Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T13:34:03.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lord Hardinge as Ambassador to France, and the Anglo-French Dilemma over Germany and the Near East, 1920–1922*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. Douglas Goold
J. Douglas Goold
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In November 1920 Lord Hardinge succeeded Lord Derby as ambassador to France, thereby acquiring the position that he had wanted and been expected to get for so long. Ironically enough, he had, as he realized, George Nathaniel Curzon, the foreign secretary, to thank for the Paris plum. His gratistude, however, did not prevent him from remarking later that one of the main reasons why he accepted the offer was that it gave him satisfaction that it was Lloyd George and Curzon, ‘who three years earlier had done their utmost to hound me out of the Diplomatic Service’ just after the publication of the Mesopotamia Commission Report, who offered him the coveted post. Hardinge's appointment was generally well received, and he was happy to escape from the ‘never-ending strain’ of the Foreign Office.

Type
Articles and Communications
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 1978 , pp. 913 - 937
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 Hardinge, Charles, Baron Hardinge of Penshurst (1858–1944), grandson of first Viscount Hardinge; educated at Harrow and Trinity College, Cambridge; entered Foreign Office, 1880; served successively in Constantinople, Berlin, Washington, Sofia, Bucharest, Paris, Teheran and St Petersburg; assistant under-secretary of state, 1903–4; ambassador to Russia, 1904–6; permanant under-secretary of state, 1906–10; viceroy of India, 1910–16; permanent under-secretary of state, 1916–20.

2 Hardinge, (henceforth H) to Crewe, , 4 10 1920Google Scholar, Crewe papers, Cambridge University Library, C/18; H to Curzon, 15 Oct., Curzon papers, India Office Library, F/7/2. Paris was not the only destination within the bounds of possibility. Montagu reported to Lloyd George on 16 Dec. that ‘Strong representations are being made to me that Hardinge might go back [to India] again. Undoubtedly the most popular Viceroy of modern times, his return would be received with acclamation’. Lloyd George papers, House of Lords Record Office, F/40/3/41.

3 Hardinge, C., Old diplomacy: the reminiscences of Lord Hardinge of Penshurst (London, 1947). p. 250.Google Scholar

4 See Goold, J. D., ‘Lord Hardinge and the Mesopotamia expedition and inquiry, 1914–1917’, The Historical Journal, XIX, 4 (1976), 919–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 See The Times' leader of 9 Sept. 1920 endued ‘The Paris Embassy’, and the comments in Derby to Curzon and H to Curzon both 9 Sept., Curzon papers. F/6/3 and F/7/2 respectively.

6 , H to Crewe, , 4 10 1920Google Scholar, Crewe papers, C/18. See also , H to Butler, , 19 01 1921Google Scholar, Harcourt Butler collection, India Office Library, MSS Eur. F. 116/43, and , H to Chirol, , 19 03 1921Google Scholar, Hardinge MSS, Kent County Record Office, (henceforth Kent MSS), U.927/029/77.

7 The present author is currently completing a book with Dr M. L. Dockrill of King's College, University of London, on Britain and the peace settlements after the First World War.

8 , H to Curzon, , 1 12 1920Google Scholar, Hardinge papers, Cambridge University Library (henceforth Hp), 44; H disp. 3587 of 2 Dec. 1920 to Curzon, , Documents on British foreign policy, 1919–1939Google Scholar, series 1 (henceforth DBFP), ed. by Woodward, E. L., Butler, R. et al. (London, 1946), X, no. 409.Google Scholar

9 Kent MSS, U.927/029/1.

10 , H to Curzon, , 13 01 1921Google Scholar, Hp 44.

11 , H to Curzon, , 15 01 1921Google Scholar, Hp 44.

12 Covered in DBFP, XVI, ch. III.

13 See in particular the meeting of 22 Mar., Cab. 29, Public Record Office, 53/C.A. mtg. III.

14 Remark reported by Repington, diary entry for 10 Mar., After the war: adiary by Lieut. -Col. C. à Court Repington (London, 1922), p. 76.

15 , H to Curzon, , 10 03Google Scholar, Hp 44.

