Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:25:02.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The French Colonial Party and French Colonial War Aims, 1914–1918*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

C. M. Andrew  and
A. S. Kanya-Forstner
C. M. Andrew
Affiliation:
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge
A. S. Kanya-Forstner
Affiliation:
York University, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For the first two years of the war the French government drew up no programme of its war aims. When the cabinet began to consider its aims in Europe during the summer of 1916, it still avoided serious discussion of war aims overseas. Faced with the overwhelming preoccupations of the Western Front, the government paid little heed to the future of the Empire. Such war aims as France possessed outside Europe by the time of the armistice were arrived at in two ways: first, by ad hoc agreenebts with her allies in the Middle East and in West Africa, agreements forced on the government by the course of the war; secondly, by a commission d'étude established in 1918 to prepare for the peace conference, a commission from which ministers were excluded. The colonial war aims that emerged in these two separate ways were the product not of the French cabinet but of the parti colonial and its sympathizers within the foreign and colonial ministries.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 1974 , pp. 79 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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 Renouvin, P., ‘Les buts de guerre du gouvernement francos ’, Revue Historique, vol. ccxxxv (1966). Professor Renouvin does not discuss colonial war aims.Google Scholar

2 The Comité de I'Afrique Française declared soon after the outbreak of war: ‘Nous devons songer dés maintenant aux solutions coloniales de la guerre; aux réparations territoriales qui la couronneront; au Maroc enfin libéré de ses hypothéques ètrangeres; á la modification de certains accords diplomatiques …’ L'Afrique Française, Aug.–Dec. 1914.

3 L'Asie Française, Jan.–Mar. 1915.

4 L'Asie Française, July–Dec. 1914.

5 Correspondance d'Orient, 1 10. 1908, 1–1507 1914. The ‘Syrian party’ was an informal group rather than a formal organization. During the war years, however, its base became the section musulmane (presided over by Flandin) of rhe Comité d'action parlementaire à l'étranger.Google Scholar

6 du Jonchy, Colonel to Foch, , 4 Nov. 1914, IF Terrier MSS 6016.Google Scholar

7 The phrase is that of Crewe, Lord in a minute of 27 April 1916, FO 371/2674.Google Scholar

8 Doumergue, to Delcassé, , 9 July 1915, ANSOM 85 Affaires Politiques.Google Scholar

9 Du Jonchy, to Foch, , 4 Nov. 1914Google Scholar, IF Terrier MSS 6016; Husson, , Note, 18 Nov. 1914Google Scholar, AE A Guerre 867; Husson, to du Jonchy, , 29 Nov. 1914, IF Terrier MSS 6016.Google Scholar

10 Rozet, to Delcasse, , 17 Nov. 1915, AE A Guerre 867Google Scholar; Terrier, to Lyautey, , 13 Jan. 1915, IF Terrier MSS 5903: ‘M. Etienne a démoli vigoureusement le projet dont il a montré les difficultés’.Google Scholar

11 Note pour le ministre, 30 Dec. 1914, AE A Guerre 867.

12 Millerand, to Delcassé, 3 Jan. 1915Google Scholar; Delcassé, to Cambon, Paul, 8 Jan. 1915Google Scholar, AE A Guerre 867. Though still a supporter of African expansion, Delcassé had no interest in Asia. ‘Syria’, he told the British Ambassador, ‘is of no value’. When asked ‘why then it was desired’, Delcassé replied that ‘it was a matter of sentiment’. Bertie, of Thame, , The Diary of Lord Bertie of Thome 1914–1918 (London, 1924), vol. 1, p. 120.Google Scholar

13 Cassar, G. H., The French and the Dardanelles (London, 1971), pp. 51–60. We are not convinced by Professor Cassar's suggestion that Augagneur was bowled over by Churchill's enthusiasm for the Dardanelles campaign, and falsely professed pessimism about its outcome only to insure himself against the possibility of failure. Augagneur had been a prominent colonialist in the pre-war Chamber of Deputies. In 1913 he was elected president of the Cotnité d'action républicaine aux colonies; a year later, on becoming minister of marine, he became honorary president. His career suffered even more than Churchill's from the failure of the Gallipoli campaign.Google Scholar

