WHY WE ARE AT WAR
GREAT BRITAIN'S CASE
With an Appendix of Original Documents including the Authorized English
Translation of the White Book issued by the German Government
Second Edition Revised (fourth impression)
containing the Russian Orange Book
BY
MEMBERS OF THE OXFORD FACULTY OF MODERN HISTORY
1914
PREFACE
We are not politicians, and we belong to different schools of political
thought. We have written this book to set forth the causes of the
present war, and the principles which we believe to be at stake. We have
some experience in the handling of historic evidence, and we have
endeavoured to treat this subject historically. Our fifth chapter, which
to many readers will be the most interesting, is founded upon first-hand
evidence--the documents contained in the British White Book
(Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 7467; hereafter cited as _Correspondence
respecting the European Crisis_), and the German White Book, which is an
official apology, supplemented by documents. The German White Book, as
being difficult of access, we have printed _in extenso_. It exists in
two versions, a German and an English, both published for the German
Government. We have reproduced the English version without correcting
the solecisms of spelling and expression. From the English White Book we
have reprinted, in the second appendix, a small selection of the more
significant documents; many more are quoted in the body of our work.
Our thanks are due to Sir H. Erle Richards, Chichele Professor of
International Law and Diplomacy; and to Mr. W.G.S. Adams, Gladstone
Professor of Political Theory and Institutions, for valuable suggestions
and assistance.
The sole responsibility for the book rests, however, with those who sign
this Preface.
Any profits arising from the sale of this work will be sent to the
Belgian Relief Fund, as a mark of sympathy and respect for the Belgian
nation, and especially for the University of Louvain.
E. BARKER
H. W. C. DAVIS
C. R. L. FLETCHER
ARTHUR HASSALL
L. G. WICKHAM LEGG
F. MORGAN
Preface to Second Edition
By the courtesy of His Excellency the Russian Ambassador we are now able
to print in an appendix (No. VI) those documents contained in the
Russian Orange Book which have not been already published in the German
and the British White Books. In the light of the evidence afforded by
the Russian Orange Book, we have modified one or two sentences in this
edition.
21 September, 1914.
CONTENTS
TABLE OF DATES
CHAPTER I
THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM AND LUXEMBURG
Belgian neutrality--The origin of Belgium--England and the smaller
Powers--The Treaty of 1839--Belgium's independence and neutrality.--The
neutrality of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg--Its origin--The Treaty of
1867--The collective guarantee.--The strategic importance of
Belgium--German plans long suspected.
CHAPTER II
THE GROWTH OF ALLIANCES AND THE RACE OF ARMAMENTS SINCE 1871
Introduction--The Triple Alliance--Bismarck's dismissal--French colonial
advance---Germany's demands for compensations--The Anglo-French
agreement concerning Morocco--German objections--England and Russia--The
Agadir incident--Anglo-French exchange of notes--Disputes in the
Balkans--The 'Boulanger Law' of 1886--Count Caprivi's law of
1893--Franco-Russian _entente_--German military preparations--France's
response--Russia's reorganization--England's Army and Navy.
Note. _Abstract of Anglo-French Agreement on Morocco_.
CHAPTER III
THE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN POLICY
Estrangement of Russia and Germany--Austria and the Balkans--German
penetration through the Balkans--Servia and Russia--Germany and the
Slavs--Russia and England.
CHAPTER IV
CHRONOLOGICAL SKETCH OF THE CRISIS OF 1914
Diary of the Events leading to the War.
CHAPTER V
NEGOTIATORS AND NEGOTIATIONS
Dramatis personae. §1. _Germany's attitude to Russia and
Austria_--Presentation of the Austrian Note to Servia--Germany shields
Austria--Conduct of Germany considered--Sir Edward Grey proposes
mediation, and then a Conference of Four Powers--Germany's objections to
a 'Conference'--Direct conversations between the Powers--Austria invited
to suspend military action--Mobilization; on whom does responsibility
lie?--War inevitable. §2. _Germany's attitude to France_--Germany
accuses France of military preparations--Germany invades France. §3.
