No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Economic Strength and Diplomatic Attitudes: The Formation of French Hostility Before World War I*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2016
Extract
The rivalry between France and Germany was one of the most important themes of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century history. It was at the heart of the alliance system of this period and helped to produce that most horrible conflict, World War I. Understanding the causes and nature of Franco-German hostility would help to explain the war’s outbreak. A study of this hostility might also be a way of testing some of the theories of conflict recently developed by scholars from several disciplines but rarely applied by historians in their work. I shall discuss here several models of international conflict and show how one of them, relating images of national strength to diplomatic attitudes, can increase our insight into the formation of French hostility between 1871 and 1914.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Social Science History Association 1978
Footnotes
*
A much briefer version of this article was presented at the Third Annual Conference of the Western Society for French History.
References
Notes
1 Basic for game theory are John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, paperback edition, (New York, 1967, 1st ed., 1944) and Luce, R. Duncan and Raiffa, Howard, Games and Decisions (New York, 1957)Google Scholar. Further explanation and a discussion more accessible to the non-mathematician may be found in Boulding, Kenneth, Conflict and Defense: A General Theory (New York, 1962)Google Scholar; Rapoport, Anatol, Fights, Games and Debates (Ann Arbor, 1960Google Scholar); and Schelling, Thomas, The Strategy of Conflict (New York, 1963)Google Scholar.
2 Schelling, Strategy, 83-84.
3 Boulding, Conflict, 49.
4 See: Richardson, Lewis F., Arms and Insecurity: A Mathematical Study of the Causes and Origins of War (Pittsburgh, 1960)Google Scholar, passim, ; Boulding, Conflict, ch. ii; Rapoport, , Fights, chs. i and ii; Rapoport, , “Lewis F. Richardson’s Mathematical Theory of War,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1 (1957), 249–99Google Scholar.
5 Boulding, Conflict, 26, 35.
6 Lenin, V. I., Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (New York, 1939)Google Scholar, passim. I do not think it is necessary to review here the voluminous literature on Lenin’s economic explanation of imperialism. Even some of his critics accept the importance of economic motivations, thus Langer, William: “At bottom the movement was probably as much economic as anything else,” in The Diplomacy of Imperialism, 1890-1902, 2nd ed. (New York, 1950), 95Google Scholar.
7 Other attempts to connect international relations with its internal motivations include: Digeon, Claude, La crise allemande de la pensée française (1870-1914) (Paris, 1959)Google Scholar; Fischer, Fritz, Krieg der Illusionen: Die deutsche Politik von 1911 bis 1914 (Dusseldorf, 1969)Google Scholar; Hoffman, Ross J. S., Great Britain and the German Trade Rivalry, 1875-1914 (Philadelphia, 1933)Google Scholar; Mayer, Arno, Wilson vs. Lenin: The Political Origins of the New Diplomacy, 1917-1918 (Cleveland, 1964)Google Scholar; Mayer, Arno, Politics and Diplomacy of Peacemaking (New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Poidevin, Raymond. Les relations économiques et financières entre la France et l’Allemagne de 1898 à 1914 (Paris, 1969)Google Scholar; Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, Bismarck und der Imperialisms (Cologne and Berlin, 1969)Google Scholar; Ziebura, Gilbert, Die deutsche Frage in der Offentlichen Meinung Frankreichs von 1911-14 (Berlin, 1955)Google Scholar.
8 No longer Hostility of B to Apr⇆Hostility of A to B, but Strength of B—» Hostility of A and Strength of A→? Hostility of B.
9 See the classic volumes, Gooch, G. P., Franco-German Relations, 1871-1919 (London, 1923),3Google Scholar; Schuman, Frederick, War and Diplomacy in the French Republic (New York, 1931), 129Google Scholar. Pierre Renouvin takes much the same position in Le XIXe siècle. De 1871 à 1914, vol. 6 Histoire des relations internationales, ed. by Renouvin (Paris, 1955), 51.