14 Ferry, Abel, Les carnets secrets d'Abel Ferry 1914–1918 (Paris, 1957), p. 573Google Scholar; Cassar, , op. cit. p. 62.Google Scholar

15 Poincaré, to Paleologue, (copy), 9 Mar. 1915Google Scholar; Paleologue, to Poincare, (copy), 16 Apr. 1915, IF Pichon MSS 4397. Unlike Delcassé, Augagneur had at least informed the president and prime minister (though not the minister of warl).Google Scholar

16 Ribot, A., Lettres à un ami Souvenirs de ma vie politique (Paris, 1924), p. 130Google Scholar; Anderson, M. S., The Eastern Question 1774–1923 (London, 1966), p. 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 L'Asie Francaise, Jan.–Mar., Apr.–July 1915.

18 Resolution of Comité de l'Asie Française, Aug. 1915 (recalling earlier resolution of 18 Feb. 1915), AE A Guerre 870.

19 Flandin, E., ‘Nos droits en Syrie et en Palestine’, Revue Hebdomadaire, 5 06 1915.Google Scholar

20 Minutes of Commission des Affaires Extérieures, 20 Aug. 1915, AN C 7490. Cf. minutes for 17 Feb. 1915, ibid.

21 Resolution by Lyon, chamber of commerce, 7 June 1915, L'Asie Française, Apr.–July 1915.Google Scholar

22 Resolutions by Lyon and Marseille chambers of commerce, ibid.; resolution by St Etienne, chamber of commerce, 19 Aug. 1915, AE A Guerre 870.Google Scholar

23 The names of subscribers to the Comité de l'Asie Française were printed in each issue of L'Asie Française. Most, but probably not all, subscribers in the diplomatic and consular services were identified as such in the subscription lists.

24 Other members of the Comité de l'Asie Française in the Quai d'Orsay included Philippe Berthelot, later Briand's chef de cabinet, and Bruno de Margerie, the directeur politique. During the Sykes-Picot negotiations Briand was thus surrounded by asiatiques.

25 Georges-Picot, F., ’Les origines de la declaration Balfour’, La Question d'Israël, 1939, p. 677.Google Scholar

26 Grey, of Fallodon, , Twenty Five Years 1892–1916 (London, 1925), II, 230Google Scholar; Georges-Picot, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

27 Minute by Clerk, G. M. on MacMahon, to Grey, , 11 12. 1915, FO 371/2486. Cambon subscribed 50 francs a year, instead of the usual 12, to the Comité de l'Asie Française.Google Scholar

28 Cambon, to Viviani, , 21 Oct. 1915, AE A Paix 128.Google Scholar

29 L'Asie Française, Aug.–Dec. 1915.

30 Briand, to Picot, (and draft by Picot), 1 Nov. 1915, AE A Paix 128.Google Scholar

31 Picot, to de Margerie, , 2 Dec. 1915, AE A Paix 129.Google Scholar

32 Cambon, to Briand, , 22 Dec. 1915Google Scholar, ibid.

33 Picot, to Cambon, , 3 Jan. 1916Google Scholar, ibid.

34 A memorandum signed by Picot, and Sykes, on 5 Jan. 1916Google Scholar declared, inter alia, that ‘a strong public opinion has grown up in France favourable to French expansion in Syria and Palestine’ and that ‘on the hypothesis that there were no other circumstances to be considered, the French Government might be expected to desire commercial and political predominance in an area bounded on the south by a line drawn from El Arish to Kasr-i-Shirin …’ (i.e. as far as the Egyptian border): FO 371/2767. Picot tried, unsuccessfully, to have this memorandum included as a preamble to his agreement with Sykes: Cambon, to Briand, , 5 Feb. 1916, AE A Paix 129.Google Scholar

