namely, that the Germanic Powers willed war, explains also the
remainder of the _ante-bellum_ interchanges. From the first no illusion
was possible as to what was at stake. M. Sazonof on behalf of Russia
allowed none to arise. He pointed out with that brevity and frankness
which will be found in this affair to characterise the whole course of
Russian diplomacy that any invasion of the sovereign rights of Serbia
must disturb the equilibrium of the Balkans and with it the equilibrium
of all Europe, and that if it came to war it would be impossible to
localise it. M. Sazonof, indeed, never fails in these transactions to
hit on the right idea, and the right phrase. Serbia, he said to Count
Szapary in words that can scarce miss moving an Irish Nationalist,
would, if the Austrian demands were conceded, “no longer be master in
her own house. ‘You will always be wanting to intervene again, and what
a life you will lead Europe’” (Austrian Red Book, No. 14). He “had
been disagreeably affected by the circumstance that Austria-Hungary
had offered a dossier for investigation when an ultimatum had already
been presented.” What Russia could not accept with indifference was
the eventual intention of the Dual Monarchy “_de dévorer la Serbie_”
(_Ibid._, No. 16). In all her reasonable demands he promised to support
Austria-Hungary. So did France; so did Great Britain. All three of them
counselled, that is to say as things stood, directed, Serbia, if she
desired their countenance, to give every satisfaction consistent with
her sovereign rights. It is precisely on this unallowable violation
that Austria-Hungary insists. As for Germany, there is not one hint
in all the diplomatic documents of any mediation at Vienna in the
direction of a peaceful solution. “The bolt once fired,” said Baron
Schoen at Paris, Germany had nothing to do except support her Ally, and
support her in demands however impossible.
The will to war of the Germanies thus made manifest explains, and
alone explains the rest of the sorry business. The earnest, constant,
and even passionate efforts of the British and French Governments to
find a formula for the assembling of a conference of the Powers were
rebuffed at every turn. Sir Edward Grey persisted in his conciliatory
course till the last moment. He refused to proclaim the solidarity of
the United Kingdom in any and all circumstances with France and Russia,
although earnestly urged by both to do so.
He risked the very existence of the Entente by showing himself ready
in the interests of peace to consent to what Russia must have regarded
as an almost intolerable humiliation. So late as the 29th of July he
writes of a conversation with the German Ambassador: “In a short time,
I supposed, the Austrian forces would be in Belgrade and in occupation
of some Serbian territory. But even then it might be possible to bring
some mediation into existence, if Austria, while saying that she must
hold the occupied territory until she had complete satisfaction from
Serbia, stated that she would not advance further, pending an effort
of the Powers to mediate between her and Russia” (Blue Book, No. 88).
At the same time, six days before the Anglo-German breach, he gave the
Ambassador a very definite warning which is in itself sufficient to
repel the charge, since made in some quarters in Ireland and America,
that he designed by his ambiguous attitude to “lure” Germany on and
then “crush” her. That such a charge, whether made honestly or not, is
in formal contradiction with the facts is evident--
“The situation was very grave. While it was restricted to the issues at
present actually involved, we had no thought of interfering in it. But
if Germany became involved in it, and then France, the issue might be
so great that it would involve all European interests; and I did not
wish him to be misled by the friendly tone of our conversation--which I
hoped would continue--into thinking that we should stand aside.
“I hoped that the friendly tone of our conversations would continue as
at present, and that I should be able to keep as closely in touch with
the German Government in working for peace. But if we failed in our
efforts to keep the peace, and if the issue spread so that it involved
practically every European interest, I did not wish to be open to any
reproach from him that the friendly tone of all our conversations had
misled him or his Government into supposing that we should not take
action, and to the reproach that, if they had not been so misled, the
course of things might have been different.
“The German Ambassador took no exception to what I had said; indeed, he
told me that it accorded with what he had already given in Berlin as
his view of the situation.”
The appeal from force to law, from killing to reason--that substitution
of the better new way for the bad old way which had for so long been
the goal of democracy in international affairs--was rejected by the
Germanies. Neither to the International Tribunal of the Hague, so
proposed by Serbia, nor to a conference of the Great Powers, but to the
sinister logic of Krupp and Zeppelin did the Central Empires resort for
a settlement.
