3 vols., Paris, n.d.), 1, 96–7.

23 Seymour, C. (ed.), The intimate papers of Colonel House (4 vols., London, 1926–1928), 1, 421Google Scholar.

24 Nouailhat, ‘La France et les Etats-Unis’, p. 871.

25 Minutes of these conversations (2 and 7 Feb. 1916) in A.E. Jules Cambon MSS 19.

26 Briand to Jusserand, 28 May 1916, A.E. Jusserand MSS 31.

27 Jusserand to Briand, 1 June 1916, A.E. Jusserand MSS 16.

28 Parrini, Heir, ch. 11. Lansing to Wilson, 23 June 1916, in F.R.U.S. The Lansing papers,1914–1920 (2 vols., Washington, 1939), 1, 311.

29 Sharp (U.S. ambassador in Paris) to Lansing, 21 Dec. 1916, cited by Nouailhat, ‘La France et les Etats-Unis’, p. 817.

30 Note, ‘Paix’, by de Margerie, 20 Dec. 1916, A.E. Jules Cambon MSS 19.

31 The two drafts (22 and 23 Dec. 1916) are in F.O. 371/2805.

32 Cf. conversations of Jarousse de Sillac with Jules Cambon and de Margerie, 8 Feb. and 1 Mar. 1917, A.E. Léon Bourgeois MSS 17.

33 Allied reply to President Wilson, 10 Jan. 1917, original French wording in F.O./371/3076. The relevant phrase was: ‘des règlements internationaux propres à garantir les frontieres terrestres et maritimes contre des attaques injustifiées’.

34 Briand to Jusserand, 8 Mar. 1917, A.E. Jusserand MSS 31.

35 Henri Cambon-Paul Cambon, 10 Feb. 1917, letter in the possession of M. Louis Cambon.

36 Pedroncini, G., Pétain: général en chef, 1917–1918 (Paris, 1974), pp. 133–4Google Scholar.

37 Statements of Ribot to the Chamber of Deputies, 2 and 4 June 1917, J.O. (Chambre), Secret committee of 1 June 1917, pp. 520–3. 535–7, appended to J.O. (Chambre), 16 May 1925.

38 Painlevé to Vignol, 24 Mar. 1917, S.H.A. 16.N.3012. Kaspi, Le Temps, pp. 16–24.

39 Ibid. pp. 37–45 Pedroncini, Pétain, pp. 147–9.

40 Lennox, Lady Algernon Gordon (ed.), The diary of Lord Bertie of Thame, 1914–1918 (2 vols., London, 1924), 11, 119Google Scholar.

41 Ribot to Jusserand, 18 July 1917, A.E. Jules Cambon MSS 19.

42 Polk, to Jusserand, , 3 Aug. 1917, F.R.U.S., 1917, supplement 2, vol. 1 (Washington, 1932), 153Google Scholar.

43 Blumenthal to Jules Cambon, 3 Aug. 1917, A.E. Jules Cambon MSS 21.

44 Cambon, Jules, ‘Note en réponse’, 22 12 1917Google Scholar, S.H.A. 6.N.75. Remarks of Paul Cambon (French ambassador in London) reported in Balfour to Bertie, 2 July 1917, F.O./371/2937.

45 Jusserand to Ribot, 12 July 1917, A.E. Jusserand MSS 47.

46 Ribot to Jusserand, 17 Aug. 1917, A.E. Jusserand MSS 32.

47 Ribot to Jusserand, 30 Sept. 1917, ibid..

48 De Fleuriau to Cecil, 26 Aug. 1917, F.C/371/3083. Balfour to de Salis, 26 Aug. 1917, ibid..

49 Wilson's reply to Pope Benedict XV, 27 Aug. 1917, Scott, J. B.(ed.), Official statements of war aims and peace proposals. December 1916–November 1918 (Washington, 1921), pp. 133–5Google Scholar.

50 Text of this communiqué (n.d.) in A.E. A Paix 17.

51 Note presented by British embassy in Paris, 1 Sept. 1917, ibid..

52 Ribot to Jusserand, 30 Sept. 1917, A.E. Jusserand MSS 32.

53 Jusserand to Ribot, 3, 11 and 21 Oct. 1917, A.E. Jusserand MSS 48. Similar pressure was being applied to the British, cf. untitled typescript by Painlevé describing conversation with Lloyd George at Boulogne, 25 Sept. 1917, A.N. Painlevé MSS 313 A.P. 107.

