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
By the terms of our treaty of alliance Germany was bound to come to our
assistance if we were attacked by Russia. There was no secrecy about
that treaty. Its text had been made public long ago and its purely
defensive character brought to the knowledge of the world. No more than
we did Germany entertain hostile intentions or nourish hostile feelings
against Russia. There were no clashing interests to excite the first, no
historical reminiscences to justify the second. If it is otherwise in
Russia, it is because her present leaders find German power in the way
of their conquering aspirations against us. Germany, true to her
obligations, hastened to our side when she saw us menaced, and when she
declared war she did it because she had positive information that in
spite of formal and solemn assurances to the contrary Russia
mobilization was proceeding.
The terms of the Franco-Russian alliance have never been made public.
Whether it was concluded merely for defensive or also for offensive
purposes, and whether France was obliged by her treaty to draw the sword
in the present case, remains therefore a matter of surmise. But there is
no mystery about the feelings of France with regard to Germany, and no
doubt about the greed for revenge which during the last forty-four years
has swayed the overwhelming majority of her people and been the
dominant factor of her foreign policy. It was for this object that she
entered into her alliances and agreements, and it is for this cause that
she is fighting now.
It is simple hypocrisy to talk about German aggressiveness against
France. France stood in no danger of being attacked by Germany if she
had chosen to remain neutral in the latter's war with Russia. Asked
whether she would do so, she replied that her actions would be guided by
her interests. The meaning of this reply was clear, and left Germany no
choice. The formal declaration of war became then a mere matter of
political and military convenience, and has no bearing on the moral
issue of the case.
But why has England plunged into this war? Officially and to the world
at large she has explained her resolution by Germany's violation of
Belgian neutrality, and in the royal message to Parliament it was
solemnly declared that England could not stand by and passively tolerate
such a breach of international law and obligations.
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