All the accumulated hatred of European history were let loose to fill
the world with tumult and rapine. It is true that if you trace these
hatreds back to their sources you will find no immaculate nations.
True also that they were perilous stuff of which the European system
had not purged itself. But the unchallengeable fact remains that
while democracy was seeking a solution in terms of peace, “the old
German God” forced it in terms of war. Nothing can ever displace or
disguise the plain historical record which exhibits as the origin of
our Armageddon the intransigent determination of the great Empire of
Austria-Hungary to violate the sovereign rights of the small nation of
Serbia.
III.--THE CRIME AGAINST BELGIUM
The case of Belgium is marked by the tremendous simplicity which
characterises almost everything in human affairs that can be called
really great. The choice put to her was a choice between right and
wrong, so naked and clear, so stripped of all ambiguities, all
subintents and saving-clauses as to resemble rather a battle between
spiritual principles than a concrete situation in contemporary
politics. And, further, Belgium was and till the end of time remains
the touchstone of German _Kultur_. For generations the masters of
Prussia had been elaborating a coherent doctrine of domination to
be attained through scientific brutality. It is one of the sins of
democracy to have thrust that doctrine out of its thoughts, whenever it
so much as heard of it, as being too bad to be true, for the foul thing
was meant down to its worst word. All the world knows now that although
Prussia is not to be believed when she promises fidelity, she is most
thoroughly to be believed when she threatens murder; it was assigned to
Belgium that in her blood this discovery should be proclaimed, not to
be forgotten while men live.
Belgium is the test by which every issue in this war stands or
falls. The late Judge Adams used to relate how he once set up for
a horse-stealer a complicated and eloquent defence ranging from
the French Revolution to the Irish Land System. The Judge listened
patiently to the last word of the ringing peroration, and then
observed: “Very good, Mr. Adams, very good! But tell me now: Why did
your client steal the horse?” In the same way you will hear your
Prussian or pro-Prussian rambling on about the Slav menace to German
“culture,” about the secret designs of France, and the robber Empire of
Great Britain. To get to the heart of this question you have only to
say: “Very fine, no doubt. Something in it, perhaps! But tell us now,
why did your German friend break his solemn guarantee, and violate the
frontier of neutral independent Belgium?” That trivial arrow is enough
to bring to earth the Zeppelin of his _Welt-Politik_, with its whole
cargo of metaphysics.
There was no illusion to cloud the minds of King Albert or his
Government. The King knew his Kaiser; he had already been menaced by
him, and his Chief of Staff von Moltke, in an interview reported by
M. Jules Cambon nine months before the war (French Yellow Book, No.
6). He had had every opportunity afforded him of studying the gospel
according to Krupp. He knew that, when the ultimatum was delivered at
Brussels, the German Army of the Lower Rhine was already massed and
was marching on Liége, and that no help could possibly reach him from
France or England before the 42 cm.’s had ample time to batter his
eastern defences to pieces. He knew also how inadequate were his own
military resources; a scheme of reorganisation that would have enabled
Belgium to put in the field an army of defence of a million men had
indeed been formulated, but was not yet in operation. Every German and
pro-German influence in the country was invoked to induce him to break
his treaty obligations, and stand aside. The Social Democrats publicly
and shamelessly appealed to their Belgian “comrades” to rise superior
to “that bourgeois idea, honour.” But the King and his Government held
fast.
The position of Belgium was as clear as it was terrible. One sometimes
hears ill-informed people speak as if the neutrality of that country
had been a matter of its own choice, from which it could depart by a
new act of choice. This, of course, was not the case. Neutrality was
imposed on Belgium, as the price and the correlative of guaranteed
independence, by the five Powers whose signatures will be found
appended to the treaties of 1831 and 1839. Situated at the cross-roads
of Europe, Belgium had by the deliberate policy of Europe been
established as a buffer-state, a buffer by land between France and
Germany, and by sea between England and the heart of the Continent.
