"A month after the declaration of war the German Chancery discovered at Brussels the reports of certain conversations which had taken place in 1906 and in 1912 between two British Military Attachés and two Chiefs of the Staff of the Belgian Army. In order to transform these reports into documents which would justify Germany's conduct it was necessary to garble them and to lie. Such was the only way in which the German action against Belgium could be made to appear decent.... Thus it came to pass that, with a shamelessness for which history shows few parallels, the German Chancery gave out that a 'Convention' had existed, by which Belgium had betrayed her most sacred pledges and violated her own neutrality for the benefit of England. To produce an impression on those ignorant of the facts, 'German honesty' suppressed, when the précis of the above-named conversations was published, the clause in which it was set forth that the exchange of opinion therein recorded _did reference only to the situation that would be created if Belgian neutrality had already been violated_. The Belgian Government gives to the allegations of the German Chancery the only answer that they deserve--they are a tissue of lies, all the more shameless because they are set forth by persons who claim to have studied the original documents. "But what are the documents which Germany produces in order to prove Belgium guilty? They are two in number:-- "(1) The narrative of certain interviews which took place between Lieutenant-General Ducarne and Colonel Barnardiston in 1906. In the course of these interviews the British officer set forth his views as to the way in which England could help Belgium _in case the latter were attacked by Germany_. One phrase in the document clearly proves that Colonel Barnardiston is dealing with a hypothetical case--viz., 'the entry of English troops into Belgium would only take place after a violation of Belgian neutrality by Germany.' The translation in the _Norddeutsche Zeitung_ of November 25 _omits this clause_, the phrase which gives its exact scope and significance to the document. Moreover, the photograph of General Ducarne's report contains the words, 'The officer with whom I spoke insists that our conversation has been absolutely confidential.' For the word _conversation_ the _Norddeutsche Zeitung_ substitutes the word 'convention.' Colonel Barnardiston is made to say that 'our convention' has been absolutely confidential![116] "Such proceedings need no commentary.