16 , H to Chirol, , 19 03Google Scholar, Kent MSS, U.927/029/77.

17 , H to Butler, , 11 04Google Scholar, Harcourt Butler collection, F. 116/43.

18 Hp. 44.

19 Harcourt Butler collection, F.116/43.

20 Northedge, F. S., The troubled giant: Britain among the great powers, 1916–1939 (London, 1966), p. 177.Google Scholar

21 , H to Butler, , 27 05Google Scholar, Harcourt Butler collection, F. 116/43.

22 , H to Curzon, , 30 05Google Scholar, Hp 44. Also see H's dispatches of 24 May, DBFP. XVI, nos. 111 and 115.

23 There were particularly stinging exchanges between Hardinge and the Foreign Office over the interim settlement which Curzon instructed him on 6 May to propose to the Conference of Ambassadors. See DBFP, XVI, no. 36 and ff.; Cab. 29/54/C.A. mtgs. 118–20; and especially the minutes of 11 and 12 May in F.O. (Foreign Office) 371/vol. 5899, Public Record Office, and Curzon, to George, Lloyd, 13 05Google Scholar, Lloyd George papers, F/13/2/20.

24 Hardinge recorded that it created greater difficulties than any other question, while Lloyd George announced at a meeting in August that he considered it to be ‘the most menacing problem with which we have to deal at these conferences…’. ‘Annual Report’ for 1921, Kent MSS, U.927/029/17, p. 6; DBFP, XV, no. 92.

25 Papers in F.O. 371/5897.

26 , H to George, Lloyd, 22 06Google Scholar, Kent MSS, 17.927/029/45.

27 , H to Crowe, , 27 06Google Scholar, F.O. 371/5913.

28 See especially Crowe's minute of 18 July on note of 16 July from the French ambassador, F.O. 371/5916, and Curzon to Lloyd George, 23 July, F.O. 800/153, Public Record Office.

29 French ambassador's note of 27 July for Curzon, , DBFP, XVIGoogle Scholar, no. 267.

30 F.O. memo. as sent to , H on 28 07, DBFP, XVIGoogle Scholar, no. 272.

31 H tel. 546 of 29 July to Curzon, , DBFP, XVIGoogle Scholar, no. 273.

32 , H to Curzon, , 29 07Google Scholar, Hp 44.

33 Curzon tel. of 30 July to , H, DBFP, XVI, no. 276Google Scholar. See Curzon, to , H, 15 08Google Scholar, Hp 44, for further praise. Repington similarly thought that it was ‘A sound piece of diplomatic work’ (diary entry for 7 Aug., After the war, p. 394). The Germans reportedly appreciated Britain's attitude over Silesia (diary entries for 15 and 24 Aug., D'Abernon, Viscount, An ambassador of peace: pages from the diary of Viscount D'Abernon [3 vols., London, 1929–1930], 1, 202–3).Google Scholar

34 Repington's diary entry for 7 Aug., After the war, p. 394; , H to Butler, , 21 09Google Scholar, Harcourt Butler collection, F. 116/43.

35 The treaty was to have given France a guarantee of support in the event of an unprovoked attack by Germany.

36 Crowe's conversation with the French ambassador, 1 June 1921, with undated minute by Curzon, , DBFP, XVIGoogle Scholar, no. 148.

37 H disp. 1671 of 3 June to Curzon, P.O. 371/6995.

38 , H to the king, 23 06Google Scholar, Kent MSS, U. 927/029/6.

39 , H to George, Lloyd, 22 06Google Scholar, Kent MSS, U.927/029/45. For the prime minister's view, see D'Abernon's diary entry for 21 June, An ambassador of peace, 1, 184–5, and George, Lloyd to Curzon, , 14 06Google Scholar, Curzon papers, F/4/3.

40 Crowe's minute of 14 June and Curzon's of 15 June on H's disp. 1709 of 8 June, F.O. 371/6995. Cf. Crowe's views in his memo of 12 Feb., Curzon papers F/9/3.

41 , H to Curzon, , 16 09Google Scholar, Hp 44.