Her neutrality was not a commodity to bargain with, but a fundamental
condition of her independence; it was her formal duty to preserve
it, or at least attempt to preserve it, by force of arms against any
invasion. Should any of the guarantors assail it the others were
bound to come to its defence. It has been suggested that both France
and Great Britain were very ill-prepared to fulfil this obligation;
German writers have, indeed, tauntingly gloated over the fact, for
it is a fact. The bad faith of Germany was so long evident--her very
army manœuvres having been, in fact, based on the hypothesis of a
rapid invasion of Belgium--that defensive measures were plainly called
for. But two points must be remembered. For one thing, the moral
question remains unaltered. You do not justify a murderer by saying
that the police ought to have been there to prevent him committing
the crime. For another, any new defensive organisation adopted would
certainly have been represented by Germany as a clear proof of intended
aggression, and would in all likelihood have precipitated the outbreak.
It is necessary to bear all these circumstances in mind in order
to appreciate at its full worth the heroic decision of Belgium.
Deliberately, with the courage not of hot blood but of conscience
and honour, she lost the world in order to gain her own soul. In
the treachery of Germany there was lacking not even one episodical
baseness. Her representatives lied up to the last moment. Two hours
before he presented his ultimatum the German Minister at Brussels
issued a message of reassurance through the columns of _Le Soir_; well
do I remember how avidly the citizens of Brussels not so much bought as
tore out of the hands of the newsboys that issue of the 2nd of August
with Herr von Below Saleske’s message, and the sigh of relief that
followed the reading of it. He employed an image the sinister fitness
of which we did not then suspect.
“I have not done so, and personally I do not see any reason why I
should have done so, seeing that it was superfluous. The view has
always been accepted by us that the neutrality of Belgium will not be
violated. If the French Minister had made a formal declaration to that
effect it is doubtless because he wished to reinforce obvious fact
by some words of reassurance. _The German troops will not march over
Belgian territory. We are on the eve of grave events. Perhaps you will
see your neighbor’s house on fire, but the flames will spare yours._”
The vision of burning towns has come to have a sinister fitness.
We know now that already, on the 31st of July, Germany had declined to
give any undertaking to respect Belgian neutrality because any reply to
the British demand made in that sense “could not but disclose a certain
amount of their plan of campaign in the event of war ensuing.” There
is no more illuminating phrase in the whole body of correspondence.
The violation, it thus plainly appears, was no improvisation under
stress of circumstances; on the contrary, it had long since been
assumed as a postulate by the German General Staff in the drafting of
their war-plan. The declaration of war by a guaranteering Great Power
on a guaranteed small nation is a thing so infrequent, it is such a
salient in the long line of iniquity, that it must once again be quoted
in full. Any guardian in private life who finds himself reluctantly
compelled in the interests of a higher morality to murder his ward,
any trustee obliged by _Notwehr_ to steal the trust-property, may well
enrol it among his forms and precedents. It was delivered at Brussels
at seven o’clock on the evening of the 2nd of August. It is worth
noting that it was drawn up in German, by way of compliment, no doubt,
to the “Teutonic kinship” of Belgium--
“(Very confidential.)
“Reliable information has been received by the German Government to the
effect that French forces intend to march on the line of the Meuse by
Givet and Namur. This information leaves no doubt as to the intention
of France to march through Belgian territory against Germany.
“The German Government cannot but fear that Belgium, in spite of
the utmost goodwill, will be unable without assistance to repel so
considerable a French invasion with sufficient prospect of success to
afford an adequate guarantee against danger to Germany. It is essential
for the self-defence of Germany that she should anticipate any such
hostile attack. The German Government would, however, feel the deepest
regret if Belgium regarded as an act of hostility against herself the
fact that the measures of Germany’s opponents force Germany, for her
own protection, to enter Belgian territory.
“In order to exclude any possibility of misunderstanding, the German
Government make the following declaration--
“1. Germany has in view no act of hostility against Belgium. In the
event of Belgium being prepared in the coming war to maintain an
attitude of friendly neutrality towards Germany, the German Government
bind themselves, at the conclusion of peace, to guarantee the
possessions and independence of the Belgian Kingdom in full.
“2. Germany undertakes, under the above-mentioned condition, to
evacuate Belgian territory on the conclusion of peace.
“3. If Belgium adopts a friendly attitude, Germany is prepared, in
co-operation with the Belgian authorities, to purchase all necessaries
for her troops against a cash payment, and to pay an indemnity for any
damage that may have been caused by German troops.