10 On the general subject of images, see Kenneth Boulding, The Image (Ann Arbor, 1956).
11 These figures are available in B. Mitchell, European Historical Statistics, 1750-1970 (London, 1975).
12 Schuman, War, 18-22.
13 These publications are listed in Jonathan J. Liebowitz, “Strength and Hostility: The French Image of Their Nation’s Economic Strength, 1871-1914” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1970), 484-96.
14 Consular and commercial correspondence from all French posts in Germany was examined. Dispatches may be found in the Archives of the Foreign Ministry in volumes of the Correspondance commerciale (hereafter called C.C.) up to 1901 and the Nouvelle série (called N.S.) after that date. The Archives nationales (abbreviated A.N.) in series F12 and F30 has consular dispatches forwarded to other ministries. Selected dispatches and other documents were printed in the Moniteur officiel du commerce (hereafter abbreviated MOC).
15 I have not relied on newspapers as a source of French opinion. When the subject under consideration is the long-term development of attitudes and images (as opposed to reaction to a specific event), they are not likely to be any more revealing than books and articles. The wide range of views encountered in the latter sources makes it unlikely that the newspaper press would contain images not present elsewhere.
16 Recent accounts of the French economy during this period may be found in: Marczewski, Jan, Introduction à l’histoire quantitative (Geneva, 1965), esp. 140, 172–73Google Scholar; Lévy-Leboyer, Maurice, “La croissance économique en France au XIXe siècle—Résultats préliminaires,” Annales: Economies, sociétés, civilisations, 23 (July-August 1968), 788–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lévy-Leboyer, M., “La décélération de l’économie française dans la second moitié du XIXe siècle,” Revue d’histoire économique et sociale, 49 (1971), 485–507Google Scholar.
17 On silk see: Reclus, Elisée, Nouvelle géographie universelle, 2:La France (Paris, 1877), 399, 490–91, 865Google Scholar; Journal officiel de la République française (hereafter abbreviated J. O.) (27 May, 30 May, 22 June, 28 June 1878), 5820, 6000, 6932, 7120-21, 7125. For a much more detailed exposition of these images and the others cited in this paper below, see Liebowitz, “Strength,” passim.
18 Reclus, La France, 865.
19 For example, Lefebvre de Béhaine to Decazes, 15 April 1875, C.C, Munich, 8:fol. 55; Tolhausen to Decazes, 30 November 1874, C.C, Leipzig, 14:fol. 125-27; Gontaut Biron to Decazes, 1 February 1875, C.C, Berlin, 25:fol 11-12; St. Sauveur to Decazes, 21 December 1875, C.C, Brème, 19:fol. 347-48.
20 Dispatches from the consulate in Hamburg emphasized this theme: Feer to Minister, 27 September 1878, C.C, Hambourg, 45:fol. 121-222; Dervieu to Minister, 11 November 1879, ibid., fol. 467-69; De Clercqto Minister, 10 April 1880, ibid., 46:fol. 101-02,161; De Pina to Minister, 4 May 1881, ibid., fol. 405,454.
21 See Lavisse, Ernest: “La crise économique en Allemagne,” Revue des deux mondes (15 November 1876), 373–401Google Scholar.
22 See the testimony before a parliamentary tariff commission published in the Journal officiel during 1878, 1879, and 1880.
23 Reclus, , Là France, 861Google Scholar.
24 See Verneuil to Rémusat, 22 June 1872, C.C., Danzig, 29:fol. 7-16.
25 See the discussion, not meant just to apply to the seventies, in Challener, Richard D., TheFrench Theory of the Nation in Arms, 1866-1939 (New York, 1955), 187–88Google Scholar.
26 See Langer, William, European Alliances and Alignments, 1871-1890, 2nd ed. (New York, 1950), 43–55Google Scholar; Chastenet, Jacques, Histoire de la Troisième République, 1: L’enfance de la Troisième, 1870-1879 (Paris, 1952), 195–98Google Scholar.
27 On the Exposition, see Chastenet, , L’enfance, 247–50Google Scholar; Molinari, Gustave de, “L’exposition universelle,” Journal des économistes (December 1878), 455Google Scholar.
