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
It is impossible to conceive how the taking of Liege prevented the
English from landing and invading Belgium. That statement is hardly a
compliment to the intelligence or the geographical knowledge of the
American people. The fact is that Liege was taken a long time before
the British troops landed at Calais, and it is still today in the
hands of the Germans without in the least interfering with the arrival
of British reinforcements in France and in the territory still left in
the possession of Belgium. The fact is that Liege was not taken to
prevent the British from entering Belgium, but because it was part of
the plan of the German General Staff to invade Belgium at once, to
march across her territory, to crush the army of France as soon as
possible, and then to turn and attack the Russians on the east.
It is interesting to recall here the famous conversation held between
the British Ambassador in Berlin, on one side, and the Chancellor of
the Empire, Mr. Bethmann-Hollweg, and the German Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, Mr. von Jagow, on the other side, at the time of the invasion
of Belgium by the German troops. These conversations prove,
indisputably, the premeditated intention of Germany to violate
Belgium's neutrality:
To the request of Sir Edward Goschen, the English Ambassador
in Berlin, to be allowed to know if Germany would pledge
herself to respect the neutrality of Belgium, the German
Secretary of State replied that "this neutrality had already
been violated by Germany." Herr von Jagow went again into
the "reasons why the Imperial Government had been obliged to
take this step, namely, that they had to advance into France
by the quickest and easiest way so as to be able to get well
ahead with their operations and endeavor to strike some
decisive blow as early as possible. It was a matter of life
and death to them, for, if they had gone by the more
southern route, they could not have hoped, in view of the
paucity of the roads and the strength of the fortresses, to
have got through without formidable opposition entailing
great loss of time. This loss of time would mean time gained
by the Russians for the bringing up of their troops to the
German frontier. Rapidity of action was the great German
asset, while that of Russia was the inexhaustible supply of
troops." (Official report of the British Ambassador in
Berlin to the British Government.)
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