Talk:Franco-Russian Alliance/Archive 1

William II Wanted a Continued Treaty of Friendship with Russia.
William II did not want the treaty with Russia to lapse, negotiations failed and William II fired his foreign minister, in part, for his failure to renew the treaty. At the first opportunity, William II personally and successfully negotiated a new treaty with Russia, better and more extensive than the old and it was signed by the Nicholas II and William II at Bjorko. The article presently implies that William II did not want a treaty with Russia which is absolutely false. Werchovsky 16:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
I removed the following assertions which do not really stand up to rigorous intellectual scrutiny:

''The meat of the treaty was contained in Articles 2 and 3 and put Europe on a hair trigger for war. If any member of the Triple Alliance (Italy, Austria-Hungary, or Germany) started to mobilize its army, Russia and France were required to mobilize their armies and fight Germany. The specific language at it appears in the U.S. Congressional record of December 18, 1923 page 357 runs: "2.  In case the forces of the Triple Alliance, or of one of the powers which are a party to it, should be mobilized, France and Russia, at the first indication of the event, and without a previous agreement being necessary, shall mobilize all their forces immediately and simultaneously, and shall transport them as near to their frontiers as possible.  3. The available forces which must be employed against Germany shall be:  For France, 1,300,000 men; for Russia, from 700,000 to 800,000 men.  These forces shall begin complete action with the greatest dispatch, so that Germany will have to fight at the same time in the east and in the west." General de Boisdeffre and Alexander III agreed that "Mobilization is War." Under these terms, in 1914, when Austria-Hungary partially mobilized against Serbia in response to Serbian mobilization, Russia and France were required to mobilize all their forces and fight Germany.''


 * Mobilization is of minor importance when we talk about 1892. If you need to quote the entire treaty, you should apply to Wikiquote. The claim that Russia and France "put Europe on a hair trigger for war" is extremely biased. --Ghirla-трёп- 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

''When Russian Emperor Nicholas II abrogated the 1905 Bjorko Treaty with Germany his excuse was that Bjorko conflicted with his father's treaties. This was almost certainly a reference to the 1892 Franco-Russian Alliance.''


 * The Treaty of Björkö never came into effect, so it could not be "abrogated". --Ghirla-трёп- 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Article 7 of the treaty required all its terms to be kept secret, and so it is also sometimes called The Secret Treaty of 1892.


 * There is no evidence that this title is applied to the treaty in modern scholarly literature. --Ghirla-трёп- 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Terms & purpose of treaty
First, the article incorrectly said the treaty terms were that if Germany etc. *mobilized* then France and Russia would *attack*. The text of the treaty plainly contradicts that, so I've edited accordingly.

Second, the article says: "The main reason for France to enter the Franco-Russian alliance was to reconquer Alsace-Lorraine, which it had lost in the 1870 war with Germany. The main reason for Russia to enter the alliance was to occupy the Straits, and thereby have access to the Mediterranean. Both objectives could only be reached by a larger European war." Not only is there no citation for those claims, but the claims don't make much sense to me. The treaty kicked in only if France or Russia were *attacked.* Doubtless both countries hoped those goals would be met after a general war, but the treaty did not commit either state to *seeking* a general war. So the portion I've quoted should perhaps be either deleted or revised.

Thoughts? --Tbanderson (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead & removed the stuff criticized in my 2d graf above, and also corrected the weird assertion that this treaty was the first "aimed at another country," rewording and also citing to the Dual Alliance treaty between Germany and Austro-Hungary. I haven't seek Clark's "Sleepwalkers" yet, but I have a hard time believing he said anything so tendentiously wrong; if he did, perhaps the citation to his book should include a quote. --Tbanderson (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind, remembered the existence of Amazon.com ... a quote from Clark, who was indeed misinterpreted, is now included w/ the citation to p. 131. --Tbanderson (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Origin of the Alliance
It's extremely difficult to track down here in Wikipedia, but as best I can figure out, the treaty of alliance with Russia originated under the government of Premier Alexandre Ribot, and was negotiated with the Russians by General Raoul Le Mouton de Boisdeffre (whose page has only a one-sentence stub that doesn't mention either the alliance or his role in the Dreyfus Affair).

This alliance was one of the most important factors leading to World War I. As presently written, the History section is useful, but needs to have some further discussion as to how it came about, from both the French and the Russian perspectives, with some more detail beyond their mutual distrust of Germany. After 1812, inward-looking Russia was certainly no natural ally to France - which would explain the playing of the Marseillaise being a criminal offense. Following the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, what French government first looked to Russia as a potential ally, and decided in 1888 to finance the building up of Russia's military capacity? How did Franco-Russian relations evolve between 1871 and 1888?

The article on Georges Clemenceau says "... his hostility to the Russian alliance so increased his unpopularity that in the 1893 election, he was defeated for his Chamber seat, after having held it continuously since 1876." To what extent was the 1892 Russian alliance a "secret"? How was it so popular with voters? The article on Alexandre Ribot says "On the election of Félix Faure as president of the Republic in January 1895, Ribot again became premier and minister of finance. On 10 June he was able to make the first official announcement of a definite alliance with Russia."

I have to assume that while the specific terms of the alliance may have remained a secret, it must have been obvious after 1882 that at least some understanding with Russia had been reached. But by itself this still doesn't explain its popularity with voters.

It seems to me that at least some further discussion of the origin of the alliance is called for, even if only to mention Ribot and de Boisdeffre. There's a useful discussion of de Boisdeffre on the French Wikipedia that I've copied to his Talk page here, but I can only make out the most basic gist of the French. And other than his announcing the alliance in 1895, I still don't know exactly what Ribot had to do with engaging the Russians in talks, or if they were first initiated under some other government.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Ribot, which I can't read:"Il donna aussi une direction nouvelle et très importante à la politique française par l'entente avec la Russie, annoncée au monde en 1891 par la visite de la flotte française à Cronstadt – nom qui fut donné alors à des rues ou quais français – et qui par la suite se concrétisa dans un traité formel d'alliance franco-russe."Then there's this: French Wikipedia, in their article on the alliance, mentions president Sadi Carnot, but not Ribot: "Alexandre III dépêcha son ministre Nicolas de Giers auprès du président de la république française Sadi Carnot en vue de négociations." To the contrary, our page on Sadi Carnot says only "He was in favour of the Franco-Russian Alliance..." I don't know how the Third Republic worked, but I'm under the impression that the premier rather than the president determined policy and foreign relations, with the approval of the president (who might otherwise dismiss the government); however, this was apparently subject to political struggle during this era between Monarchists, Republicans, and other factions.

Some help and clarification is needed here. When were talks with Russia first proposed, and what government authorized de Boisdeffre's negotiations? We know that Alexander spoke for Russia, (as Wilhelm spoke for Germany) - but who spoke for France? Was a policy of pursuing alliance maintained throughout the upheavals of the Third Republic? Milkunderwood (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Bolshevism
I don't understand how this article could leave out so great a detail as the takeover of the Bolsheviks in Russia. Are the editors saying that it had no impact on the alliance?128.146.122.57 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)