The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915: What Americans Say to EuropeVarious
Philosophy
The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915: What Americans Say to Europe
Various
World War, 1914-1918
From all these considerations, I think it extremely doubtful whether, on
the first day of August, 1914, Belgium should have been considered as
possessing any other kind of neutrality than the ordinary neutrality
enjoyed by all States not at war, when some States are at war. In fact,
it remains to be seen whether Belgium itself had not forfeited the
privilege of this ordinary neutrality before a single German soldier had
placed foot on Belgian soil. A few days ago I received a letter from one
of the most prominent professors in the University of Berlin, who is
also in close contact with the Prussian Ministry of Education, a man in
whose veracity I place perfect confidence, having known him well for ten
years. He writes: "Our violation of the neutrality of Belgium was
prompted in part by the fact that we had convincing proof that there
were French soldiers already in Belgium and that Belgium had agreed to
allow the French Army to pass over its soil in case of a war between
France and us." Moreover, in the British "White Paper" itself, No. 122,
is to be found a dispatch from the British Ambassador in Berlin, Sir E.
Goschen, to Sir Edward Grey, containing these words: "It appears from
what he [the German Secretary of Foreign Affairs] said that the German
Government consider that certain hostile acts have already been
committed by Belgium. As an instance of this, he alleged that a
consignment of corn for Germany had been placed under an embargo
already." The date of this dispatch is July 31, days before the Germans
entered Belgium.
But placing these two things entirely aside, as well as the new
evidence, said to have just been found in the archives at Brussels, that
Belgium had by her agreements with Great Britain forfeited every claim
to even ordinary neutrality in case of a war between Germany and Great
Britain, I find in the British "White Paper" itself, No. 123, not only
ample justification, but absolute necessity, from a military point of
view, for a German army advancing against France, not only to pass
through Belgium, but to occupy Belgium. This number of the "White Paper"
is a communication dated Aug. 1 from Sir Edward Grey to Sir E. Goschen,
British Ambassador in Berlin. In it Sir Edward Grey informed Sir E.
Goschen that the German Ambassador in London asked him "whether, if
Germany gave a promise not to violate Belgian neutrality, we, Great
Britain, would remain neutral," and that he [Grey] replied that he
"could not say that," that he did not think Great Britain "could give a
promise of neutrality on that condition alone"; further, Sir Edward Grey
says: "The Ambassador pressed me as to whether I could not formulate
conditions on which we would remain neutral. He even suggested that the
integrity of France and her colonies might be guaranteed. I said that I
felt obliged to refuse definitely any promise to remain neutral on
similar terms, and I could only say that we must keep our hands free."
The Necessary Invasions.
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