The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915: What Americans Say to Europe — John Shaqi
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
[Illustration: ANDREW CARNEGIE
_(Photo (c) by Underwood & Underwood.)_
_See Page 415_]
[Illustration: JACOB H. SCHIFF
_(Photo by American Press Assn.)_
_See Page 459_]
In the eighties and early nineties they suspected France of designs on
their integrity. Since then a change in the popular feeling has taken
place and in recent years the instruction of the Belgian artillery, for
instance, was intrusted to French officers in active service. These
officers were constantly at home and very properly concerned with
solving military problems such as a future war with Germany might
present. What was more natural than that these same officers, when they
were detached for a few months or years to Liege or Namur or Huy, taught
their Belgian charges to prepare against a German attack, and to look
upon the French as their friends and the Germans as their enemies? If
conditions had been different, and German officers had been in charge of
Belgian fortresses, the Belgian guns in practice would always have been
trained on imaginary French invaders.
French Officers in Belgian Forts.
If this is understood it will be seen that in the case of war the actual
neutrality of the Belgian garrisons would naturally be determined by the
position taken by that nation whose officers had been in charge of the
Belgian fortresses. And this might be entirely independent of the
professed wishes of the Belgian people or their Government. If French
officers in active service remained in the several fortresses, or even
only in one after the beginning of hostilities, and if the French
campaign plans contemplated an attack through Belgium, then Belgium had
committed an "act in favor of France" by not forcing the French officers
to leave, and had forfeited the rights and privileges granted by The
Hague Convention of 1907 to a neutral State.
Did French officers remain in Liege or in any other Belgian fortress
after hostilities had begun, and did France plan to go through Belgium?
Germany has officially made both claims. The first can easily be
substantiated by the Supreme Court of Civilization by an investigation
of the prisoners of war taken in Belgium. Until an impartial
investigation becomes possible no further proof than the claim made by
the German Government can be produced.
The second charge is contained in No. 157 of the English "White Paper"
in these words of instruction from the German Foreign Secretary to the
German Ambassador in London: "Please impress upon Sir Edward Grey that
German Army could not be exposed to French attack across Belgium, which
was planned according to absolutely unimpeachable information."
Sir Edward Grey has attacked Germany for invading Belgium, but has
nowhere denied that Germany had the unimpeachable evidence she said she
had, and which of course nullified any previous assurance from France.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account