54 Ribot to Jusserand, 2 July 1917, A.E. Jusserand MSS 31 bis.

55 Jusserand to Ribot, 30 Aug. 1917, A.E. Jusserand MSS 14.

56 Until the armistice the raw materials plan was given much more prominence in French diplomacy than was France's claim to reparations. On the implications of this see, Trachtenberg, ‘A new economic order’, passim.

57 For Clémentel's ideas, see his statements at the Foreign Office (London), 16 Aug. 1917, A.N. F12 7819; also the letter to President Wilson cited below.

58 Clémentel to Wilson, 6 Oct. 1917, A.N. F12 7819.

59 Clemenceau to House, 6 Dec. 1917, ibid..

60 These questions cannot be gone into here. But see Stevenson, ‘French war aims’, pp. 133–42, 170–80, 208–214, and Hovi, K., Cordon sanitaire or barriére de l'Est? The emergence of the new French Eastern European alliance policy, 1917–1919 (Turku, 1975), passimGoogle Scholar.

61 Seymour (ed.), House, III, 297–8.

62 ‘England passively was willing, France indifferently against it, Italy actively so.’ House to Wilson, 2 Dec. 1917, ibid. p. 290.

63 Ibid. p. 325.

64 The relevant passages of the two speeches are printed in J. B. Scott (ed.), Official statements, pp. 229, 238.

65 Mordacq, J., Le ministére Clemenceau; journald'un témoin (4 vols., Paris, 1930–1931), 1, 123–4Google Scholar.

66 Draft by Pichon, 27 Jan. 1918, and revision by Clemenceau, 28 Jan. 1918, both in A.E. Pichon MSS 4.

67 Frazier to House, 4 Feb. 1918, Seymour (ed.), House, III, 371.

68 Poincaré, Au service, X, 57–8.

69 Balfour before House of Commons, 19 Dec. 1917, 100 H.C. DEB. 5s., column 2017; and 16 May 1918, 100 H.C. DEB.5s., col. 579.

70 For example, his ‘Four Principles’ of 11 Feb. 1918, J. B. Scott, Official statements, pp. 269–70.

71 Pichon to Jusserand, 27 July 1918, A.E. A Paix 63.

72 For example, Pichon circular telegram concerning Poland, 7 Mar. 1918; and reply of Polk to Jusserand, 12 Mar. 1918, both in A.E. Guerre 732.

73 Pichon to Benešs, 29 June 1918, Beneš, E., Souvenirs de guerre et de révolution (2 vols., Paris, 1929), 11, 231–2Google Scholar; Clemenceau to Zamoyski, 5 Sept. 1918, A.E. Europe 1918–29 (Pologne), 65. The historic frontiers of Bohemia included the German population of the Sudetenland; those of Poland included Danzig, and a territorial corridor to the Baltic.

74 See Trachtenberg, ‘Etienne Clémentel’, passim. Pichon and Clémentel to Tardieu, 10 and 19 May 1918, respectively A.E. Guerre 1219 and A.N. F12 7819, display the French government's growing irritation.

75 For the Poles, note 73 above; for the Belgians, e.g. Pichon to Jusserand, 30 Sept. 1918, A.E. Jusserand MSS 38.

78 Clémentel-Clemenceau, 19 Sept. 1918, printed in Clémentel, E., La France et la politique économique interalliée (Paris and New Haven, 1931), pp. 337–48Google Scholar. A ministerial conference of 28 Sept. 1918 adopted this as a basis for conversations with the Americans: ‘Réunion chez M. le Président du conseil de MM. Clémentel, Pichon et Tardieu Ie 28 septembre 1918’, A.N. F12 8104.

77 House to Wilson, 3 Sept. 1918, Seymour (ed.), House, IV, 65–6.

78 Clemenceau speech to French Senate, 17 Sept. 1918, J.O. (Sénat), 1918, p. 604. Jusserand to Pichon, 18 Sept. 1918, S.H.A. 6.N.138.

79 The best account of the armistice is Renouvin, P., L'armistice de Rethondes, 11 novembre 1918 (Paris, 1968)Google Scholar.

80 Walworth, A., America's moment, 1918 (New York, 1977), p. 19Google Scholar.

81 Derby to Balfour, 12 Oct. 1918, L.G. Papers F/52/2/39.

82 Minutes of this conference by Paul Mantoux, B.D.I.C. dossiers Mantoux (conférences interalliées) F.δ. Rés. 163/1–6.

83 Pichon to Paul Cambon, 16 Oct. 1918, A.E. A Paix 45.

84 Foch, , ‘Notes sur les conditions d'un armistice avec l'Allemagne’, 8 10 1918Google Scholar; Foch, F., Mémoires pour servir à l' histoire de la Guerre (2 vols., Paris, 1931), 11, 270–1Google Scholar.