_The question of British neutrality_--Possibility of England being
involved--Germany warned--German 'bid for British neutrality'--England's
refusal--France agrees, and Germany refuses, to respect Belgian
neutrality--Prince Lichnowsky and Sir Edward Grey--Neutrality of
Luxemburg violated--Germany demands a free passage through Belgium--Sir
Edward Grey protests--Belgium invaded--England's ultimatum--The Imperial
Chancellor urges necessity of Germany's action. §4. _England and
Servia_--Sir Edward Grey realizes Russia's interest in Servia--He is
only concerned for the peace of Europe--He urges mediation--He proposes
a Conference. §5. _Great Britain declines 'solidarity' with Russia and
France_--Proposals by MM. Sazonof and Poincaré--England's refusal--Was
it wise?--The Austrian _dossier_. §6. _Italy's comments on the
situation_--Significance of Italy's position--Italy's endeavours to
prevent war--Italy's declaration of neutrality.
Note. Abstract of Austro-Hungarian note to Servia, and Servians reply.
CHAPTER VI
THE NEW GERMAN THEORY OF THE STATE
The principles of _raison d'etat_ and the rule of law--Treitschke's
teaching--The results of this philosophy--Contempt for public law--The
glorification of war--The philosophy pagan--Its adoption by Prussian
soldiers and Government--A plea for Prussia--England fights for law.
EPILOGUE
APPENDIXES
I. THE GERMAN WHITE BOOK
II. EXTRACTS FROM SIR EDWARD GREY'S CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING THE
EUROPEAN CRISIS
III. EXTRACT FROM THE DISPATCH FROM HIS MAJESTY'S AMBASSADOR AT BERLIN
RESPECTING THE RUPTURE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE GERMAN
GOVERNMENT
IV. THE CRIME OF SERAJEVO
V. EXTRACT FROM THE DISPATCH FROM HIS MAJESTY'S AMBASSADOR AT VIENNA
RESPECTING THE RUPTURE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN
GOVERNMENT
VI. EXTRACTS FROM THE RUSSIAN ORANGE BOOK
CHIEF DATES
1648 Jan. The Treaty of Munster.
Oct. The Treaty of Westphalia.
1713 April. The Treaty of Utrecht.
1772 First Partition of Poland.
1783 William of Nassau becomes Grand Duke of Luxemburg.
1788 July. The Triple Alliance of England, Holland, and Prussia.
1789 The French Revolution begins.
1792 Nov. 6. Battle of Jemappes. French Conquest of the Austrian
Netherlands and Liège.
Nov. 19. French decree offering 'freedom to all nations'.
Dec. 15. Compulsory freedom declared.
1793 Jan. Second Partition of Poland.
Feb. 1. Declaration of War by France against England and Holland.
1795 Third Partition of Poland.
1801 Feb. 9. The Treaty of Luneville. France guarantees the
independence of Holland (then called 'Batavian Republic').
1802 Mar. 27. The Treaty of Amiens.
1803 Mar. 13. Napoleon's famous interview with Lord Whitworth.
May 12. Declaration of War by England against France.
1814 Mar. 1. The Treaty of Chaumont.
May 30. The First Peace of Paris.
Sept. 29. Opening of the Congress of Vienna.
1815 Mar-June. The Hundred Days.
May 31. Belgium and Luxemburg placed under the Prince of Orange as
King of the United Netherlands.
Nov. 20. The Second Peace of Paris.
1830 Revolutions in France (July) and in Belgium (Aug.).
1830-1878 Servia autonomous.
1831 Nov. 15. Independence and Neutrality of Belgium guaranteed by
England, Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia.
1839 April 19. Final recognition of the Independence and Neutrality of
Belgium by the above-named Powers.
1867 May 11. European guarantee of the Neutrality of Luxemburg.
Declaration by Lord Stanley and Lord Clarendon.
1870 Aug. 9. Independence and Neutrality of Belgium again guaranteed
by Germany and France.
1871 May 10. The Treaty of Frankfort.
1872 The _Dreikaiserbund_; Alliance of Russia, Germany, and
Austria.
1875 Threatened attack on France by Germany prevented by
Russia and England.
1878 The Treaty of Berlin.
Proclamation of Servian Independence under King Milan.
1879 Secret Treaty between Germany and Austria.
1883 Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria, and Italy.
1885 Formation of United Bulgaria.
War between Bulgaria and Servia.
1886 Peace between Bulgaria and Servia.
1890 Fall of Bismarck. Cession of Heligoland to Germany.
1891 Beginning of an understanding between Russia and France.
1893 Caprivi's Army Act.
1896 Germany begins to show aggressive tendencies in the field
of Colonial Expansion.
Treaty between England and France regarding their interests
in Indo-China.
Definite Alliance between Russia and France.
1898 Reconquest of the Sudan.
Tsar's rescript for an International Peace Conference.
1899 Anglo-French Agreement respecting Tripoli.
June. First Peace Conference at the Hague.
