Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

as to blame the Belgians for their resistance. We find in Germany many indications of a widely prevailing idea that the Belgians merit the severity of their suffering because of the futility of their resistance. They make somewhat the same distinction that we should make between one who should unfortunately, through no fault of his own, meet with a mishap, and another who deliberately sets himself in front of an advancing, irresistible force. Here again they leave out of account the obligations which Belgium had assumed to maintain her inviolability. Once we admit the validity of these obligations, there can be no reasonable ground for declaring that the Belgians were at fault because they did not weigh the consequences. Quite the contrary: their preeminent glory depends upon this very fact, and makes every sincere admirer and lover of Germany hang his head for shame at this sad page of her history.

10. Germany accuses England of misrepresentations in regard to Belgium

In Germany and in England also the British Government have been attacked because they gave as the reason for England's intervention Germany's invasion of Belgium.

The British Government have never, so far as I have noted, made the statement that England entered the war solely to defend Belgium and to make good the guaranty under the Treaty of April 19, 1839. In many instances, however, this reason has been emphasized while the others have been slighted. This is nothing more than the ordinary procedure of every government in time of war. An attempt is made to present its action in such a way as to move the country to come to its support.1 The mass of men cannot

1 "That Great Britain had other grounds for declaring war is not disputed. They are indicated in the correspondence published by the British Government (cf. British Blue Book, especially nos. 89, 101, 111), and they were frankly stated and put first by Sir Edward Grey in his speech in the House of Commons, August 3. (Ibid., pp. 89-96.) If among its various grounds for declaring war, the British Government finally selected that which was formally the best and which would appeal most strongly to pub

grasp complicated details; consequently, every government presents for popular consumption only one or two main ideas. No doubt England's chief reasons for going into the war were, first, to protect her vital interests, and, second, her good name in observing her treaty obligations. Germany's invasion of Belgium would, however, have stirred all England irrespective of vital interests and treaty obligations, as it has stirred, the world over, every lover of justice who was not already a German partisan.

It is much to the credit of the British people that they are moved by the disregard of Belgium's rights rather than by their more immediate selfish interests. Any one who will read the British White Paper will find that England does not conceal the fact that Belgian neutrality was for her a vital question. One vital question may be enough to justify a war of defense.1 That England has other reasons lic sentiment in Great Britain and in other countries, it is not chargeable with insincerity or with hypocrisy. Any other course would have been unintelligent. As far as the appeal to public sentiment is concerned, Austria and Germany acted in the same way; the former in the stress it laid upon the crime of Serajevo, the latter in charging the Russian Emperor with 'perfidy' because his armies were mobilizing while the German Emperor was conducting direct personal negotiations with him. (This was the casus belli emphasized in all the German newspapers in the early days of August.)" (Munroe Smith, "Military Strategy versus Diplomacy," Political Science Quarterly, vol. xxx, [1915], no. 1, p. 58.)

1 "When we read the official and unofficial explanations of Great Britain's intervention which have been advanced on the part of Germany since the outbreak of the war, and which aim to show that Great Britain had quite other reasons for intervening than Germany's breach of Belgian neutrality, our perplexity increases. When, for example, we are reminded that for centuries it has been Great Britain's policy to promote and support Continental coalitions against any Continental state which threatened to obtain a dominating position, especially if such a state was developing sea power, we wonder why this fact was not taken into account by the German Government before the outbreak of the present war. And when we are told that to Great Britain itself to take the German Chancellor's most recent explanation of his famous phrase - the Treaty of 1839 was only 'a scrap of paper,' we wonder why, in a country justly renowned for the promotion of historical research, it should be forgotten that the neutralizing of Belgium in 1839, like the creation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815, was chiefly promoted by Great Britain, for the quite intelligible purpose of preventing this part of the European coast line from being used as a base for

[ocr errors]

is no ground for accusing her of hypocrisy in proclaiming loudest the one that stirs her deepest, or the one that she thinks best calculated to awaken neutral sympathy. Many of the German defenders make the mistake of confusing the question of the violation of Belgian neutrality and the guilt attaching to it with the cause for England's joining in the war. They are two entirely distinct questions. 1

In his speech before the Reichstag on December 2, the German Chancellor, Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg said: "The Belgian neutrality, which England pretended she was bound to shield, is but a mask. On the 2d of August, 7 P.M., we informed Brussels that France's plan of campaign was known to us and that it compelled us, for rea

military operations against its own territory." (Munroe Smith, "Military Strategy versus Diplomacy," Political Science Quarterly, vol. xxx [1915], pp. 74-75.)