36 Sykes, , ‘Arabian Report’, New Series, no. XIV, 15 10. 1916, CAB 17/177.Google Scholar

37 Briand, to Cambon, (copy), 5 Jan. 1916, AE A Paix 129.Google Scholar

38 Poincaré, R., Au service de la France. Neuf annies de souvenirs, VIII (Paris, 1931), 8–9.Google Scholar The inaccurate summary of the agreement in Poincaré's journal provides further evidence of Briand's imprécision. The president claimed that he had been refused access to the Quai d'Orsay files on the Sykes-Picot negotiations.

39 Minutes of Commission des Affaires Extirieures, 10 Nov., 15 Nov. 1915, AN C7490.

40 Clerk, G. M., Minutes of meeting with Picot ‘to consider the Arab question', 23 Nov. 1915, FO 371/2486.Google Scholar Cf. Cambon, to Briand, , 26 Nov. 1915, AE A Paix 129.Google Scholar

41 Briand, to Cambon, (drafted by Berthelot), 14 Nov. 1915, AE A Guerre 871.Google Scholar

42 Duchêne, A., ‘Rapport sur les accords interallied conclus pendant la guerre pour les colonies’. 20 Feb. 1918, AE A Paix 186Google Scholar; Terrier, to Lyautey, , 1 June 1916, IF Terrier MSS 5903. Togo (oneninth the size of the Cameroons) had been captured by British and French forces in the first month of the war. The local commanders had agreed to a provisional administrative partition, later ratified by their governments, giving the French the larger share.Google Scholar

43 Nicolson, to Grey, , 19 Feb. 1916; memorandum by Oliphant, 23 Feb. 1916, FO 371/2597.Google Scholar

44 War Committee minutes, 22 Feb. 1916, CAB 42/9. Grey had not considered the possibility of colonialist agitation over East Africa until it was raised by Picot. Asked by Asquith ‘when the French had put forward any claim for a share in East Africa’, he replied ‘the other day’.

46 SirOliphant, L., An Ambassador in Bonds (London, 1947), pp. 34–5Google Scholar, cited by Rothwell, V. H., British War Aims and Peace Diplomacy, 1914–1918 (Oxford, 1971), pp. 11–12Google Scholar; memorandum by Oliphant, , 23 Feb. 1916, FO 371/2597.Google Scholar

46 Grey, to Bertie, , 24 Feb. 1916, FO 371/2597.Google Scholar

47 Minutes of Sous-commission Afrique, 14 June 1916, SG colis 9. Terrier believed, reasonably enough, that ‘l'impression produite en Angleterre par la defense francaise a Verdun’ had helped the French obtain the terms they wanted. For a detailed account of the Cameroons negotiations, see FO 371/2859.

48 L'Afrique Française, May 1915.

49 Hulot, to Terrier, , 14 Feb. 1916, IF Terrier MSS 5901. The Société de Géographie was the oldest, the most learned, and the most internationally respected of the societies associated with French expansion. It was also the only society with a building and large library of its own.Google Scholar

50 The members of the sous-commissions are listed in SG colis 9; the minutes are in colis 9, 16, 24. For further details of the sous-commissions, see P. Grupp, ‘Deux tentatives de coordination du “parti colonial” français en vue d'un programme commun pendant la Premiére Guerre Mondiale‘ (forthcoming in Cahiers d'Etudes Africaines).

51 Minutes of sous-commission Afrique, 18 Feb. 1916, SG colis 9.

52 Minutes of sous-commission Afrique, 14 June 1916, SG colis 9.

53 Ibid. (emphasis in the original).

54 Terrier, to Rober-Raynaud, , 28 Apr. 1915Google Scholar, IF Terrier MSS 5907; Rober-Raynaud, ‘Note sur Tanger ' (‘reçue le 30 avril 1915’); Rober-Raynaud, , memorandum for Lyautey, Dec. 1915Google Scholar, IF Terrier MSS 5986. A copy of ‘La Question de Tanger’, intended as the leading article for the April 1915 edition of L'Afrique Française but censored in its entirety, is to be found ibid.

