New York Times Current History: The European War from the Beginning to March 1915, Vol 1, No. 2: Who Began the War, and Why?Various
History
New York Times Current History: The European War from the Beginning to March 1915, Vol 1, No. 2: Who Began the War, and Why?
Various
World War, 1914-1918
The die is cast. The great European struggle which the nations have so
long struggled to avert has begun. Germany declared war upon Russia on
Saturday evening, and yesterday her troops entered Luxemburg and crossed
the French frontier in Lorraine without any declaration at all. It is
idle to dwell upon events such as these. They speak for themselves in a
fashion which all can understand. They mean that Europe is to be the
scene of the most terrible war that she has witnessed since the fall of
the Roman Empire. The losses in human life and in the accumulated wealth
of generations which such a contest must involve are frightful to think
on. That it should have come about despite the zealous efforts of
diplomacy, and against the wishes of almost all the nations whom it is
destined to afflict, is a grim satire upon the professions of peace yet
fresh upon the lips of those who have plunged the Continent into its
miseries and its calamities. The blame must fall mainly upon Germany.
She could have stayed the plague had she chosen to speak in Vienna as
she speaks when she is in earnest. She has not chosen to do so. She has
preferred to make demands in St. Petersburg and in Paris which no
Government could entertain, and to defeat by irrevocable acts the last
efforts of this country and of others for mediation. She has lived up to
the worst principles of the Frederician tradition--the tradition which
disregards all obligations of right and wrong at the bidding of
immediate self-interest. She believes that her admirable military
organization has enabled her to steal a march upon her rivals. She has
been mobilizing in all but name, while their mobilization has been
retarded by the "conversations" she continued until her moment had come.
Then she flung the mask aside. While her Ambassador was still in Paris,
while by the customs traditional with all civilized peoples she was
still at peace with France, she has sent her soldiers into Luxemburg,
and invaded the territory of the republic. It is hard to say which of
these acts is the grosser infringement of public right. With Luxemburg
she makes no pretense of quarrel. She is herself a party to the
guarantee of its neutrality contained in the Treaty of 1867. The other
guarantors are Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Austria-Hungary,
Belgium, and the Netherlands. She solemnly pledged herself with some of
them, including France and ourselves, to respect this neutrality. The
world sees how Germany keeps her word. She has been weak enough, or
cynical enough, to issue an explanation of her breach of faith. Let
Englishmen, who have been disposed to trust her, judge it for
themselves. She has not, she says, committed a hostile act by crossing
the frontiers, by forcibly seizing the Government offices, and by
forcibly interrupting the telephonic communication. These are merely
measures to protect the railways from a possible attack by the French.
For the sudden invasion of France no excuse has yet been published.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account