New German Army Act.
1902 Anglo-Japanese Alliance.
The Peace of Vereeniging closes the South African War.
1903 Revolution in Belgrade.
1904 April. The Treaty of London between England and France
with regard to North Africa.
1905 Mar. Visit of the German Emperor to Tangier.
June. Germany demands the dismissal of M. Delcassé.
Aug. The Treaty of Portsmouth between Russia and Japan.
Renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.
German Army Act.
Sept. France agrees to the holding of the Algeeiras
Conference.
1907 Agreement between Russia and England concerning Persia,
Afghanistan, and Tibet.
June-Oct. Second Peace Conference at the Hague.
1908 Young Turk Revolution in Constantinople.
Oct. Annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria.
German Navy Law.
1909 Mar. Servia declares she will no longer protest against the
annexation of Bosnia by Austria.
1909 Mr. Asquith's speech on necessity for increasing the Navy.
1910 The Potsdam interview between the Tsar and the Kaiser.
1911 European Crisis over the question of Morocco, followed by a
closer Anglo-French _entente_.
German Army Act.
1912 Sensational German Army Bill.
War in the Balkans.
Nov. 26. German Navy construction estimates £11,416,700.
Dec. 29. Peace Conference of Balkan States with Turkey broken off.
1913 Jan. 17. M. Poincaré elected French President.
Jan. 23. The Young Turkish Party overthrow the Government at
Constantinople.
May 26. Peace made between Turkey and the Balkan States.
May 28. The New German Army Bill passes the Budget Committee of
the Reichstag.
June 20. Universal military service in Belgium.
June 26. Conference between the French President, the French
Foreign Minister, and Sir Edward Grey.
June 30. Bulgaria is attacked by Servia and Greece.
New German Army Bill.
July. Roumania attacks Bulgaria.
The Turks re-occupy Adrianople.
New Russian Army Bill.
French Army Bill.
Aug. 6. The Treaty of Peace between Bulgaria, Servia, Greece, and
Roumania.
Sept. 22. The Treaty of Peace between Bulgaria and Turkey.
Oct. 20. Servia at Austria's demand abandons Albania.
Austrian War Fund increased.
1914 Attacks by the German Press upon France and Russia.
CHAPTER 1
THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM AND LUXEMBURG
I
The kingdom of Belgium is a comparatively new creation, but the idea of
a Belgian nation is older than the kingdom. Historically and
geographically the kingdom has no doubt an artificial character; its
boundaries have been determined by the Great Powers and cut across the
ancient provinces of the Netherlands. And it must be added that its
population is heterogeneous both in race and language. These facts,
however, in no sense diminish the legal rights of Belgium as a nation.
She is a sovereign state by the same charter as Italy or Greece; and for
the convenience of Europe she has been solemnly declared a neutral
state, endowed with special privileges but burdened with corresponding
obligations. While those privileges were maintained--and they have been
rigidly maintained for more than eighty years--the Belgian people
punctually fulfilled their obligations; and, because they have declined
to betray Europe by becoming the dependant of a powerful neighbour, or
by participating in the violation of European public law, their country
is a wilderness of smoking ruins.
In the tremendous and all but crushing ordeal of August, 1914, Belgium
has proved that she possesses other titles to existence and respect than
those afforded by treaties, by the mutual jealousies of neighbours, or
by the doctrines of international law. She has more than satisfied the
tests which distinguish the true from the fictitious nationality. Those
who have hitherto known Belgium only as a hive of manufacturing and
mining industry, or as a land of historic memories and monuments, are
now recognizing, with some shame for their past blindness, the moral and
spiritual qualities which her people have developed under the aegis of a
European guarantee. It is now beyond dispute that, if Belgium were
obliterated from the map of Europe, the world would be the poorer and
Europe put to shame. The proofs which Belgium has given of her
nationality will never be forgotten while liberty has any value or
patriotism any meaning among men. We cannot do less than echo the
general sentiment of admiration for a constancy to national ideals which
has left Belgium at the mercy of Huns less forgivable than those of
Attila. But the case against her oppressor is not to be founded solely
or mainly on her peculiar merits. In a special sense it rests upon the
legal rights and duties with which she has been invested for the
convenience of her neighbours and for the welfare of the European state
system. It was in their interest, rather than her own, that the Great
Powers made her a sovereign independent state. As such she is entitled,
equally with England or with Germany, to immunity from unprovoked
attack. But the Powers which made her a sovereign state, also, and for
the same reasons of convenience, made her a neutral state. She was
therefore debarred from consulting her own safety by making alliances
upon what terms she would. She could not lawfully join either of the two
armed camps into which Europe has fallen since the year 1907. And, if
she had been as contemptible as she is actually the reverse, she would
still be entitled to expect from England and from every other of her
guarantors the utmost assistance it is in their power to give. In
fighting for Belgium we fight for the law of nations; that is,
ultimately, for the peace of all nations and for the right of the weaker
to exist.