55 Terrier, to Lyautey, , 28 Apr., 6 May 1915, IF Terrier MSS 5903.Google Scholar

56 The rumours had some foundation. In 1915–16 Lyautey did consider the possible cession of Tangier to Spain in return for part of the Spanish zone of Morocco. Lyautey to Briand, ‘La question de Tanger’, 14 Feb. 1916, IF Terrier MSS 5960; speech by Lyautey, to Comité France-Tanker, 9 Feb. 1923, IF Terrier MSS 5987.Google Scholar

57 Minutes of sous-commission Asie-Océanie, 23 Feb., 8 Mar. 1916, SG colis 9, 16.

58 De Caix, to Cordier, , 15 Mar. 1916, IF Cordier MSS 5446.Google Scholar

59 ‘Report by Albina, M.’, 10 Mar. 1916, FO 371/2767Google Scholar; Poincare, , op. cit., VIII, p. 203.Google Scholar

60 Minutes of sous-commission Asie-Afrique, 28 June 1916, SG colis 16; resolution of souscommission, 30 June 1916, SG colis 24.

61 Hulot, to Bonaparte, Prince Roland (draft), 23 July 1916Google Scholar; Senart, ro Hulot, , 27 July 1916, SGGoogle Scholar colis 16.

62 Fidel, to Hulot, , 10 Oct. 1916, SG colis 16Google Scholar; Doumergue, to Briand, , 23 Dec. 1916Google Scholar; Barrere, to Briand, , 23 Jan. 1917, AE A Guerre 1505.Google Scholar

63 Fidel, to Hulot, , 16 Mar., 12 Apr. 1917, SG colis 24.Google Scholar

64 Minutes of sous-commission Asie-Afrique, réunion plénière, 30 Mar. 1917, SG colis 24.

65 Drogheda, , ‘Notes on Gibraltar and Ceuta’, 25 Apr. 1917, CAB 24/11.Google Scholar

66 Briand, to Barrere, (drafted by Berthelot), 9 Jan. 1917, AE A Guerre 1505.Google Scholar

67 Ribot, A., Journal d'Alexandre Ribot (Paris, 1936), p. 72nGoogle Scholar

68 Marin, to Hulot, , 5 May 1917Google Scholar; minutes of Groupe d'études constitué à la Société de Géographie pour l'examen des questions relatives au réglement de la paix, 11 May 1917; minutes of delegation's meeting with Ribot, 23 May 1917, SG colis 24. The delegation which saw Ribot was much larger than that originally chosen on 30 Mar. and included representatives of most of the major colonialist organizations.

69 La Dépêche Coloniale, 29 June 1917. In Aug. Bourdarie wrote to de Peretti, head of the African department at the Quai d'Orsay, asking for ‘une couverture contre les sévérités si souvent inexplicables de la censure’. Bourdarie, to de Peretti, , n Aug. 1917, AE A Guerre 1506.Google Scholar

70 Etienne, , draft letter to presidents of colonialist societies [May 1917]Google Scholar, Terrier MSS 5911; Etienne, to Bonaparte, Prince Roland, 31 May 1917Google Scholar; Etienne, to Lebon, , 9 Dec. 1917 (explaining why the congress had not yet met), IF Terrier MSS 5911. Terrier had suggested such a congress in 1916 and described Etienne as ‘le chef tout indique du mouvement’. Minutes of sous-commission Afrique, 14 June 1916, SG colis 9.Google Scholar

71 Renouvin, , op. cit., pp. 28–30.Google Scholar

72 Wilson, T. (ed.), The Political Diaries of C. P. Scott 1911–1928 (London, 1970), p. 255.Google Scholar

73 Sykes, (Paris) to Foreign Office (telegram), 6 Apr. 1917Google Scholar, quoted in Stein, L., The Balfour Declaration (London, 1961), p. 388Google Scholar. Poincare, , op. cit., vol. ix (1932), p. 109.Google Scholar

