New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 4, July, 1915: April-September, 1915Various
History
New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 4, July, 1915: April-September, 1915
Various
World War, 1914-1918
"Our attitude was determined exclusively by the ostensible interests
of France, which were directly opposed to the interests of British
commerce and of British enterprise.... From this it follows that
alliances, nay, even political agreements, with Continental powers,
which may coerce us to take steps that are, at a given moment, harmful
to our national interests, should be avoided."
Sir Edward Grey took pains to conceal these facts from the lower house
and passed lightly over the disclosures of Faber--when the Imperial
Chancellor vigorously opposed him--with skillful legerdemain. In the
upper house Grey's policy also met with severe criticism, and from his
declarations, as well as from those of Lloyd George made at the same
time, only one conclusion could be drawn--that official England was
determined to remain steadfast in the form of its political
co-operation with France and Russia. Precisely to this was to be
attributed the insecurity of the European situation. It has not become
publicly known but has been reliably ascertained that the English
Naval Attaché in Rome at that time pointed out that England, in the
event of a war, which he expected to come, would have to occupy either
Belgium or Copenhagen. That, he added, was very brutal, to be sure,
but at the same time was rendered necessary by historic developments
and by circumstances.
In view of all this we cannot deceive ourselves into believing that
the mission which brought Lord Haldane to Berlin in February, 1912,
had any other purpose than that of satisfying the voices in England
which were calling with ever-increasing vigor for an understanding
with Germany. The proposals which he submitted to us, after a
discussion with Sir Edward Grey, were formulated by the English
Cabinet as follows: "Inasmuch as both powers naturally wish to
maintain relations of peace and friendship with each other, England
declares that it will neither make an unprovoked attack upon Germany,
nor support any other power in making such an attack. To attack
Germany is neither the direct nor the indirect object of any treaty,
understanding, or combination to which England is now a party, nor
will England make itself a party to anything that has such an object."
This carefully excogitated statement embraced in its Machiavellian
wording neither those "oral conversations" at Reval nor the "innocent
discussions" engaged in by the English and French General
Staffs--discussions which were always revived on occasion of every
political crisis. It was only natural, therefore, that we, since these
relations between the General Staffs of the powers belonging to the
Entente were no secret to us, demanded greater security and a
declaration of neutrality on the part of England before consenting to
enter into any general understanding.
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