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
Such is the German note. It will be noticed that there is no question of
the alleged entry of French aviators and officers into Belgium, as has
been stated in several papers here. The document, in fact, knocks that
fable on the head. The only reason given for the violation of Belgian
territory is the alleged intention of the French Army to march upon
Givet and Namur. This assertion is supported by no proof, and is denied
by the French Government, which officially declared to Belgium and
England its intention of not violating Belgian territory. On the
contrary, the premeditated intention of Germany to violate Belgian
neutrality is proved in the most irrefutable way, namely, by the
affirmation of the German Secretary of State himself, and by that of the
German Chancellor.
To the request of Sir William Goschen, the English Ambassador in Berlin,
to be allowed to know if Germany would pledge herself to respect the
neutrality of Belgium, the German Secretary of State replied that "this
neutrality had already been violated by Germany." Herr von Jagow went
again into the
reasons why the Imperial Government had been obliged to take this
step, namely, that they had to advance into France by the quickest
and easiest way so as to be able to get well ahead with their
operations and endeavor to strike some decisive blow as early as
possible. It was a matter of life and death to them, for, if they
had gone by the more southern route, they could not have hoped, in
view of the paucity of the roads and the strength of the
fortresses, to have got through without formidable opposition
entailing great loss of time. This loss of time would mean time
gained by the Russians for the bringing up of their troops to the
German frontier. Rapidity of action was the great German asset,
while that of Russia was the inexhaustible supply of troops.
[Official Report of the British Ambassador in Berlin to the British
Government.]
"A Scrap of Paper."
This conversation preceded by a few minutes that in which the German
Chancellor, giddy at the sight of the abyss into which Germany was
falling, uttered these celebrated words:
Just for a word, NEUTRALITY, a word which in war times has been so
often disregarded; just for A SCRAP OF PAPER, Great Britain is
going to make war on a kindred nation. At what price would that
compact [neutrality] have been kept? Has the British Government
thought of that?
Sir William Goschen replied, that fear of consequences would hardly be
regarded as an excuse for breaking a solemn engagement. [Official report
of the British Ambassador in Berlin to his Government.]
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