28 Chastenet, , Histoire de la Troisième république, 2: La République des républicains, 1879-1893 (Paris, 1954), 21Google Scholar. See also Langer, Alliances, 152, 238-39.
29 Feydeau, Ernest, L’Allemagne en 1871: Impressions de voyage (Paris, 1872)Google Scholar.
30 Ibid., 268-69. See also 35, 85,100, 271.
31 Carroll, E. Malcom, French Public Opinion and Foreign Affairs, 1870-1914 (New York, 1931), 46–48Google Scholar; Langer, , Alliances, 15Google Scholar.
32 Poitevin to Decazes, 3 May 1875, C.C., Breslau, 3:fol. 183; Poitevin to Decazes, 15 May 1875, ibid., fol. 214; Lefebvre de Béhaine to Decazes, 15 April 1875, C.C., Munich, 8:fol. 55-56.
33 Mead, Edward Earle in Earle, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy (Princeton, 1941), 121–27Google Scholar; Silberner, Edmund, La guerre et la paix dans l’histoire des doctrines économiques (Paris, 1957), XII-XII, 1, IviGoogle Scholar; Say, J. B., Cours complet d’économie politique pratique (1828-29), quoted in Silberner, Guerre, 67Google Scholar; Gamier, Joseph, Eléments de l’économie politique 3rd ed. (Paris, 1856), 284Google Scholar; Guyot, Yves, Principles of Social Economy, trans. C. H. D’Eyncourt Leppington, 2nd ed. (London, 1892, written 1881), 231Google Scholar.
34 Carroll, , Public Opinion, 56Google Scholar; Dreux, Andre, Dernières années de l’ambassade de M. de Gontaut-Biron, 1874-1877 (Paris, 1907),viGoogle Scholar.
35 Langer, Alliances, 38-39, 43, 45, 54; Chastenet, L’enfance, 195-98.
36 Legoyt, A., Forces matérielles de l’Empire d’Allemagne, d’après les documents officiels (Paris, 1877), vii, xvii, xixGoogle Scholar.
37 Langer, Alliances, 152, 219-23, 273-74; Renouvin, De 1871 à 1914, 56-58.
38 For example, Feer to Minister, C.C., Hambourg, 43:fol. 414.
39 See: Radau, R., “La production houillère en Angleterre et en France: II. La question de l’exportation des houilles,” Revue des deux mondes (15 October 1876), 895–919, esp. 915; Guyot, Principles, ix, 13Google Scholar; Boiteau, Paul, “La question de la marine marchande,” Journal des économistes, 6 (May 1879), 197–229; Ibid., (June 1879), 374–406Google Scholar.
40 For example, Levasseur, Emile de, L’Europe (moins la France): Géographie et statistique (Paris, 1871), 110–47Google Scholar; Reclus, Elisée, Nouvelle géographie universelle, A:L’Europe du nord-ouest (Paris, 1879), 831–55Google Scholar; Block, Maurice, “La crise économique,” Revue des deux mondes (15 March 1879), 438Google Scholar.
41 J.O. (3 Febuary 1880), 1206.
42 Langer, Alliances, 45-48.
43 Ibid., 239, 271, 273-75, 282; Chastenet, République des républicains, 98.
44 In a statement by the chairman of the commission studying tariffs: J.O. (26 January 1880), 789-91. See also J.O. (17 July 1878), 7946.
45 Chastenet, , République des républicains, 109–10, 230Google Scholar; Cameron, Rondo, France and the Economic Development of Europe, 1800-1914 (Princeton, 1961), 71Google Scholar.
46 Such images may be found in reports from consuls throughout Germany, as well as in many geography texts. Among the latter are: Dubois, Marcel, Europe (Paris, 1892), 352Google Scholar; Levasseur, Emile de, Géographie économique des Etats de l’Europe (moins la France) (Paris, 1890), 78–79Google Scholar; Molard, Jules, Cours de géographie, 1 :Europe (Paris, 1891), 235–36Google Scholar.