* * * * *
The provinces which now constitute the kingdom of Belgium--with the
exception of the bishopric of Liège, which was until 1795 an
ecclesiastical principality--were known in the seventeenth century as
the Spanish, in the eighteenth as the Austrian, Netherlands. They
received the first of these names when they returned to the allegiance
of Philip II, after a short participation in the revolt to which Holland
owes her national existence. When the independence of Holland was
finally recognized by Spain (1648), the Spanish Netherlands were
subjected to the first of the artificial restrictions which Europe has
seen fit to impose upon them. The Dutch monopoly of navigation in the
Scheldt was admitted by the Treaty of Münster (1648), and Antwerp was
thus precluded from developing into a rival of Amsterdam. In the age of
Louis XIV the Spanish Netherlands were constantly attacked by France,
who acquired at one time or another the chief towns of Artois and
Hainault, including some which have lately come into prominence in the
great war, such as Lille, Valenciennes, Cambray, and Maubeuge. The bulk,
however, of the Spanish Netherlands passed at the Treaty of Utrecht to
Austria, then the chief rival of France on the Continent. They passed
with the reservation that certain fortresses on their southern border
were to be garrisoned jointly by the Dutch and the Austrians as a
barrier against French aggression. This arrangement was overthrown at
the French Revolution. The French annexed the Austrian Netherlands and
Liège in November, 1792; and immediately afterwards threw down a
gauntlet to England by opening to all nations the navigation of the
Scheldt. This, and the threatened French attack on Holland, her ally,
drew England into conflict with the Revolution; for, first, Antwerp in
French hands and as an open port would be a dangerous menace; and
secondly, the French had announced a new and anarchic doctrine hostile
to all standing treaties: 'Our reasons are that the river takes its rise
in France and that a nation which has obtained its liberty cannot
recognize a system of feudalism, much less adhere to it'.[1] The answer
of William Pitt, which in effect declared war upon the Revolution,
contains a memorable statement of the attitude towards public law which
England held then, as she holds it to-day: 'With regard to the Scheldt
France can have no right to annul existing stipulations, unless she also
have the right to set aside equally the other treaties between all
Powers of Europe and all the other rights of England and her allies....
England will never consent that France shall arrogate the power of
annulling at her pleasure and under the pretence of a pretended natural
right, of which she makes herself the only judge, the political system
of Europe, established by solemn treaties and guaranteed by the consent
of all the Powers'.[2]
This was not our attitude in the case of Belgium only. It was an
attitude which we adopted with regard to all the minor Powers of Western
Europe when they were threatened by Napoleon. On precisely the same
grounds England defended in 1803 the independence of Holland, a
commercial rival if an old political ally, and of Switzerland, where she
had no immediate interests to protect. By the Treaty of Lunéville
(February, 1801) France and Austria had mutually guaranteed the
independence of the Batavian Republic and the right of the Dutch to
adopt whatever form of government seemed good to them. In defiance of
these stipulations Napoleon maintained a garrison in Holland, and forced
upon her a new Constitution which had been prepared in Paris (November,
1801). Identical stipulations had been made for the Helvetian Republic
and had been similarly violated. Early in 1803 England demanded that the
French should evacuate Holland and Switzerland: to which Napoleon
replied that 'Switzerland and Holland are mere trifles'. His interview
with the English Ambassador on March 13, 1803, has many points of
resemblance with the now famous interview of August 4, 1914, between Sir
Edward Goschen and Dr. von Bethmann-Hollweg. The First Consul then, like
the Imperial Chancellor to-day, was unable, or professed himself unable,
to understand why Great Britain should insist upon the observance of
treaties.
To return to Belgium. It became apparent in the Napoleonic Wars that
Belgium and Holland were individually too weak to protect themselves or
the German people against an aggressive French Government. The allies
therefore, in the year 1813, handed over to Holland the Austrian
Netherlands and the bishopric of Liège in order 'to put Holland in a
position to resist attack until the Powers could come to its aid'. This
arrangement was ratified at the Treaty of Chaumont (1814). As there was
no government or visible unity in the Belgian provinces after the
retirement of the French, the union with Holland, originally suggested
by Lord Castlereagh, seemed reasonable enough. It gave the Belgians the
great privilege of freely navigating the Scheldt. It was confirmed at
the Congress of Vienna, and the new kingdom of the United Netherlands
was declared neutral by the common consent of the Powers.
