The New York Times Current History, A Monthly Magazine: The European War, March 1915Various
History
The New York Times Current History, A Monthly Magazine: The European War, March 1915
Various
World War, 1914-1918
The Imperial Chancellor has declared that there was irrefutable proof
that if Germany did not march through Belgium, her enemies would. This
proof, as now being produced, is of the strongest character. So the
Chancellor was right in appealing to the law of necessity, although he
had no regret that it violated international law. This law of
necessity has been recognized as paramount by nearly every prominent
statesman, including Gladstone, and by all teachers of international
law, even by the United States Supreme Court's decision, Vol. 130,
Page 601, stating in regard to the treaty with China concerning
Chinese immigration into the United States: "It will not be presumed
that the legislative department of the Government will lightly pass
laws which are in conflict with the treaties of the country, but that
circumstances may arise which would not only justify the Government in
disregarding their stipulations, but demand in the interests of the
country that it should do so, there can be no question. Unexpected
events may call for a change in the policy of the country." And to
strengthen this opinion another decision by Justice Curtis, rendered
in 1908, may be cited, stating that, "while it would be a matter of
the utmost gravity and delicacy to refuse to execute a treaty, the
power to do so was a prerogative of which no country could be deprived
without deeply affecting its independence."
We now let these Belgian documents speak for themselves.
Summary of the Secret Documents
I. The first document is a report of the Chief of the Belgian General
Staff, Major Gen. Ducarme, to the Minister of War, reporting a series
of conversations which he had had with the Military Attache of the
British Legation, Lieut. Col. Barnardiston, in Brussels. It discloses
that, as early as January, 1906, the Belgian Government was in
consultation with the British Government over steps to be taken by
Belgium, Great Britain, and France against Germany. A plan had been
fully elaborated for the landing of two British army corps in French
ports to be transferred to the point in Belgium necessary for
operations against the Germans. Throughout the conversation the
British and Belgian forces were spoken of as "allied armies"; the
British Military Attache insisted on discussing the question of the
chief command; and he urged the establishment, in the meantime, of a
Belgian spy system in Germany.
II. When in the year 1912 Lieut. Col. Barnardiston had been succeeded
by Lieut. Col. Bridges as British Military Attache in Brussels, and
the Chief of the Belgian General Staff, Major Gen. Ducarme, had been
succeeded by Gen. Jungbluth as Chief of the Belgian General Staff, the
conversations proceeded between the two latter officials. That is to
say, these were not casual conversations between individuals, but a
series of official conversations between representatives of their
respective Governments, in pursuance of a well-considered policy on
the part of both Governments.
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