47 Courcel to Ferry, 15 February 1884, C.C., Berlin, 30:fol. 264-65.
48 See: Annales de la Chambre des Députés, Débats parlementaires (hereafter called Annales de la Chambre, Débats) (18 October 1884), 26, 28; Pingaud, Dusseldorf, IO March 1896, in MOC (30 April 1896), 275; Soulange-Bodin, 31 August 1896, C.C, Berlin, 44:fol. 248,252.
49 Courcel to Challemel-Lacour, 1 June 1883, C.C, Berlin, 29:fol. 234-35; Rouvier to Ferry, 4 July 1884, C.C, Buenos Aires, 13:fol. 66; Commission Permanente des Valeurs de Douane, Report of the President, 26 September 1887, MOC (19 January 1888), 41-42; d’Almeida, P. Camena, L’Europe, vol. 2 of Cours de géographie à l’usage de l’enseignement secondaire, ed. by Blache, Vidal de la and d’Almeida, Camena (Paris, 1894), 300Google Scholar. See also consular dispatches from Dusseldorf, Berlin, Hamburg and Stuttgart in C.C. volumes for these years.
50 Charles Grad (Paris, 1888).
51 Georges Blondel (Paris, 1894).
52 Lavisse, Ernest, “Notes prises dans une excursion en Allemagne,” Revue des deux mondes (15 June 1886), 904–05, 917Google Scholar; Herbette to Goblet, 24 January 1889, C.C, Berlin, 34:fol. 396; De Stroltz, Nuremberg, 28 September 1895 in MOC (7 November 1895), 292; Truy, Frankfort, 25 May 1895 in MOC(11 July 1895), 19.
53 Dr. Rommel [Alfred Pernessin, fils], Au pays de la revanche (Geneva, 1886), 225, 256-60; Lucien, Nicol, L’Allemagne à Paris (Paris, 1887), 173–74Google Scholar.
54 Annales de la Chambre, Documents parlementaires (11 March 1884), 872; ibid. (12 July 1887), 2:392; ibid. (10 June 1890), 1:68; Annales du Sénat, Débats (7 March 1884), 597; ibid. (19 November 1891), 3:161.
55 Courcel to Ferry, 6 January 1884, C.C, Berlin, 30:fol. 175-76.
56 Rommel, Au pays, 74, 76, 132; Charles Thierry-Mieg, “La concurrence allemande,” Journal des économistes (May 1884), 26:287-93; Commission Permanente des Valeurs de Douane, Report of the President, 25 August 1886, MOC (2 December 1886), 504; Annales de la Chambre, Débats (19December 1884), 1040; Héricourt to Freycinet, 29 June 1886, C.C, Stuttgart, 8:fol. 23; Herbette to Flourens, 14 January 1888, C.C, Berlin, 34:fol. 7; Jacquot to Goblet, May 1888, C.C, Leipzig, 17:fol. 82.
57 Cor, Mannheim, 15 August 1890 in MOC (11 September 1890), 208.
58 Molinari, Gustave de, “Chronique,” Journal des économistes (March 1883), 499Google Scholar; Rommel, , Au pays, 36–38Google Scholar; Lavallée, Charles, “Les industries d’art,” Revue des deux mondes (15 November 1884), 325, 333, 345–46Google Scholar; Jacquot to Freycinet, 15 December 1885, C.C, Dusseldorf, 2:fol. 344-45; J.O. (9 April 1883), 1779-80.
59 Liebowitz, “Strength,” 184-87, 198-204.
60 The Moniteur officiel du commerce.
61 MOC (25 December 1884), 606.
62 Freycinet to Herbette, 15 October 1886, C.C, Berlin, 32:fol. 430-32.
63 Baudrillard, Henri “Le nouvel enseignement de l’économie politique dans les facultés de droit,” Revue des deux mondes (1 May 1885), 158–85; “Notre programme,” Revue d’économie politique (January-February 1887), 1–2Google Scholar; Saint-Marc, Henri, Etude sur l’enseignement de l’économie politique dans les universités d’Allemagne et d’Autriche (Paris, 1892), 81, 122–24Google Scholar.