But the events of the years 1815-1830 proved conclusively that this
union was unsatisfactory to the Belgian population. The Belgians
complained that they were not allowed their just share of influence and
representation in the legislature or executive. They resented the
attempt to impose the Dutch language and Dutch Liberalism upon them.
They rose in revolt, expelled the Dutch officials and garrisons, and
drew up for themselves a monarchical and parliamentary constitution.
Their aspirations aroused much sympathy both in England and in France.
These two countries induced the other Great Powers (Austria, Prussia,
Russia) to recognize the new kingdom as an independent neutral state.
This recognition was embodied in the Treaty of the Twenty-Four Articles
signed at London in October, 1831; and it was not too generous to the
aspirations of Belgian nationality. Since the Belgians had been defeated
in the field by Holland and had only been rescued by a French army, they
were obliged to surrender their claims upon Maestricht, parts of
Luxemburg, and parts of Limburg. Some time elapsed before this
settlement was recognized by Holland. But at length this last guarantee
was obtained; and the Treaty of London, 1839, finally established the
international status of Belgium. Under this treaty both her independence
and her neutrality were definitely guaranteed by England, France,
Austria, Prussia, and Russia.
We have recently been told by the Imperial Chancellor that the Treaty of
1839 is nothing but 'a scrap of paper'. It is therefore desirable to
point out that Bismarck made full use of it in 1870 to prevent England
from supporting the cause of France. It was with this object that he
published the proposal alleged to have been made to him by the French
representative, Benedetti, in 1866, that Prussia should help France to
acquire Belgium as a solace for Prussian annexations in Northern
Germany. Then, as now, England insisted upon the Treaty of 1839. The
result was that, on the instance of Lord Granville, Germany and France
entered into an identic treaty with Great Britain (Aug. 1870) to the
effect that, if either belligerent violated Belgian territory, Great
Britain would co-operate with the other for the defence of it. The
treaty was most strictly construed. After the battle of Sedan (Sept.
1870) the German Government applied to Belgium for leave to transport
the German wounded across Belgian territory. France protested that this
would be a breach of neutrality and Belgium refused.
Such is the history of the process by which Belgium has acquired her
special status. As an independent state she is bound by the elementary
principle of the law of nations, that a neutral state is bound to refuse
to grant a right of passage to a belligerent. This is a well-established
rule, and was formally affirmed by the Great Powers at the Hague Peace
Conference of 1907. The fifth Article of the Convention [3] then drawn
up respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in War
on Land runs as follows:--
'A neutral power ought not to allow on its territory any of
the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4'.
Of the Articles thus specified the most important is No. 2:--
'Belligerents are forbidden to move across the territory of
a neutral power troops or convoys, either of munitions of war
or supplies'.
By the Treaty of London the existence of Belgium is contingent upon her
perpetual neutrality:--
'ARTICLE VII. Belgium within the limits specified in
Articles I, II, and IV shall form an independent and perpetually
neutral state. It shall be bound to observe such
neutrality towards all other states'.[4]
It is unnecessary to elaborate further the point of law. That, it seems,
has been admitted by the Imperial Chancellor before the German
Reichstag. What is necessary to remember is that, in regard to Belgium,
Germany has assumed the position which the Government of the French
Revolution adopted towards the question of the Scheldt, and which
Napoleon adopted towards the guaranteed neutrality of Switzerland and
Holland. Now, as then, England has special interests at stake. The
consequences of the oppression or the extinction of the smaller
nationalities are bound to excite peculiar alarm in England. In
particular she cannot forget how she would be menaced by the
establishment of a militarist state in Belgium. But since in England's
case the dangers and uncertainties of a state of things in which Might
is treated as Right are particularly apparent, it is only to be expected
that she should insist with special emphasis upon the sanctity of
treaties, a sanctity which in the long run is as necessary to the
strongest nation as to the weakest. If treaties count for nothing, no
nation is secure so long as any imaginable combination of Powers can
meet it in battle or diplomacy on equal terms; and the stronger nations
must perforce fight one another to the death for the privilege of
enslaving civilization. Whether the progress of such a competition would
be a trifling evil, whether the success of any one among such
competitors would conduce to the higher interests of humanity, impartial
onlookers may debate if they please. England has answered both these
questions with an unhesitating negative.
