“The bearer of this note is our general secretary, Mr. Huldermann. He is a past master of discretion, and fully acquainted with the situation.”
I was instructed to hand the following note by the German Government to Sir Ernest Cassel with the request to pass it on to the British Government, and at the same time I was to explain verbally and in greater detail the contents of Ballin’s letter on the situation.
The text of the official note is as follows:
“We are willing to continue the discussion in a friendly spirit. The Navy Bill is bound to lead to a discussion of the naval plans of both countries, and in this matter we shall be able to fall in with the wishes of the British Government if we, in return, receive sufficient guarantees as to a friendly disposition of British policy towards our own interests. Any agreement would have to state that either Power undertakes not to join in any plans, combinations, or warlike complications directed against the other. If concluded, it might pave the way for an understanding as to the sums of money to be spent on armaments by either country.
“We assume that the British Government shares the views expressed in this note, and we should be glad if a British Cabinet minister could proceed to Berlin, in the first instance for the purpose of a private and confidential discussion only.”
On the evening of the same day (February 4th) I left for London. I arrived there the following evening and went straight to Sir Ernest Cassel. I prepared the following statement for Ballin at the time, in which I described the substance of our conversation and the outcome of my visit:
“The note which I had brought with me did not at first satisfy our friend. He made a brief statement to the effect that we saw a fair prospect of reaching a successful solution of the problem was all that was needed, and that our answer was lengthy, but evasive. This opinion, however, he did not maintain after the close of our conversation, which lasted more than two hours. I pointed out to him that, as I understood it, the phrase ‘We are willing to continue the discussion in a friendly spirit’ amounted to a declaration on the part of the German Government that, in its opinion, there was a ‘fair prospect,’ and that an accommodating spirit was all one could ask at present. He thought that Lord Haldane had been asked to go to Berlin so that a member of the Cabinet should have an opportunity of ascertaining on the spot that Berlin was really disposed to discuss matters in a friendly spirit. On this point positive assurances were needed before Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Winston Churchill went across, who, if they did go, would not return without having effected the object of their visit. Sir Ernest always emphasized that he only stated his own private views, but it was evident that he spoke with the highest authority. The demand for three Dreadnoughts, he said, which the new German Navy Bill asked for, amounted to a big increase of armaments, and Great Britain would be compelled to counterbalance it by a corresponding increase, which she would not fail to do. If, however, Germany were prepared not to enlarge her existing programme, Great Britain would be pleased to effect a reduction on her part. When I referred to the apprehension of the German Government lest Great Britain should take advantage of the fact that Germany had her hands tied, in order to effect big armaments which it would be impossible for us to equal, our friend remarked that, for the reason stated above, such fears were groundless. In spite of this assurance, I repeatedly and emphatically drew his attention to the necessity for limiting the British programme just as much as the German one. He evidently no longer fancied the suggestion previously put forward that the question of agreeing upon a definite ratio of strength for the two navies should be discussed; because, if this was done, one would get lost in the details. Nevertheless, he did not, as the discussion proceeded, adhere to this standpoint absolutely. He agreed that the essential thing was to establish friendly political relations, and if, as I thought, Germany had reason to complain of British opposition to her legitimate expansion, one could not do better than discuss the various points at issue one by one, similar to the method which had proved so successful in the case of the Anglo-French negotiations. Great Britain would not raise any objections to our desire for rounding-off our colonial empire, and she was quite willing to grant us our share in the distribution of those parts of the globe that were still unclaimed.
“By keeping strictly to the literal text of the German note, he found the latter quite acceptable as far as it referred to the question of a declaration of neutrality. He said there was a great difference between such declarations, and often it was quite possible to interpret them in various ways. I imagined that what was in his mind were the obligations which Britain had taken upon herself in her agreement with France, and I therefore asked him for a definition of the term ‘neutrality.’ His answer was very guarded and contained many reservations. What he meant was something like this: Great Britain has concluded agreements with France, Russia, and other countries which oblige her to remain neutral where the other partner is concerned, except when the latter is engaged in a war of aggression.
“Applied to two practical cases, this would mean: If an agreement such as the one now under consideration had been in existence at the time of the Morocco dispute last summer, Great Britain would have been free to take the side of France if war had broken out between that country and ourselves, because in this case we—as he argued with much conviction—had been the aggressors. On the other hand, if we had severed our relations with Italy during the Turco-Italian war and had come to the support of Turkey, Great Britain would not have been allowed to join Italy in conspiring against us if we had an agreement such as the one in question.