74 Ganem, to Ribot, , 8 May 1917, AE A Guerre 877Google Scholar; Ganem, to Painlevé, , 15 July 1917, Service Historique de I'Armee de Terre, Clemenceau MSS 6 N 197Google Scholar; speeches by Ganem, on 23 Dec. 1917Google Scholar, by Samné, and Flandin, on 16 Mar. 1918, Correspondance d'Orient, 25 Jan., 25 Mar. 1918.Google Scholar

75 Samné, , ‘Note remise à Ribot, M. …’, 23 May 1917, SG colis 24.Google Scholar

76 ‘Note Goût, de M.’, 12 Oct. 1918, AE Levant 1918–29; Syrie-Liban 2.Google Scholar

77 L'Asie Franfaise, Apr.–June 1917.

78 Goût, , memorandum for de Margerie, 7 May 1917, AE A Guerre 1199.Google Scholar

79 Picot, to Ribot, , 5 May 1917Google Scholar; Cambon, Jules to Sokolov, , 4 June 1917Google Scholar, ibid. Cf. de Margerie, , memorandum, 22 May 1917, AE A Guerre 877.Google Scholar

80 Correspondence d'Orient, 10 Oct. 1917.

81 L'Asie Franfaise, May–Sept. 1918.

82 Pichon had been a founder member of the parliamentary groupe colonial in 1892, and joined the Comité de l'Asie Française in 1914; he was not, however, a particularly active member of either organization. Unlike Pichon, Simon was almost unknown in colonialist, and indeed government, circles when he entered Clemenceau's cabinet. He was, however, quickly converted to the colonialist cause and in 1924 became president of the groupe colonial in the Chamber. The new minister of marine, Georges Leygues, was a prominent colonialist. But he too had little influence on Clemenceau's colonial policy.

83 Cambon, Paul to Charmes, Xavier, 9 Oct. 1918Google Scholar: ‘Clemenceau ne s'intéresse nullemenr à 1‘Orient. “C'est de la litterature”, dit-il à mon frére. Comme il n'y a quc lui dans le Gouvernement nous nous préparons de gros ennuis et de grandes déceptions.‘ Cambon, P., Correspondance, III (Paris, 1946), 275.Google Scholar

84 The Commission de Documentation Coloniale was established in Oct. 1917, and prepared 34 reports. Most are to be found in ANSOM 96 and 1044 Affaires Politiques.

85 The full title of the commission, as established by decree of 6 Feb. 1918, was Commission chargée d'étudier les questions d'ordre territorial interessant les possessions françaises et susceptibles de se poser à I'issue de la guerre. Once convened, it adopted the less cumbersome title given in the text.

86 Minutes of Commission d'étude …, 11 Feb. 1918, ANSOM 97 Affaires Politiques.

87 There were seven really active members of the Commission: Doumergue, Etienne, Fournol, Goût, de Peretti (head of the African department at the foreign ministry), You (head of the African department at the colonial ministry until Nov. 1918), and Duchene (who succeeded You). Audibert and Tesseron of the colonial ministry, Admiral Chocheprat of the ministry of marine, and the representative of the war ministry (whose identity varied) also attended regularly but took little part in the discussions. The other members all attended less than half rhe meetings; after July 1918 at the latest they ceased to take virtually any part in the Commission's proceedings.

88 Amery, L., memorandum on discussions with Millet, 8 May 1917, CAB 27/51. Millet was a journalist on Le Temps and the son of René Millet, a leading member of the pre-war parti colonial.Google Scholar

89 Minutes of Commission d'itude, 25 Feb. 1918, ANSOM 97 Affaires Politiques. Because of de Caix's other commitments he was later replaced by Félicien Challaye, whose publications on Japan had attracted the attention of Doumergue and other members of the Commission.