85 ‘Avis collectif’ of the military and naval advisers to the Supreme War Council, 8 10 1918, F.R.U.S., Lansing papers, 11, 291–2Google Scholar.

86 Foch to Clemenceau, 16 Oct. 1918. Foch, Mémoires, 11, 276–8. My emphasis.

87 Clemenceau to Foch, 23 Oct. 1918, and Pichon to Clemenceau, 21 Oct. 1918; in Commandant Lhopital, , Foch, l' armistice et la paix (Paris, 1938), pp. 33–9Google Scholar.

88 Derby to Balfour, 18 Oct. 1918, B.M. Balfour MSS Add. 49744; Foch to Clemenceau, 18 Oct. 1918, S.H.A. 6.N.70. The latter carton contains the intelligence reports forwarded to Clemenceau, 's cabinet du ministre during the armistice negotiations: see particularly Dutasta to Pichon, 14 and 15 10 1918Google Scholar.

89 Wilson, to German government, 23 10 1918, Scott, J. B. (ed.), Official statements, pp. 434–6Google Scholar.

90 Pichon circular telegram, 24 Oct. 1918, A.E. A Paix 46.

91 Foch to Clemenceau, 26 Oct. 1918, S.H.A. 6.N.70. Reworded version, entitled ‘Conditions de l'armistice avec l'Allemagne’, appears as Annexe B to the procès-verbal of the Paris conference of 31 Oct. to 4 Nov. 1918, S.H.A. 6.N.64. For the preparation of this document, Mordacq, Le ministère Clemenceau, 11, 295; and Zimmermann, L., Frankreichs Ruhrpolitik von Versailles bis zum Dawesplan (new edn, Göttingen, 1971), pp. 15–16Google Scholar.

92 Mordacq, Le ministère Clemenceau, 11, 295–7. For Wilson's instructions, see Walworth, America's moment, p. 43.

93 Minutes by Paul Mantoux of conversation of 29 Oct. 1918, at 3 p.m. B.D.I.C. dossiers Mantoux (conférences interalliées) F.δ. Rés. 164/1.

94 Memorandum by Pichon, 30 Oct. 1918. A.E. Papiers Pichon 6.

95 House to Lansing, 30 Oct. 1918. F.R.U.S., 1918, supplement 1, vol. 1 (Washington, 1933), p. 425Google Scholar.

96 Ibid. pp. 425–6.

97 Ibid. p. 426. For minutes of the Supreme War Council session of 1 Nov., see F.O./371/3446.

98 Mordacq, Le ministère Clemenceau, 11, 297–8.

99 The possibility of such an exchange is also considered in Floto, I., Colonel House in Paris: a study of American diplomacy at the Paris peace conference, 1919 (Aarhus, 1973), pp. 53–4, 60Google Scholar.

100 Launay, J. de, Secrets diplomatiques, 1915–1918 (Paris and Brussels, 1963), pp. 132–3Google Scholar.

101 Wilson had written on 21 July 1917, ‘When the war is over we will be able to force them [i.e. Britain and France] to our way of thinking, because by that time they will, among other things, be financially in our hands.’ Mayer, A. J., Political origins of the new diplomacy, 1917–1918 (New Haven, 1958), p. 332Google Scholar.

102 Walworth, America's moment, p. 19 n.

103 Pichon to Jusserand, 24 Oct. 1918, A.E. Papiers Jusserand 40. For French public opinion, cf. the General Staff reports on ‘L'ëtat de 1'opinion en France d'après le contrôle de la correspondance’, 15 Sept. and 15 Oct. 1918, S.H.A. 6.N.147. Also prefects' reports inS.H.A. 16.N.1538.

104 On 16 October de Fleuriau, of the French embassy in London, had proposed that Britain and France should confer about the Fourteen Points. But the British were determined to evade any attempt ‘to detach us from the United States’. SirCrowe, Eyre, ‘President Wilson's Fourteen Points’, 16 10 1918Google Scholar, and docket notes by Lord Robert Cecil and A. J. Balfour, F.O./371/3436.

105 Kaspi, Le temps des Américains, p. 239.

106 For Foch, see Renouvin, L'armistice, pp. 263–4. For Clemenceau the evidence is less direct, but see Poincaré, Au service, x, 335; and Watson, D. R., Georges Clemenceau: a political biography (London, 1974), p. 308Google Scholar.