42 , H to Curzon, , 25 and 18 11Google Scholar, Hp 44. These suspicions were by no means unique. Cf. Grahame, George to Vansittart, , 15 11 1921Google Scholar, F.O. 800/153, and Kerr, to Marris, , 16 01 1922Google Scholar, Lothian papers, Scottish Record Office, GD 40/17/82.

43 On St Aulaire, see note of 8 July by Gerothwohl, M. A., and Russell, to Akers-Douglas, , 30 09Google Scholar, both in F.O. 800/153; Curzon, to , H, 10 11Google Scholar, Hp 44.

44 Curzon, to , H, 28 11Google Scholar, Curzon papers, F/4/5.

45 Curzon, to , H, 23 10Google Scholar, Hp 44.

46 Curzon, to , H, 25 10Google Scholar, Hp 44.

47 , H to Curzon, , 26 12Google Scholar, Hp 44.

48 , H to Curzon, , 27 12Google Scholar and reply of 28 Dec., Hp 44.

49 F.O. 371/7000.

50 Curzon memo, of 28 Dec., F.O. 371/7000.

51 Curzon, to , H, 28 12Google Scholar, Hp 44.

52 , H to Curzon, , 3 01 1922Google Scholar, Hp 45.

53 Conversations of 4 Jan. between George, Lloyd and Briand, at Cannes, , DBFP, XIXGoogle Scholar, nos. 1 and 2.

54 Two examples will suffice to illustrate this hatred. Derby reported to Curzon from Paris in Oct. 1920 that ‘You can have no idea of how they hate LI. G. out here – They accuse him of everything’, while almost two years later Robert Cecil, when visiting the French capital, ‘found on all hands a profound distrust of the British Prime Minister, and I was informed by more than one person that no French Government could make any concession to him and remain in office for an hour’. Derby, to Curzon, , 30 10 1920Google Scholar, Curzon papers, F/6/3, and Cecil, to Balfour, , 11 07 1922Google Scholar, Cecil papers, British Museum, Add. MSS 51095.

55 H's tel. 20 (by telephone) of 12 Jan., and his disp. 130 of 13 Jan. 1922, P.O. 371/8249.

56 For typical British opinions of Poincaré, see D'Abernon, 's diary entry for 17 05 1922Google Scholar, An ambassador of peace, 1, 317–18; Cecil, to Balfour, , 11 07 1922Google Scholar, Cecil papers, Add. MSS 51095; Crewe, to Curzon, , 28 12 1922Google Scholar, Curzon papers, F/7/3.

57 H's disp. 150 of 16 Jan. to Curzon transmitting copy of conversation, F.O. 371/7000. Discussed by Laffan, M. A., ‘The question of French Security in British policy towards France and Germany, 1918–25’ (Cambridge Ph.D. thesis, 1973), pp. 89 ff.Google Scholar

58 , H to Bell, , 26 01 1922Google Scholar, Kent MSS, U.927/029/99.

59 , H to Curzon, , 20 01 1922Google Scholar, Hp 45.

60 , H to Curzon, , 1 02 1922Google Scholar, Hp 45.

61 H's disp. 56 of 1 Feb. 1922, F.O. 371/8250.

62 Curzon, memo, of 17 02Google Scholar, F.O. 371/8250.

63 Laffan, , ‘The question of French Security…’, p. 128.Google Scholar

64 , H to Grey, , 20 02 1922Google Scholar, Kent MSS, U.927/029/47.

65 Curzon, to , H, 19 02 1922Google Scholar, Hp 45.

66 , H to Curzon, , 21 02 1922Google Scholar, Hp 45.