90 Ibid.

91 Minutes of Commission d'étude, 18 Mar., 15 Apr., 29 Apr., 6 May 1918, ANSOM 97 Affaires Politiques. The industrialists' lack of interest in imperial acquisitions was in sharp contrast to their desire for the Saar and territory in rhe Rhineland (Renouvin, , op. cit., pp. 10, 27). Goût summed up the views of the colonialists on the commission after hearing the industrialists' evidence: ‘La premiére chose à faire, c'est de changer la mentalité de nos industriels’.Google Scholar

92 Only two chambers of commerce (those of Lyon and Rouen) accepted invitations to give evidence to the Commission d'étude. The Rouen president said that his chamber of commerce had ‘aucun désideratum spécial’. The representative of the ministry of commerce on the Commission also considered that ‘notre domaine colonial est suffisant’. At the end of the war, however, Etienne was able to obtain the endorsement of Rouen and several other chambers of commerce for some colonialist war aims. Minutes of Commission d'étude, 6 May, 27 May, 3 June 1918, ANSOM 97 Affaires Politiques; correspondence between Etienne and chambers of commerce in IF Terrier MSS 5911. There was rather greater commercial interest at the end of the war in schemes for the mise en valeur of France's existing empire; see our forthcoming article in this journal on the groupe colonial.

93 Minutes of Commission d'étude, 24 June, 1 July, 4 November 1918, ANSOM 97 Affaires Politiques.

94 Ibid.

95 Ibid.; Simon, to Pichon, , 5 Dec. 1918, ANSOM 1044 Affaires Politiques.Google Scholar

96 Hulot, to Cordier, , 4 Mar. 1918, IF Cordier MSS 5461.Google Scholar

97 Minutes of Groupement des sociétés de géographie et des sociétés coloniales, 9 Mar., 20 June 1918, IF Terrier MSS 5893, 5911. The Groupement executive consisted of Etienne, Bourdarie, de Caix, Chailley, Fidel, Froidevaux, Lorin, Mourey, Rober-Raynaud, Terrier, Trouillet and Well.

98 Rober-Raynaud's report on Tangier was presented to the Groupement on 20 June 1918. Four days later, it was read by Peretti to the Commission d'étude, commended by him, and briefly discussed by rhe Commission. Etienne forwarded it to Pichon on 4 Nov. on behalf of ‘les groupements coloniaux francais, inspires de soucis hautement patriotiques’. Minutes of Commission d'étude, 24 June 1918, ANSOM 97 Affaires Politiques; Etienne, to Pichon, (copy), 4 Nov. 1918, IF Terrier MSS 5911.Google Scholar

99 Doumergue's phrase: minutes of Commission d'étude, 17 June 1918, ANSOM 97 Affaires Politiques.

100 Simon, to Pichon, , no. 304, 17 Dec. 1918, ANSOM 1044 Affaires Politiques.Google Scholar

101 Gout, , Note pour la Presse, n.d., AE A Guerre 881; Correspondance d'Orient, 25 Dec. 1917.Google Scholar

102 L'Asie Française, Oct.–Dec. 1917. The Comiti resolution of 24 Dec. was not published because of the censorship. Since, however, L'Asie Française was simultaneously demanding the maintenance of the Sykes-Picot accord, there is little doubt that this demand was included in the resolution.

103 Journal Officiel. Debats Parlementaires (Chambre), 27 12. 1917.Google Scholar

104 Foch, to Pichon, , 24 Dec. 1917Google Scholar (referring to Pichon, to Clemenceau, , 12 Dec. 1917), AE A Guerre 881.Google Scholar

105 Minutes of Commission des Affaires Extérieures, 25 Sept. 1918, AN C 7491.

106 Minutes of Commission d'étude, 1 July 1918, ANSOM 97 Affaires Politiques.

107 Sykes, to Wingare, , 3 Mar. 1918Google Scholar; Sykes, to Clayton, , 3 Mar. 1918, Sykes MSS FO 800/221.Google Scholar