II
Under existing treaty law the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg stands for all
practical purposes in the same legal position as its northern neighbour;
and the ruler of Luxemburg has protested against the German invasion[5]
of her territory no less emphatically than King Albert, though with less
power of giving expression in action to her just resentment. If the
defence of Belgium has appealed more forcibly to the ordinary
Englishman, it is because he is more familiar with the past history of
Belgium and sees more clearly in her case the ultimate issues that are
involved in the German violation of her rights. As the following
narrative will show, the neutrality of Luxemburg was guaranteed in the
interests and at the instance of the Prussian state, as a protection
against French aggression. The legal case could not be clearer, and it
might perhaps be asked why the attack on Luxemburg, which preceded that
on Belgium, was not treated by this country as a _casus belli_.
England's attitude towards Luxemburg is that which she has consistently
adopted towards those smaller states of Europe which lie outside the
reach of naval power. It is an attitude which she has maintained in the
case of Servia even more clearly than in that of Luxemburg. England
holds herself bound to exert her influence in procuring for the smaller
states of Europe equitable treatment from their more powerful
neighbours. But the duty of insisting upon equitable treatment falls
first upon those Powers whose situation enables them to support a
protest by effective action. Just as Servia is the special concern of
Russia, so Luxemburg must look to France in the first instance for
protection against Germany, to Germany if she is assailed from the
French side. In either case we should hold ourselves bound to exercise
our influence, but not as principals. Any other course would be
impossibly quixotic, and would only have the effect of destroying our
power to help the states within our reach.
* * * * *
The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg was a revival of an ancient state which had
lost its existence during the French Revolution. Although it was placed
under the rule of the King of the Netherlands, a descendant of its
former sovereign, it was not incorporated in his kingdom, but retained
its own identity and gave to its ruler the secondary title of Grand Duke
of Luxemburg. The position it occupied after 1815 was in some ways
anomalous; for lying as it did between the Meuse and the Rhine, and
possessing in the town of Luxemburg a fortress whose natural strength
some competent critics reckoned as second only to that of Gibraltar
among the fortresses of Europe, it was considered to be an indispensable
link in the chain of defences of Germany against French aggression. Not
being able to trust the Dutch to hold this great fortress against the
French, the Congress of Vienna laid down as a principle that all land
between the Meuse and the Rhine must be held by Prussian troops on
behalf of the newly formed Germanic Confederation. Thus Luxemburg was
held by Prussian troops on behalf of this foreign confederation, and
over this garrison the only right allowed to the Grand Duke, the
sovereign of the country, was that of nominating the governor.
This strange state of affairs was not modified by the Belgian Revolution
of 1830; for though more than half the Grand Duchy threw in its lot with
Belgium to form the modern province of Belgian Luxemburg, the Grand
Duchy, confined to its modern limits, still contained the great fortress
with its garrison of Prussian troops. It is not surprising that, under
these circumstances, the Grand Duchy joined the Prussian _Zollverein_,
and so drew nearer to Germany, in spite of the independent character of
its inhabitants, who have strenuously resisted any attempt at absorption
into Germany. France naturally continued to cast envious eyes upon the
small state with the powerful citadel, but no opportunity presented
itself for reopening the question until 1866.
In that year Napoleon III had anticipated that the war between Prussia
and Italy on one side and Austria and the small German states on the
other would be long and exhausting, and would end in France imposing
peace on the weary combatants with considerable territorial advantage to
herself. His anticipation was entirely falsified; the war lasted only
seven weeks and Prussia emerged victorious and immensely strengthened by
the absorption of several German states and by the formation of the
North German Confederation under her leadership. This, the first
shattering blow which the French Emperor's diplomatic schemes had
received, led him to demand compensation for the growth of Prussian
power, and one of his proposals was the cession of Luxemburg to France.
This suggestion had some legal plausibility quite apart from the
question of the balance of power. For the Prussian garrison held
Luxemburg in the name of the German Confederation, which had been
destroyed by the war of 1866; and, the authority to which the garrison
owed its existence being gone, it was only logical that the garrison
should go too. After much demur Count Bismarck acknowledged the justice
of the argument (April, 1867), but it did not by any means follow that
the French should therefore take the place vacated by the Prussians. At
the same time the fortress could not be left in the hands of a weak
Power as a temptation for powerful and unscrupulous neighbours. The
question of Luxemburg was therefore the subject discussed at a Congress
held in London in the following May.