64 For some examples, see above, n. 54.
65 See, for example: Thierry-Mieg, Charles, La France et la concurrence étrangère (Paris, 1884), 22Google Scholar; Levy, Raphaël-Georges, Le péril financier (Paris, 1888), 32Google Scholar.
66 Courcel to Challemel-Lacour, 10 August 1883, C.C, Berlin, 29:fol. 349-50.
67 Courcel to Ferry, 6 January 1884, C.C, Berlin, 30:fol. 177; see also Courcel to Ferry, 10 August 1884, C.C, Berlin, 31:fol. 78.
68 Neither Robert Soucy’s Fascism in France: The Case of Maurice Barrès (Berkeley, 1972) nor Adrien Dansette’s Le boulangisme (Paris, 1938) has much to say about the connections between the state of the French economy and the Boulangist movement. Soucy’s point that Barres was attracted to Boulangism by his “desire to see French energy unified” (124) would accord with my argument here.
69 Lavisse, “Notes prises,” 917-18.
70 Digeon, La crise allemande, 330, calls it the “most famous” of its type.
71 Rommel, Au pays, 256-60. See also Jules Flammermont, L’expansion de l’Allemagne (Paris, 1885).
72 Nicot, L’Allemagne, v-vi.
73 Marteau, 8 October 1887 in MOC (9 February 1888), 106.
74 Dansette, , Le boulangisme, 59; Chastenet, , République des républicains, 185; Renouvin, , De 1871 à 1914, 60; Digeon, , La crise allemande, 324–32Google Scholar.
75 See Carroll, Public Opinion, 110-12.
76 For these events, see: Carroll, Public Opinion, 145-48; Chastenet, République des républicains, 293; William Langer, D/p/omacy of Imperialism, 15-16.
77 Arvède Barine, “Questions actuelles: la fin de Carthage,” Revue des deux mondes (15 September 1896), 362.
78 Reclus, Elisée, Nouvelle géographie universelle, 16: Les Etats-Unis (Paris, 1892), 739Google Scholar. See also: Dubois, Marcel, Précis de la géographie économique des cinq parties du monde (Paris, 1890), 237, 277Google Scholar; Levasseur, Emile de, Géographie générale et étude du Continent américain (Paris, 1891), 84, 95–96Google Scholar; Foncin, Pierre, Géographie générale du monde (Paris, [1892]), 39Google Scholar; d’Almeida, P. Camena, La Terre, l’Amérique, vol. 1 of Cours de géographie à l’usage de l’enseignement secondaire, ed. by la Blanche, P. Vidal de and d’Almeida, P. Camena (Paris, [1892]), 231–32Google Scholar.
79 Annales de la Chambre, Débats(25 January 1894), 1:106. See also: Ibid. (21 July 1890), 2:1040-43. Barreré to Ribot, 15 October 1890, C.C., Munich, 10:fol. 128-29; Paul de Leusse, “L’union douanière européenne,” Revue d’économie politique (1890), 4:393-401.
80 See, for example, on iron and steel: Héricourt to Minister, 17 October 1884, C.C., Stuttgart, 7:fol. 307; Lefaivre to Spuller, 13 October 1889, C.C., Hambourg, 50:fol. 198-99; on trade: Rouvier to Ferry, 14February 1885, C.C., BuenosAires, 13:fol. 183.
81 (London, 1896).
82 Consul general, 28 November 1896, C.C., Londres, 99:fol. 64; Barine, “Questions,” 362. See also Courcel to Hanotaux, 28 July 1896, C.C., Londres, 98:fol. 362; Soulange-Bodin to Hanotaux, Berlin, 5 August 1896, A.N., F12703 1. For a thorough analysis of British perceptions, see Hoffman, Great Britain, chs. 5-6.