108 Sykes, , memorandum on talks with Picot, 3 July 1918, FO 371/3381.Google Scholar

109 Teleprinter conversation between Picot, and Sykes, [Sept. 1918], Sykes MSS FO 800/221.Google Scholar

110 Nevakivi, J., Britain, France, and the Arab Middle East 1914–1920 (London, 1969), p. 264.Google Scholar

111 L'Asie Française, May–Sept. 1918. Picot wrote to Sykes, on 6 Sept. 1918: ‘Le parti colonial est en éveil’. Sykes MSS FO 800/221.Google Scholar

112 Minutes of Commission des Affaires Extérieures, 25 Sept. 1918, AN C 7491; Senart, to Pichon, , 27 Oct. 1918Google Scholar (enclosing resolution by Comité de l'Asie Française of 17 Oct. 1918), AE Levant, 1918–29Google Scholar, Syrie-Liban, 3; Ganem to Pichon, 11 Ocr. 1918Google Scholar (enclosing resolution by Comite Central Syrien of 8 Oct. 1918), AE Levant 1918–29, Syrie-Liban 2; Barthou (president of Comité de l'Orient) to Goût, , 15 Oct. 1918 (and minute by Goût), AE Levant 1918–29, Syrie-Liban 3.Google Scholar

113 Artaud, (president of Marseille chamber of commerce) to Pichon, 19 Oct. 1918Google Scholar enclosing resolution of 15 Oct. 19183; Rector of Lyon University to Pichon, 24 Oct. 1918; Coignet (president of Lyon chamber of commerce) to Pichon, , 25 Oct. 1918Google Scholar, AE Levant 1918–29, Syrie-Liban 3; Correspondance d'Orient, 25 Nov. 1918; Chevallier, D., ‘Lyon et la Syrie en 1919’, Revue Historique ccxxiv (1960), 306–8.Google Scholar

114 Pichard, (president of Saumur chamber of commerce) to Pichon, , 21 Nov. 1918Google Scholar (enclosing resolution by Réunion des Présidents des Chambres de Commerce of 28 Oct. 1918), AE Levant, 1918–29, Syrie-Liban 5.Google Scholar

115 Artaud, to Pichon, , 7 Dec. 1918Google Scholar, AE Levanr 1918–29, Syrie-Liban 5; Correspondance d'Orient, 10 Dec, 25 Dec. 1918, 30 Jan. 1919. The proceedings of the Congress were published by the Marseille chamber of commerce under the title Congrés Français de la Syrie (4 vols., Marseille, 1919).Google Scholar

116 Pichon, to Cambon, , 21 Sept. 1918, AE Levant 1918–29, Syrie-Liban 2.Google Scholar

117 Pichon, to Artaud, , 22 Oct. 1918, AE Levant 1918–29, Syrie-Liban 3. The original draft reply was a simple accusé de réceptionGoogle Scholar

118 Minutes of Commission des Affaires Extérieures, 4 Oct., 17 Oct. 1918, AN C 7491. The main initiative for the landing probably belonged to the minister of marine, Georges Leygues, also a leading member of the Syrian party, who continued as minister to show himself a determined defender of French interests against the British in the Eastern Mediterranean.

119 Artaud, to Pichon, , 7 Dec. 1918Google Scholar; Pichon, to Artaud, , 13 Dec. 1918, AE Levant 1918–29, Syrie- Liban 5, 6.Google Scholar

120 Cambon, to Pichon, , 30 Sept. 1918Google Scholar (enclosing text of Anglo-French agreement), AE Levant 1918–29, Syrie-Liban 2; Nevakivi, , op. cit., pp. 74–6.Google Scholar

121 Memorandum by Cecil, , 8 Oct. 1918, AE Levant 1918–29, Syrie-Liban 2.Google Scholar

122 pichon, to Cambon, , 17 Oct. 1918Google Scholar, AE Levant 1918–29, Syrie-Liban 3. The original draft prepared by the Asian Department was much stronger but was toned down at Pichon's insistence. See Pichon, to Cambon, (draft), 15 Oct. 1918, AE Levant 1918–29, Syrie-Liban 2.Google Scholar