Here the Prussians showed themselves extremely politic and reasonable.
Realizing that, with the advance of artillery, the great rock-fortress
no longer had the military value of earlier days, they not only raised
no objections to the evacuation of Luxemburg by their troops, but in the
Congress it was they who proposed that the territory of the Grand Duchy
should be neutralized 'under the collective guarantee of the Powers'.[6]
A treaty was therefore drawn up on May 11, 1867, of which the second
article ran as follows:--
'The Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, within the Limits determined by the
Act annexed to the Treaties of the 19th April, 1839, under the
Guarantee of the Courts of Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia,
and Russia, shall henceforth form a perpetually Neutral State.
'It shall be bound to observe the same Neutrality towards all other
States.
'The High Contracting Parties engage to respect the principle of
Neutrality stipulated by the present Article.
'That principle is and remains placed under the sanction of the
collective Guarantee of the Powers signing as Parties to the present
Treaty, with the exception of Belgium, which is itself a Neutral
State'.[7]
The third article provided for the demolition of the fortifications of
Luxemburg and its conversion into an open town, the fourth for its
evacuation by the Prussian garrison, and the fifth forbade the
restoration of the fortifications.
Such then was the treaty guaranteeing the neutrality of Luxemburg, which
was proposed, it may be observed, by Prussia herself; but, until the
treaty was broken by the very Power which had proposed the neutrality,
only one incident need be noted in the history of the country, namely,
the part it played in the war of 1870-1. On December 3, 1870, Count
Bismarck issued from Versailles a circular to the Prussian Ambassadors,
calling attention to the fact that both the French and the Luxemburgers
had violated the neutrality of the Grand Duchy, mainly by giving
facilities for French soldiers to return to France. Precautions were
taken by the Prussian Government on the frontier to prevent such abuses
occurring in the future, and as no violation of the neutrality of
Luxemburg was committed by the Prussians, the neutral co-guarantors were
satisfied with the Prussian attitude, and the subject dropped. At the
end of the war, M. Thiers vainly attempted to obtain Luxemburg as
compensation for the loss of Metz.
In accordance with the Family Compact of 1783, the Grand Duchy passed on
the death of the late King of Holland to Prince William of Nassau, on
whose death the present Grand Duchess succeeded to her father's throne.
There is one point in the Treaty of 1867 which calls for special
comment. The neutrality of the Grand Duchy is 'placed under the
collective guarantee of the Powers signing'. The phrase originally
proposed by Count Bismarck was 'the formal and individual guarantee of
the Powers,' and it was altered at the instance of the English Foreign
Minister, Lord Stanley. The phrase actually adopted was suggested by the
Russian diplomat, Baron Brunnow, and was accepted both by England and by
Prussia. Lord Stanley's objection had been based upon the fear that
England might incur an unlimited liability to assist Luxemburg
single-handed if all other Powers failed to meet their obligations. In
other words, Luxemburg might have been used as the infallible means of
dragging us into every and any war which might arise between Germany and
France. From that danger we were protected by Lord Stanley's objection;
as the case stands the treaty gives us, in his own words, 'a right to
make war, but would not necessarily impose the obligation,' should
Luxemburg be attacked. To this doctrine a reference will be found in the
British White Paper (No. 148), where Sir Edward Grey informs M. Cambon
of 'the doctrine' concerning Luxemburg, 'laid down by Lord Derby and
Lord Clarendon in 1867'. It may also be observed that two of the
co-guarantors of the Treaty of 1867, namely Italy and Holland, have also
not thought it necessary to make the violation of Luxemburg a _casus
belli_.
III
It is evident to all who study closely the map of France that her
eastern frontier falls into two sharply contrasted divisions, the
north-eastern which reaches from the sea to the valley of the Sambre,
and the south-eastern which extends from that river to, and along the
Swiss boundary. The former is flat country, easy for military
operations; the latter is mountainous, intersected with many deep
valleys. After the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, the French set to work to
rectify artificially the strategical weakness of their frontier; and in
a chain of fortresses behind the Vosges Mountains they erected a rampart
which has the reputation of being impregnable. This is the line Belfort,
Épinal, Toul, Verdun. A German attack launched upon this line without
violating neutral territory would have to be frontal, for on the north
the line is covered by the neutral states of Belgium and Luxemburg,
while on the south, although the gap between the Vosges and the Swiss
frontier apparently gives a chance of out-flanking the French defences,
the fortress of Belfort, which was never reduced even in the war of
1870-1, was considered too formidable an obstacle against which to
launch an invading army. A rapid advance on Paris was therefore deemed
impossible if respect were to be paid to the neutrality of Belgium and
Luxemburg, and it was for this purely military reason that Germany has
to-day violated her promises to regard the neutrality of these states.
