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 reason of Germany's refusal was given by Herr von
Bethmann-Hollweg's colleague, (the German Foreign Secretary, Herr von
Jagow.) It may be paraphrased in the well-known gloss upon
Shakespeare: 'Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just, but four
times he that gets his blow in fust.'
"'They had to advance into France,' said Herr von Jagow, '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.'
"Germany's real attitude toward Belgium was thus frankly given by the
German Foreign Secretary to the British Ambassador, and the German
Chancellor in his speech to the Reichstag claimed the right to commit
a wrong in virtue of the military necessity of hacking his way
through. The treaty which forbade the wrong was by comparison a mere
scrap of paper.
"The truth was spoken in these first statements by the two German
Ministers. All the apologies and arguments which have since been
forthcoming are afterthoughts to excuse and explain away a flagrant
wrong. Moreover, all the attacks upon Great Britain in regard to this
matter and all talk about 'responsibilities toward neutral States'
come badly from the man who, on July 29, asked Great Britain to enter
into a bargain to condone the violation of the neutrality of Belgium.
"The German Chancellor spoke to the American correspondent of his
'efforts for years to bring about an understanding between England and
Germany.' An understanding, he added, which would have 'absolutely
guaranteed the peace of Europe.'
"He omitted to mention what Mr. Asquith made public in his speech at
Cardiff,[3] that Germany required as the price of an understanding an
unconditional pledge of England's neutrality. The British Government
were ready to bind themselves not to be parties to any aggression
against Germany. They were not prepared to pledge their neutrality in
case of aggression by Germany.
[Footnote 3: In his address at Cardiff, appearing in Vol. 1, No. 2, of
THE NEW YORK TIMES CURRENT HISTORY, Premier Asquith said:
In a communication to the German Government in 1912
regarding her future policy Great Britain declared that she
would neither make nor join in any unprovoked attack upon
Germany. But that was not enough for German statesmanship.
Germany wanted us to go further and pledge ourselves to
absolute neutrality in the event of Germany being engaged in
war. To that demand there was but one answer, and that was
the answer which the Government gave.]
"An Anglo-German understanding on the latter terms would not have
meant an absolute guarantee for the peace of Europe, but it would have
meant an absolutely free hand for Germany, so far as England was
concerned, for Germany to break the peace of Europe.
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