67 Curzon, to , H, 22 02 1922Google Scholar, Hp 45.

68 Curzon letters to George, Lloyd and Derby, ‘02 1922’Google Scholar, Curzon papers, F/1/7.

69 Curzon, to , H, 1 03 1922Google Scholar, Hp 45.

70 Sharp, A. J., ‘The Foreign Office in eclipse, 1919–22’, History, LXI, 202 (1976), p. 208.Google Scholar

71 Curzon, to , H, 1 03Google Scholar, Hp 45.

72 For possible reasons, see Craig, G. A., ‘The British Foreign Office’Google Scholar, in Craig, and Gilbert, F., The diplomats, 1919–1939 (2 vols., New York, 1963), 1, 32–3Google Scholar, and Sharp, , p. 205.Google Scholar

73 For example, see Curzon's letters of 9 Aug. 1922 to Vansittart and Grigg, F.O.800/155; Curzon to Italian ambassador, 11 Oct. 1922, F.O. 800/155. For Curzon's views of his relationship with Lloyd George, see the documents in the Curzon papers, F/1/7, especially the pencilled memo, of Nov. 1924 entitled ‘Memo, on some aspects of my tenure of the Foreign Office’.

74 Baldwin, , 10 11 1932Google Scholar, House of commons debates, fifth series, vol. 270, col. 632.

75 , H to Curzon, , 23 02 1922Google Scholar, Hp 45. See also , H to Birdwood, , 6 03Google Scholar, Kent MSS, U.927/029/79. Curzon agreed with these fears. Curzon to H. 1 Mar., Hp 45.

76 Curzon, to , H, 8 05 1922Google Scholar and reply of 10 May, Hp 45.

77 H tel. 326 of 16 June 1922 to Balfour, F.O. 371/8251.

78 The French did, however, hope that their possession of submarines and aeroplanes would help to pressure the British into giving them a guarantee of assistance. Laffan, , ‘The question of French Security…’, p. 98.Google Scholar

79 Laffan, , ‘The question of French Security…’, pp. 74–5.Google Scholar

80 The disarmament question during 1922 can be followed in DBFP, XX, ch. IV.

81 This sympathy is most succinctly revealed in the concluding line of Hardinge's ‘urgent’ unnumbered tel. of 25 Feb. 1922 to Curzon: ‘I may remind Your Lordship that disarmament of Germany is a subject on which French are particularly sensitive, and not without reason’. F.O. 371/7448.

82 This strand of office thinking is best reflected in Miles Lampson's minute of 31 July 1922 on Cheetham's disp. 1730 of 24 July to the effect that ‘of all subjects disarmament is that on which we least wish to have an acrimonious discussion with them [the French]. Their feelings on the subject are not only intelligible: they are justified by past events’. F.O. 371/7451.

83 H disp. 818 of 1 Apr. 1922 and copy of the note in F.O. 371/7449.

84 Waterlow and Lampson minutes of 4 Apr. and undated minute by Tyrrell on H disp. 818 of 1 Apr., F.O. 371/7449.

85 H tel. 191, by telephone on 4 Apr. 1922, F.O. 371/7449.

86 F.O. tel. 118, by telephone on 4 Apr., F.O. 371/7449.

87 See the F.O. minutes of 7 Apr. and the redrafted note in F.O. 371/7449.

88 H tel. 212 of 14 Apr. 1922, F.O. 371/7450; H tel. 249 of 2 May, F.O. 371/7450.

89 H tel. 663 of 15 Dec., F.O. 371/7455.

90 Seeds' disp. 188 of 3 Dec., F.O. 371/7455. On Hitler's activities see DBFP, XX, nos. 305 and 316.

91 The most important recent studies on the Near East are Helmreich, P. C., From Paris to Sèvres… (Columbus, 1974)Google Scholar, Busch, B. C., Mudros 10 Lausanne… (Albany, 1976)Google Scholar, Smith, M. Llewellyn, Ionian vision… (London, 1973)Google Scholar, and Sonyel, S. R., Turkish diplomacy… (London, 1975).Google Scholar

92 , H to Curzon, , 3 01 1922Google Scholar, Hp 45, in reply to Curzon, to , H, 24 12 1921, Hp 44.Google Scholar

93 Kent MSS, U.927/029/92.

94 Papers on the agreement of March in F.O. 371/6467–68 and on the Franklin-Bouillon pact of Oct. in F.O. 371/6475–76 and 6479.

