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
On the following day the German Ambassador again called at the French
Foreign Office and protested against an article, which had appeared in
a Paris newspaper and which had characterized his communication of the
preceding day as the "German menace." The German Ambassador again gave
an unequivocal assurance
that there was no agreement between Austria and Germany over
the Austrian note, _of which the German Government was
ignorant_, although the German Government had subsequently
approved it on receiving communication of it _at the same
time as the other Powers_.[54]
[Footnote 54: _Ibid._, No. 36.]
The hardihood of this statement, in view of the fact that on the
preceding day, simultaneously with the service of the ultimatum, the
threatening demand had been delivered by Germany to the leading
European chancelleries that the quarrel between Austria and Servia
must be localized, is apparent. Baron von Schoen, the German
Ambassador, then denied that his suggestion of "incalculable
consequences," if the dispute were not localized, was a "menace." This
statement, repeated by German diplomats in other capitals, approaches
the ludicrous. The first military power of Europe formally advises
other nations that unless they waive their legitimate claims and
interests, "incalculable consequences" will follow, and it is gravely
suggested that this is not a "menace."
On the following day Baron von Schoen made two visits at the French
Foreign Office and assured the acting Minister for Foreign Affairs
that
Germany _was on the side of France in the ardent desire for
the maintenance of peace_, and she earnestly hoped that
France would use her influence in a soothing manner in St.
Petersburg.
I replied to this suggestion that Russia was moderate, that
she had committed no act throwing doubt upon her moderation,
and that we were in agreement with her in seeking for a
peaceful solution of the struggle. It therefore appeared to
me that in counterpart Germany should act in Vienna, _where
the efficacy of her action was sure_, with a view to
avoiding military operations tending to the occupation of
Servia.
The Ambassador having pointed out to me that that was
irreconcilable with the position adopted by Germany, "that
the question only concerned Austria and Servia," I said to
him that mediation in Vienna and St. Petersburg might be
made by the four Powers who were less directly interested in
the matter.
Baron von Schoen then sheltered himself behind his lack of
instructions on this point, and I told him that in these
circumstances I did not feel able to act in St. Petersburg
alone.
Our conversation concluded with the renewed assurance by the
Ambassador as to the peaceful intentions of Germany, who, he
declared, was with France on this point.[55]
[Footnote 55: French _Yellow Book_, No. 56.]
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