83 Courcel to Ferry, 10 August 1884, C.C., Berlin, 31:fol. 78.
84 Chastenet, République des républicains, 119.
85 See: ibid., 116-19; Carroll, Public Opinion, 94; Schuman, War, 98-104; Langer, Imperialism, 43-50. Carroll, Public Opinion, 119 and Thomas F. Power, Jules Ferry and the Renaissance of French Imperialism (New York, 1944), 196-97 find more evidence of anti-English hostility than I do.
86 Thierry-Mieg, , La France, 162; Thierry-Mieg, , “La concurrence,” 287, 292Google Scholar.
87 Levy, Le péril, 23. See also: Annales de la Chambre, Documents (12 July 1887), 2:392; Dubois, Précis de la géographie, 426-27; Camena d’Almeida, La Terre, 225, 232; Barine, “Questions,” 362.
88 MOC (5 September 1895), 163.
89 Annales de la Chambre, Débats (12 February 1906), 1:847.
90 Hanotaux, Gabriel, L’énergie française (Paris, [1902]), 170–97Google Scholar.
91 Schwob, Maurice, La guerre commerciale — Avant la bataille (Paris, 1904), 281, 417–44Google Scholar. See also Hanotaux, , L’énergie, 197Google Scholar; Dubois, Marcel and Kergomard, J.-G., Précis de géographie économique (Paris, 1897), 65Google Scholar.
92 Hanotaux, L’énergie, 355-57; Pierre Leroy-Beaulieu, “Les relations économiques entre la France et l’Angleterre,” Revue des deux mondes (15 December 1903), 808; Noailles, Berlin, in MOC (15 February 1900), 234.
93 These qualities were similar to the ones emphasized by the theorists who developed the French military strategy of the offensive à outrance. See Possony, Stefan T. and Mantoux, Etienne in Earle, ed., Makers, 206–31Google Scholar.
94 On Delcassé, see Chastenet, , Histoire de la Troisième République, 3: La République triomphante, 1893-1906 (Paris, 1955), 154–59, 259–82Google Scholar. Delcassé’s own words may be found in parliamentary debates between 1900 and 1904. For specific references, see Liebowitz, “Strength,” 371-73.
95 Chastenet, République triomphante, 138.
96 Annales de la Chambre, Débats (26 March 1898), 1:1743; ibid. (23 January 1899), 1:134; ibid. (12 June 1902), 2:117-19; ibid. (23 November 1903), session extraordinaire: 644; ibid. (7 November 1904), session extraordinaire: 317; ibid. (11 December 1906), session extraordinaire: 959-60.
97 For example, Maurice Schwob, Le danger allemand (Paris, 1897), 2.
98 Edmond Théry, 1890-1900, histoire économique de l’Angleterre, de l’Allemagne, des Etats-Unis et de la France (Paris, 1902), 121.
99 Carroll, Public Opinion, 176, 179,185.
100Annales de la Chambre, Débats (10 March 1903), 1:1323-34. See also: ibid. (21 January 1902), 1:110; ibid. (11 March 1903), 1:1340, 1357; ibid. (23 November 1903), session extraordinaire: 653; ibid. (10 November 1904), session extraordinaire: 397-98.
101 Chastenet, , République triomphante, 281–87Google Scholar; Carroll, , Public Opinion, 210–12Google Scholar; Schuman, , War, 179–82; Annales de la Chambre, Débats (19 April 1905), 1: 1926–45Google Scholar.
102 Chastenet, , République triomphante, 289, 292, 302–06Google Scholar. See conciliatory statements by government leaders in Annales de la Chambre, Débats (10 July 1905), 2:1418-19; ibid. (16 December 1905), session extraordinaire: 1395-96; ibid. (12 April 1906), 1:2182-84; ibid. (6 December 1906), session extraordinaire: 733.
103 Paul-Dubois, Louis, “Les monopoles industriels aux Etats-Unis,” Revue des deux mondes (1 February 1897), 634–36; Théry, , 1890–1900, 308, 338–40; Schwob, , Guerre 324–29Google Scholar.