“4. Should Belgium oppose the German troops, and in particular should
she throw difficulties in the way of their march by a resistance of
the fortresses on the Meuse, or by destroying railways, roads, tunnels,
or other similar works, Germany will, to her regret, be compelled to
consider Belgium as an enemy.
“In this event, Germany can undertake no obligations towards Belgium,
but the eventual adjustment of the relations between the two States
must be left to the decision of arms.
“The German Government, however, entertain the distinct hope that
this eventuality will not occur, and that the Belgian Government will
know how to take the necessary measures to prevent the occurrence of
incidents such as those mentioned. In this case the friendly ties which
bind the two neighbouring States will grow stronger and more enduring.”
I beg the reader to notice carefully the nature of the “evidence”
against France set forth in the first paragraph. The Belgian Army is
weaker than that of France, _therefore_ France is going to invade
Belgium. Since the time of the grave-digger in _Hamlet_ there was never
such logic as this. All Prussian “culture” is in the document: the
coarse offer of ready cash, the clumsy lie, the empty promise, and the
mailed fist.
King Albert called his Ministers together, and at seven o’clock the
following morning great “little Belgium” handed this proud reply to the
unmoral Goliath. [I omit the formal first paragraph.]--
“This notification has profoundly and painfully astonished the King’s
Government.
“The intentions which she attributes to France are in contradiction to
the formal declarations made to us under date of the 1st of August in
the name of the Government of the Republic.
“_Moreover, if, contrary to our expectation, the country’s neutrality
should be violated by France, Belgium would fulfil its international
duties and her army would oppose a most vigorous resistance to the
invader._
“The treaties of 1839, confirmed by the treaties of 1870, perpetuate
Belgium’s independence and neutrality under the guarantee of the
Powers, and especially under the guarantee of the Government of His
Majesty the King of Prussia.
“Belgium has always faithfully observed her international obligations;
she has fulfilled her duties in a spirit of loyal impartiality; she has
neglected no opportunity to maintain her neutrality and to cause it to
be respected by others.
“The attack upon her independence with which Germany menaces her is a
flagrant violation of the law of Nations.
“No strategic interest can justify the violation of that right.
“The Belgian Government, by accepting the propositions mentioned, would
sacrifice its national honour and betray at the same time its duty
towards Europe.
“Conscious of the rôle which Belgium has played for more than
eighty years in the civilised world, it refuses to believe that its
independence can only be preserved at the price of a violation of its
neutrality.
“If the Belgian Government be disappointed in its expectations, it is
resolved to repulse by every means in its power any attack upon its
rights.”
Of these documents we in Brussels were at the time, of course, wholly
ignorant. But on Tuesday, August 4th, we became aware that some
terrible darkness had come upon the sun. There was galloping and the
glitter of swords and lances in the streets; the King was on his way to
take counsel with a specially summoned session of his Parliament. In
a little while the newsboys were crying the papers madly through the
streets; we tore them from their hands, and the smudged print blazed
into our souls that speech with which Albert rose to take his place
among the heroes of European freedom. I make no apology for printing
here every word of it. It is the case of Belgium, the case of the
Allies, and the case of civilisation.
“Never, since 1830, has a more serious hour struck for Belgium: the
integrity of our territory is threatened!
“The very strength of our right, the sympathy which Belgium, proud of
her free institutions and of her moral conquests, has uninterruptedly
enjoyed at the hands of other nations, the necessity of her autonomous
existence for the equilibrium of Europe, still make us hope that the
threatening events will not take place.
“However, if our expectations be deceived, if we are obliged to
resist the invaders of our soil and to defend our menaced homes, this
duty, however hard, will find us armed and prepared for the greatest
sacrifices.
“Already our gallant youth, in anticipation of every eventuality, is
ready, firmly resolved, with the traditional tenacity and coolness of
the Belgians, to defend the endangered country.
“In the name of the nation, I fraternally salute the army. Everywhere,
Flemings and Walloons, in the cities and in the country, one sole
sentiment binds our hearts: Patriotism; one sole vision fills our
spirits: our endangered independence; one sole duty imposes itself upon
us: a stubborn resistance.
“Under these circumstances two virtues are indispensable: a cool
courage, but a strong courage, and a close union of all the Belgian
people.
“Both of these virtues have already been demonstrated brilliantly under
the eyes of the nation, filled with enthusiasm.