95 H tel. 56 of 1 Feb. to Curzon, F.O. 371/7854.

96 H tel. 469 of 19 Sept., DBFP, XVIII, no. 35.

97 Minutes of mtg. of 20 Sept. in DBFP, XVIII, no. 42.

98 DBFP, XVIII, no. 48.

99 Hardinge, , Old diplomacy, p. 272.Google Scholar

100 DBFP XVIII, no. 48, note 26.

101 Nicolson, H., Curzon: the last phase, 1919–1925… (London, 1937), pp. 273–4.Google Scholar

102 Old diplomacy, pp. 272–4.

103 Curzon, to , H, 29 09 1922, Hp 45.Google Scholar

104 H tel. 482 of 26 Sept. to Curzon, , DBFP, XVIIIGoogle Scholar, no. 58. Minute by Lloyd George in note 3.

105 Text of the ultimatum in DBFP, XVIII, no. 78.

106 H, to Curzon, , 30 09 and 1 10Google Scholar, Hp 45.

107 Curzon, to , H, 1 10Google Scholar, Hp 45.

108 , H to Curzon, , 2 10Google Scholar, Hp 45.

109 , H to Curzon, , 11 10Google Scholar, Hp 45.

110 Curzon, to , H, 12 10Google Scholar, Hp45. Curzon telephone message for H. 13 Oct., F.O. 800/157.

111 In a truly extraordinary letter of 12 May 1922 to Lloyd George, Hardinge explained that though he had not yet told Curzon, he had every intention of resigning at the end of the year, but that if the foreign secretary himself resigned, as was rumoured, ‘I hope you will not consider it presumptuous on my part to say that, if you thought me fit for the post, I would very gladly be his successor under you, and that you would always be able to count on the utmost effort on my part and on my absolute loyalty to you’. Lloyd George papers, F/53/1/67.

112 , H to Curzon, , 2 09 1922, Hp 45Google Scholar; , H to Butler, , 28 11Google Scholar, Harcourt Butler collection, F.116/43.

113 Curzon, to George, Lloyd, 13 09 1922Google Scholar, Lloyd George papers, F/13/3/31; Curzon, to , H, 13 and 20 June 1922, Hp 45.Google Scholar

114 Curzon, to , H, 27 Dec. 1922Google Scholar, Kent MSS, U.927/029/25a; tribute from Grey in parliamentary report in The Times of 24 Nov.; Crowe to H, 14 Sept., Kent MSS U.927/029/18; The Times' leader of 4 Nov. entitled ‘The Paris Embassy’; , H to Curzon, , 1 11, Hp 45Google Scholar, on Poincaré; and Eric Phipps (Paris) to Curzon, 17 Dec., Kent MSS, U.927/029/27 on the French press.

115 , H to Curzon, , 6 11 1921, 27 09 1921, 10 Dec. 1920, Hp 44Google Scholar; , H to the king, 23 06 1921Google Scholar, Kent MSS, U.927/029/6; H to Curzon, 10 Nov. 1922, Hp 45.

116 , H to Curzon, , 1 01 and 29 07 1921Google Scholar, Hp 44, and 3 Nov. 1922, Hp 45.

117 , H to Curzon, , 28 04 1921Google Scholar, Hp. 44.

118 , H to Curzon, , 23 08 1921Google Scholar, Hp 44.

119 The fact that he was not realistic in his fears about French submarines and aeroplanes has already been noted and criticized.

120 Space has not permitted the inclusion of a further praiseworthy, if unsuccessful, initiative. At the end of 1922 he came close to getting Anglo-French agreement that France would exploit the resources of the Rhineland, rather than invade the Ruhr. See the letters in Kent MSS, U.927/028/1–3, and Hardinge, 's account in Old diplomacy, pp. 275–7.Google Scholar

121 Curzon, to , H, 31 10 1922, Hp 45.Google Scholar

122 Sharp, , pp. 212–13.Google Scholar

123 , H to Curzon, , 20 12 1922Google Scholar, Curzon papers, F/7/2.

124 Cf. Marks, Sally, The illusion of peace: international relations in Europe, 1918–1933 (New York, 1976), pp. 34, 38, 48, 50.Google Scholar