104 Chastenet, République triomphante, 156, 306. Delcassé made many friendly remarks about the United States, for example in Annales de la Chambre, Débats (11 March 1903), 1:1358.
105 Consul (Hong Kong) to Minister, 19 April 1904, Grande-Bretagne, Affaires commerciales, N.S., 38:fol. 46.
106 Annales de la Chambre, Débats (23 January 1899), 1:133.
107 Annales de la Chambre, Débats (28 January 1899), 1:132-34,136-39, 141,148-50.
108 Ibid. (10 March 1903), 1:1322, 1325; ibid. (11 March 1903), 1:1343-44, 1352, 1357; ibid. (30 June 1903), 2:662; ibid. (19 November 1903), session extraordinaire: 600-02.
109 Annales du Sénat, Débats (7 December 1904), session extraordinaire: 209-10. Opponents of the Entente in parliament were unhappy about specific provisions, not the basic policy.
110 Klotz to Foreign Minister, 20 August 1912, A.N., F30258. See also: Ministry to J. Cambon, 15 February 1910, Allemagne, Affaires commerciales, N.S., 77:fol. 73-98; Pingaud, Dusseldorf, 19 August 1911, ibid., 78:fol. 158-61; Coquet, “Le commerce franco-allemand en 1911,” Le commerce franco-allemand (15 May 1912) in ibid., 82:fol. 405; Ferrand, Berlin, to Minister, 6 June 1913, ibid., 79:fol. 49-51.
111 J. Cambon to Pichón, 12 December 1910, Allemagne, Industrie, N.S., 71:fol. 149.
112 See, for example, Secretary of the Union des Industries Métallurgiques et Minières to Pichón, 20May 1911, ibid., fol. 154-55.
113 Annales de la Chambre, Défais (22 November 1909), session extraordinaire: 701.
114 Capdeville, Frankfort, “Le marché financier de Francfort en 1906,” A.N., F30259; Ferrand, Berlin, 22 June 1912, “Note sur l’aide prêtée au marché de Berlin par les banques françaises,” A.N..F30259.
115 Georges Blondel, Les embarras de l’Allemagne, 6th ed. (Paris, 1913, 1st ed., 1912), vi, 26, 83-86, 90, 94-%, 100-05; Ajam, “La situation économique de l’Allemagne,” La France (4 October 1913) in Allemagne, Affaires commerciales, N.S., 82:fol. 133-34; Victor Bérard, La France et Guillaume II(Paris, 1907), 147-48, 151,159-62,167-74,279-80.
116 See Coquet, in Le commerce franco-allemand (July 1908), 1–8 in Allemagne, Affaires commerciales, N.S., 81; Annales de la Chambre, Débats (29 November 1908), session extraordinaire: 1199–1202; ibid. (18 January 1909), 1: 36–39Google Scholar.
117 Ziebura, Die deutsche Frage, 11. See also Eugen Weber, The Nationalist Revival in France, 1905-1914 (Berkeley, 1959), passim, esp. “Conclusion.” Though Weber does not mention economic factors as a cause of the “nationalist revival, “ he does stress French fears (8-9).
118 A few examples of rightist rhetoric may be found in Annales du Sénat, Débats (28 December 1909), 2:507-11, 517-18; ibid. (6 April 1911), 1:443-47, 454. For the center, see André Tardieu, “France et Allemagne (1906-09),” Revue des deux mondes (1 July 1909), 65-98; Stephen Pichón, Foreign Minister between 1906 and 1911, in Annales de la Chambre, Débats (7 June 1907), 2:409-10; ibid. (27 December 1909), session extraordinaire: 1883, and elsewhere.
119 See: Chastenet, Histoire de la Troisième République, A:Jours inquiets et jours sanglants, 1906-1918 (Paris, 1957), 45-124; A.J.P. Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848-1918 (Oxford, 1954), 465-73, 488-89, 500-01; Joseph Caillaux, Agadir: Ma politique extérieure (Paris, 1919), passim.
120 This is not the place to argue the old “war guilt question”; I would maintain that the French were less blameworthy than most others.