“The perfect mobilisation of our army, the number of voluntary
enlistments, the devotion of the civil population, the self-denial of
families, have shown, beyond dispute, the consoling bravery which
animates the whole Belgian people.
“The time for action has come.
“I have assembled you, Gentlemen, in order to allow the Legislative
Chambers to unite with the people in the same spirit of sacrifice.
“You will therefore immediately take measures necessary for war as well
as for preservation of public order, under the present circumstances.
“When I look upon this enthusiastic assembly, an assembly in which
there is but one party, the side of the Fatherland, where every heart
beats in unison, my mind goes back to the Congress of 1830, and I
ask you, Gentlemen, are you firmly resolved to maintain the sacred
patrimony of your forefathers?
“None in this country but will do his duty.
“The army, strong and disciplined as it is, is equal to its task. My
Government and myself have the utmost confidence in its leaders and its
soldiers.
“Closely allied with the population, and supported by it, the
Government is conscious of its responsibilities and will assume them to
the very end with the deliberate conviction that the efforts of each
and every one, if united in a spirit of most fervent patriotism, will
safeguard the supreme welfare of the country.
“If the foreigner, trampling upon our neutrality, the duties of which
we have always scrupulously observed, violates, the territory, he
will find every Belgian around his Sovereign, who will never betray
his Constitutional Oath, and around the Government invested with the
supreme confidence of the entire nation.
“I have faith in our destiny: a country which defends itself cannot but
gain the respect of everyone: that country cannot perish.
“German troops have occupied Luxemburg, and are perhaps even now
trampling upon Belgian soil. This act is contrary to the law of
Nations.”
The rumour ran through Brussels from end to end as with the swift
vibrations that at such times shake the sensitive organism of all
Latin cities. Nobody who was there will ever forget the torrential and
swirling crowds before the Gare du Nord, the fierce cheers and the
foreboding silence. The peace of eighty years was broken. Honour and
the law of Europe had summoned Belgium into the red ways of war; she
went singing and unafraid, but the vision of blood was not hidden from
her or from us. As we stood on the café tables roaring “La Brabançonne”
we knew that there was a midnight to traverse before the dawn. But we
did not know that the upbuilding of three generations of human labour
was to be broken by three months of scientific brutality. We did not
know that Belgium was passing into her Gethsemane.
On the same day von Emmich had marched his columns across the Rubicon
that divides honour from infamy. On the same day some hours later Sir
Edward Grey had drawn the sword, and flung away the scabbard.
UNDER THE HEEL OF THE HUN
I.--A WORLD ADRIFT
_Brussels, August 5, 1914._
All Europe is a study in strain. The unexpected swing of events has
brought Belgium--Belgium which for eighty years has lived only for a
neutral independence--to the centre of the arena. The Waterloo of 1914,
as that of 1815, may very well be fought on Belgian soil.
It is impossible to exaggerate the sincere amazement of the man in the
street, the man in the café. “We have gorged the Albuches with money.
They have blacklegged us in business. We are stuffed with them--bah!
our national life is choked with these German sausages. And now!
Traitors, cowards, violators of honour and the free Belgian frontier!”
The anti-German feeling is heating rapidly to a frenzy. No more
demi-Munichs in the restaurants. Even if the beer be of German
nativity, which is sometimes a little in doubt, it must be sold as
Belgian. The more discreet patrons had already painted out, or draped
in patriotic bunting, all advertisements for German products. But the
ruse was not general nor always successful. The window-breakers had
already appeared, waving the tricolour, chanting “La Brabançonne.”
Every street, and, indeed, every buttonhole, has blossomed as suddenly
as the staff of Tannhäuser. Cockades, rosettes, bows, the tricolours
of France and Belgium, the red, white and blue of England, flower
inexplicably into being. At ten centimes a time we manifest our
sympathies, and make dazzling fortunes for the street-sellers.
At the house of a public official one finds a sort of synopsis of
the general desolation. The family has just scrambled back from
Switzerland. The eldest son, a captain of engineers, had already left
for the front, ordered to action too urgently to wait even for a last
handshake, a last kiss. His children cannot go out to breathe the air
because the governess is German, and therefore liable to patriotic
assault. The household is keyed up to any disaster.