1 Mr. Jacob H. Schiff in a published interview makes the distinction: "I am not defending the violation of Belgian neutrality. This, undeniably was a most unjustifiable action, in spite of German claims that she was forced into it by the necessities of the situation. But I am explaining that, even had it not occurred, still England would have gone to war. "That was the situation.

"Germany is now fighting for her very existence and I, who am not without knowledge of German conditions, am convinced that never has there been a war more wholly that of a whole people than is this present conflict, as far as Germany is concerned." (New York Times, November 22, 1914. Interview with Jacob H. Schiff.)

The former Ambassador of Austria to the United States, Baron L. Hengelmuller, writes in a letter to Colonel Roosevelt, published in the New York Times of November 8, 1914:

[ocr errors]

"But why has England plunged into this war? Officially and to the world at large she has explained her resolution by Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality, and in the royal message to Parliament it was solemnly declared that England could not stand by and passively tolerate such a breach of international obligations.

"No Austrian can read this declaration otherwise than with a mournful smile. Its futility has been exposed by the question which Englishmen of standing and renown have put to their Government, viz., whether they would equally have declared war on France if that violation of neutrality had first come from her side. In face of this question having remained unanswered, and in face of what has come to light since about French preparations in Belgium, there is no need to expatiate on this subject."

This extract illustrates the confusion referred to above.

sons of self-preservation, to march through Belgium; but as early as the afternoon of the same day, August 2, that is to say, before anything was known and could be known of this step, the British Government promised unconditional aid to France in case the German navy attacked the French coast line. Not a word was said of Belgian neutrality. This fact is established by the declaration made by Sir Edward Grey in the House of Commons on the 3d of August. The declaration was communicated to me on August 4, but not in full, because of the difficulties experienced at that time in the transmission of telegrams. Besides, the very Blue Book issued by the British Government confirms that fact. How, then, can England allege that she drew the sword because we violated Belgian neutrality? How could British statesmen, who accurately knew the past, talk at all of Belgian neutrality? When on the 4th of August I referred to the wrong which we were doing in marching through Belgium, it was not yet known for certain whether the Brussels Government in the hour of need would not decide after all to spare the country and to retire to Antwerp under protest. You remember that, after the occupation of Liège, at the request of our army leaders, I repeated the offer to the Belgian Government. For military reasons it was absolutely imperative that at the time, about the 4th of August, the possibility for such a development was being kept open. Even then the guilt of the Belgian Government was apparent from many a sign, although I had not yet any positive documentary proofs at my disposal. But the English statesmen were perfectly familiar with these proofs. The documents which in the meantime have been found in Brussels, and which have been given publicity by me, prove and establish in what way and to what degree Belgium has surrendered her neutrality to England. The whole world is now acquainted with two outstanding facts: (1) In the night from the 3d to the 4th of August, when our troops entered Belgian terri

tory, they were not on neutral soil, but on the soil of a state that had long abandoned its neutrality. (2) England has declared war on us, not for the sake of Belgian neutrality, which she herself had helped to undermine, but because she believed that she could overcome and master us with the help of two great military powers on the Continent." 1

11. Germany's plea of necessity

The German Chancellor in his speech in the Reichstag, August 4, said:

"Gentlemen, we are now acting in self-defense. Necessity knows no law. Our troops have occupied Luxemburg and have possibly already entered on Belgian soil.

"Gentlemen, that is a breach of international law. "The French Government has notified Brussels that it would respect Belgian neutrality as long as the adversary respected it. But we know that France stood ready for an invasion. France could wait, we could not. A French invasion on our flank and the lower Rhine might have been disastrous. Thus we were forced to ignore the rightful protests of the Governments of Luxemburg and Belgium. The injustice - I speak openly the injustice we thereby commit we will try to make good as soon as our military aims have been attained. He who is menaced as we are and is fighting for his All, can only consider the one and best way to strike." 2

1 [Extract.] - Translation from Pamphlet no. 86 of the American Association for International Conciliation.

2 This translation is taken from Pamphlet no. 84, p. 7 of the American Association for International Conciliation. The London Times of August 11, 1914, gave the following translation: "Gentlemen, we are now in a state of necessity, and necessity knows no law! Our troops have occupied Luxemburg, and perhaps [as a matter of fact the speaker knew that Belgium had been invaded that morning] are already on Belgian soil. Gentlemen, that is contrary to the dictates of international law. It is true that the French Government has declared at Brussels that France is willing to respect the neutrality of Belgium as long as her opponent respects it. We knew, however, that France stood ready for the invasion. France could wait, but we could not wait. A French movement upon our flank upon the lower Rhine

« AnteriorContinuar »