123 George, D. Lloyd, The War Memoirs (London, 1936), vi, 3309.Google Scholar

124 L'Asie Française, May–Sept. 1918.

125 Memorandum, 7 Nov. 1918 (presented by Cambon to Foreign Office on 18 Nov.), AE Levant 1918–29, Syrie-Liban 4; Journal Officiel. Dcbats Varlementaires (Chambre), 29 12. 1918.Google Scholar

126 ‘Note sur la Syrie’, enclosed in Pichon, to Cambon, , 30 Nov. 1918, AE Levant 1918–29, Syrie-Liban 5.Google Scholar

127 Two very different interpretations of the agreement exist. According to the official British position, and Lloyd George's memoirs, Clemenceau unconditionally accepted Lloyd George's demand for Mosul and Palestine; but this interpretation was sharply challenged by Clemenceau himself during the meetings of the Council of Four in May 1919. According to the French, the cession was conditional on unqualified British support for French claims to the rest of Syria as defined by the Sykes-Picot agreement and a guaranteed share to France of the produce of the Mosul oilfields. Still later, Tardieu, one of Clemenceau's closest associates, also claimed that the British pledged support of the French position on the future of the left bank of the Rhine against any possible American objections. Neither the Clemenceau nor the Pichon papers so far available contain any specific reference to the agreement. The scanty evidence in the Quai d'Orsay files does, however, tend to support the French position, as well as demonstrate the misunderstandings likely to arise from the Clemenceau-Lloyd George form of personal diplomacy. An undated brouillon claims that the British were prepared to give way over Armenia, to leave France ‘la Cicilie, la Syrie et l'empire arabe’, and to place Palestine under American control! A Note du Ministre in the same file, dated 22 Dec. 1918 and initialled by Berthelot, states: ‘M. Clemenceau dit que si l'on voulait en prendre acte on risquerait d'obtenir un desaveu du gouvernment anglais par crainte des “asiatiques”, mais que Mr Lloyd George a pris, vis a vis du President du Conseil francais, la responsabilite directe de ces declarations verbales et que M. Clemenceau en fera usage Ie moment venu’. The reference to British asiatiques makes it clear that the concessions Clemenceau thought he had obtained were in the Middle East. AE Levant 1918–29, Syrie-Liban 6.

128 Andrew, C. M. and Kanya-Forstner, A. S., ‘The French “Colonial Party”: its Composition, Aims and Influence, 1885’1914’, The Historical Journal, xiv (1971), I, 126–7.Google Scholar

129 Duchêne and de Peretti, the heads of the African departments at the colonial and foreign ministries, were elected members of the Comité de l'Afrique Française soon after the end of the war. (No new members were admitted during the war itself.) The Asian department at the foreign ministry was, of course, already well stocked with members of the Comité de l'Asie Française.

130 When it was suggested at a meeting of the Council of Four during the Peace Conference that France might abandon her claims to Syria, Clemenceau retorted: ‘Croyez-vous qu'il n'y ait pas en France aussi une opinion publique? … Je suis le moins colonialiste de tous les Français … [mais] si cette décision était prise … je quitferais le gouvernement … Vous ne pouvez pas faire disparaître en un instant tout les résultats du passé, des traditions et des intérêts accumules pendant des siédes; craignez la réaction que cela pourrait produire dans l'esprit français.’ Minutes of the Council of Four, 21 May 1919, quoted in Mantoux, P., Les délibérations du Conseil des Quatre 24 mars–28 juin 1919 (Paris, 1955). II, 139.Google Scholar

131 Ferry, to Waddington, , 26 June 1884, AE Waddington MSS 4.Google Scholar

132 Picot to Sykes, , 11 Sept. 1918, Sykes MSS FO 800/221.Google Scholar