The Evidence in the Case: A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records of England, Germany, RussiaBeck, James M. (James Montgomery)
Philosophy
The Evidence in the Case: A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records of England, Germany, Russia
Beck, James M. (James Montgomery)
World War, 1914-1918 -- Causes
After the civilized world had condemned the invasion of Belgium with
an unprecedented approach to unanimity, the German Chancellor rather
tardily discovered that public opinion was still a vital force in the
world and that the strategic results of the occupation of Belgium had
not compensated for the moral injury. For this reason he framed five
months after this crime against civilization a belated defense, which
proved so unconvincing that the Bernhardi plea of military necessity
is clearly preferable, as at least having the merit of candor.
After proclaiming to the world that the German Foreign Office had
discovered in Brussels certain secret documents, which disclosed the
fact that the neutrality of Belgium at the time of the invasion was a
sham and after the civilized world had refused to accept this bald and
unsupported assertion, as it had also refused to accept the spurious
evidence of a well-known Arctic explorer, the German Foreign Office in
December, 1914 published its alleged proofs.
The first purported to be a report of the Chief of the Belgian General
Staff to the Minister of War and reported his conversations in 1906
with a military attaché of the British Legation in Brussels.
The second purported to be a report of similar conversations in 1912
between the same officials.
In an authorized statement, published on January 27, 1915, Sir Edward
Grey states that there is no record of either of these negotiations in
the English Foreign Office or the War Office; but this fact is not in
itself conclusive and as there is no evidence that the documents were
forged, their genuineness should be assumed in the absence of some
more specific denial.
The documents, however, do not appreciably advance the cause of
Germany, for they disclose on their face that the conversations were
not binding on the Governments of England or Belgium but were simply
an informal exchange of view between the officials, and what is far
more to the purpose, the whole of the first conversation of April 10,
1906, was expressly based upon the statement that "_the entry of the
English into Belgium would take place only after the violation of our
neutrality by Germany_."
The second document also shows that the Belgian Chief of Staff
expressly stated that any invasion of Belgium by England, made to
repel a prior German invasion, could not take place without the
express consent of Belgium, to be given when the occasion arose, and
it is further evident that the statement of the English military
attaché--clearly a subordinate official to define the foreign policy
of a great Empire--expressly predicated his assumption, that England
might disembark troops in Belgium, upon the statement that its object
would be to repel a German invasion of Belgian territory.
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