Mr. Asquith, in a speech dealing with the British naval programme delivered on July 14th, 1910, explained why no understanding with Germany had been arrived at.
“The German Government told us—I cannot complain, and I have no answer to make—that their procedure in this matter is governed by an Act of the Reichstag under which the programme automatically proceeds year by year. That is to say, after the year 1911-12, the last year in which under that law four Dreadnoughts are constructed, the rate of construction drops in the two succeeding years to two each year, so that we are now, we may hope, at the very crest of the wave. If it were possible, even now, by arrangement to reduce the rate of construction no one would be more delighted than his Majesty’s Government. We have approached the German Government on the subject. They have found themselves unable to do anything; they cannot do it without an Act of the Reichstag, repealing their Navy Law. They tell us—and no doubt with great truth—they would not have the support of public opinion in Germany to a modified programme.”
As these statements have never been contradicted, it must be assumed that the departments concerned sheltered themselves behind the formal objection that, owing to public feeling, a repeal or a modification of the Navy Law was out of the question. If this assumption is correct, it is evident that no touch of political genius was revealed in the treatment of this important question. Even the hope that the “crest of the wave” had been reached turned out a disappointment, as was proved by the introduction of the new Navy Bill in 1912.
The objections which Herr v. Bethmann, on March 30th, 1911, raised to an international limitation of armaments can likewise only be described as formal ones. He said:
“If it is the intention of the Powers to come to an understanding with regard to general international armaments, they must first of all agree upon a formula defining the relative position of each.... Practically, it might be said, such an order of precedence has already been established by Great Britain’s claim that, notwithstanding her anxiety to effect a reduction of her expenditure on armaments, and notwithstanding her readiness to submit any disputes to arbitration, her navy must under all circumstances be equal—or even superior—to any possible combination. Great Britain is perfectly justified in making this claim, and in conformity with the views I hold on the disarmament problem, I am the last person in the world to question her right to do so. But it is quite a different matter to use such a claim as the basis of an agreement which is to receive the peaceful consent of the other Powers. What would happen if the latter raised any counter-claims of their own, or if they were dissatisfied with the percentage allotted to them? The mere suggestion of questions such as these is sufficient to make us realize what would happen if an international congress—because one restricted to the European Powers alone could not be comprehensive enough—had to adjudicate on such claims.”
If this explanation is intended to be a reply to such statements from the British side as the one just quoted from Mr. Asquith, the fact had been disregarded that the most serious problem under discussion—viz. the Anglo-German rivalry—could quite well be solved without convening an “international congress.”
As early as December 10th, 1910, Herr v. Bethmann, in a speech delivered before the Reichstag, had enlarged on this same subject from the political point of view:
“As to the relations between ourselves and Great Britain, and as to the alleged negotiations with the latter country concerning a mutual curtailment of naval armaments, I am bound to say that the British Government, as everybody knows, has more than once expressed its conviction that the conclusion of an agreement fixing the naval strengths of the various Powers would conduce to an important improvement of international relations.... We, too, share Great Britain’s desire to eliminate the question of naval competition, but during the informal pourparlers which have taken place from time to time, and which have been conducted in a spirit of mutual friendship, we have always given prominence to our conviction that a frank discussion of the economic and political spheres of interest to be followed up by a mutual understanding on these points would constitute the safest way of destroying the feeling of distrust which is engendered by the question of the respective strengths of the military and naval forces maintained by each country.”
The speech which Sir Edward Grey delivered in the House of Commons on March 14th, 1911, with special reference to this speech of Herr v. Bethmann shows unmistakably that the remarks of the latter did not reassure Great Britain with respect to the only point at issue in which she was interested, viz. the limitation of the German naval programme. Britain, according to Sir Edward, did not desire that her relations with any Power should be of such a nature as to impede the simultaneous existence of cordial relations with Germany. An Anglo-German agreement had been specially suggested. This suggestion required some careful thinking over. If he were to hold out any hope that Germany, in compliance with the terms of some such agreement would be willing to cancel or to modify her naval programme, he would be contradicted at once. Only within the limits of this programme would it be possible to come to some understanding between the two Governments. It might, for instance, be agreed to spread the expenditure voted for the navy over a longer term of years, or to arrange that the present German programme should not be increased in future. Matters such as these could form the subjects for discussion between the two Governments, and it would be desirable from every point of view that an understanding should be arrived at. To this speech the North German Gazette replied that Germany would be quite prepared to fall in with Sir Edward’s suggestions if agreements such as those outlined by him could in any way allay the feeling of distrust governing public opinion in Great Britain. If from this semi-official pronouncement it may be inferred that Herr v. Bethmann on his part was favourably disposed towards an agreement, the question arises: “Why was it not concluded?”
In order to understand why the British Cabinet attached so much value to the settlement of the Anglo-German naval questions and to the pacification of public opinion, it must be remembered that the Liberal Cabinet, owing to its hostile attitude towards the House of Lords, had drifted into a violent conflict with the Conservative party, and that the latter, in its turn, during the election campaign had accused the Cabinet of having neglected the navy, driving home its arguments by constantly pointing out the “German danger.” Moreover, King Edward had died in the meantime (May 6th, 1910), and of his son and successor it was said that he, at the time of his accession to the throne, was no longer a man of unbiased sentiment, that he was very anti-German, and that he was under the influence of a small group of Conservative extremists.