This was frankly admitted by Herr von Jagow to Sir Edward Goschen: 'if
they had gone by the more southern route they could not have hoped, in
view of the paucity of roads and the strength of the fortresses, to have
got through without formidable opposition entailing great loss of
time'.[8]
In the case of Belgium a very easy road was afforded into French
territory up the Valley of the Meuse, past Liège and thence into France
past Namur and through what is known as the Gap of Namur. A German army
could debouch into France through this gap the more easily inasmuch as
the French, relying on the neutrality of these two states, had not
strongly fortified the frontier from the sea to Maubeuge. Moreover, as
the country to the west of the Sambre was very easy country for
manoeuvring and furnished with good roads and railways, it was reckoned
that the formidable French lines to the south could be turned in this
manner, and the German army could march upon Paris from the north-east.
As to Luxemburg, plainly it could not in such a scheme remain neutral.
It would lie between the two wings of the German army, and controlling
as it did the roads to Brussels, Metz, and Aix-la-Chapelle, it could not
be allowed to cause such inconvenience as to prevent easy communication
between one portion of the German army and another.
That such a plan was contemplated by the Germans has been for some years
past a matter of common knowledge in England; and it has been also a
matter of common opinion that the attempt to execute this plan would
involve the active resistance of the British forces, to whom the duty
was supposed to have been assigned of acting on the left flank of the
French opposing the entry of the Germans from Belgian territory. The
plea therefore that has been put forward that the British have now dealt
the Germans 'a felon's blow' can only be put forward by persons who are
either ignorant or heedless of what has been a matter of casual
conversation all over England these last three years; and Sir Edward
Grey himself was so convinced that the German Government knew what the
consequences of a violation of Belgian neutrality would be that he
informed Sir Francis Bertie on July 31st that the 'German Government do
not expect our neutrality'.[9] There has been no secret about it
whatever. It is incredible that the excitement and surprise of the
Imperial Chancellor on the receipt of the ultimatum of August 4th should
have been genuine, seeing that it involves miscalculation or
misinformation entirely incompatible with what we know of the
thoroughness of German methods. At the time of the Agadir crisis the
military situation was the same, and the German War Office knew quite
well what our part would then have been. Surprise at such action on our
part in 1914 is little else than comedy, and can only have been
expressed in order to throw the blame of German aggression on to the
shoulders of Great Britain.
This argument that Great Britain has taken the aggressive falls to the
ground entirely when it is confronted with the hard facts of chronology.
Far from attacking the Germans, we were so anxious to keep the peace
that we were actually three days late in our mobilization to join the
French on their left wing; and had it not been for the defence offered
by Liège, our scruples would have gravely imperilled the common cause.
For it was not until we were certain that Germany had committed what was
tantamount to an act of war against us, by invading the neutral state of
Belgium, that we delivered the ultimatum which led to the war.
Notes:
[Footnote 1: Cam. Mod. Hist. viii 301.]
[Footnote 2: Ibid. 304.]
[Footnote 3: Printed by A. Pearce Higgins, _The Hague Peace
Conferences_, pp. 281-9.]
[Footnote 4: The entire treaty will be found in Hertslet, _Map of Europe
by Treaty_, vol. ii, pp. 979-98.]
[Footnote 5: _Correspondence respecting the European Crisis_, (Cd.
7467), No. 147. Minister of State, Luxemburg, to Sir E. Grey, Aug. 2.]
[Footnote 6: Edward Hertslet, _The Map of Europe by Treaty_, vol. iii,
p. 1806, no. 406. 'Proposal of _Prussia_ of Collective Guarantee by
Powers of Neutrality of _Luxemburg_, London, 7th May, 1867.']
[Footnote 7: Hertslet, _ut sup._, vol. iii, p. 1803. The High
Contracting Powers were Great Britain, Austria, France, Belgium, Italy,
the Netherlands, Prussia, and Russia.]
[Footnote 8: _Dispatch from His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin
respecting the rupture of diplomatic relations with the German
Government_ (Cd. 7445), Miscellaneous, no. 8, 1914.]
[Footnote 9: _Correspondence respecting the European Crisis_, p. 62, no.
116. July 31, 1914. See also _infra_ pp. 82 _et seqq_.]