Secret Diplomacy: How Far Can It Be Eliminated?Reinsch, Paul S. (Paul Samuel)
Philosophy
Secret Diplomacy: How Far Can It Be Eliminated?
Reinsch, Paul S. (Paul Samuel)
Diplomacy; Europe -- Politics and government
How these relationships, though only partially known and suspected,
were looked upon by outsiders is shown from expressions in the reports
of Belgian diplomats. Count de Lalaing wrote from London in 1907:
“England is quietly pursuing a policy opposed to Germany and aimed
at her isolation.” Baron Greindl wrote from Berlin in 1908: “Call it
alliance or what you will, the grouping constitutes, none the less, a
diminution of Germany’s security.” Baron Guillaume wrote, in 1911, from
Paris: “I have less faith in the desire of Great Britain for peace.
She would not be sorry to see the others eat one another up.” These
expressions are not, of course, evidences of British policy, but simply
of the impression which whatever leaked out concerning that policy,
made upon outside diplomats.
In his clear and convincing analysis of the situation created by the
gradual formation in secret, of these relationships, Lord Loreburn
brings out the following points: Through the communications with the
French Ambassador and military and naval conversations concerning
plans for joint action, France was encouraged more and more to expect
that Great Britain would stand by her in arms if she were attacked by
Germany. Such a policy of a defensive understanding with France, no
matter how right in itself, was obviously a new departure of tremendous
importance. Its execution and effectiveness could be assured only if
understood by Parliament as a national policy, with all the risks
involved, so that proper preparations could be made. Parliament was,
however, never warned of the danger England stood of being thrown
suddenly into a European war. Had Germany been told in July, 1914,
that Great Britain would support France and Russia, the war would
undoubtedly have been prevented; but while the ministers had in fact
incurred moral obligations over against France, they had not assured
themselves of the necessary Parliamentary support and could therefore
not make a statement involving such risk as the above declaration to
Germany would have created.
Of Sir Edward Grey’s speech of the 3rd of August, 1914, Lord Loreburn
says:
“This remarkable speech began with an elaborate effort to prove
that the House of Commons was perfectly free to determine either
for peace or war. It ended with a passionate declaration that
this country would be disgraced if we did not declare war, and
the reasoning of the speech proved that Sir Edward Grey had
committed himself irretrievably. It left the House of Commons
convinced that it had in honor no choice but to join France in
arms. It is an epitome of the reasoning by which Sir Edward Grey
had been brought to believe that he could say and do what he said
and did without limiting his freedom of action. But if this is
legitimate we ought not to keep up the pretense that we are a
self-governing nation in foreign affairs.”
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account