T. von Bethmann-Hollweg, German Imperial Chancellor, in Statement to
Ritzau's Danish Press Bureau, Sept. 13, 1914.
The English Prime Minister, in his Guildhall speech, reserved to England
the role of protector of the smaller and weaker States, and spoke about
the neutrality of Holland, Belgium and Switzerland as being exposed to
danger from the side of Germany. It is true that we have broken
Belgium's neutrality because bitter necessity compelled us to do so, but
we promised Belgium full indemnity and integrity if she would take
account of this state of necessity. If so, she would not have suffered
any damage, as, for example, Luxemburg. If England, as protector of the
weaker States, had wished to spare Belgium infinite suffering she should
have advised Belgium to accept our offer. England has not "protected"
Belgium, so far as we know; I wonder, therefore, whether it can really
be said that England is such a disinterested protector.
We knew perfectly well that the French plan of campaign involved a march
through Belgium to attack the unprotected Rhineland. Does any one
believe England would have interfered to protect Belgian freedom against
France?
We have firmly respected the neutrality of Holland and Switzerland; we
have also avoided the slightest violation of the frontier of the Dutch
Province of Limburg.
It is strange that Mr. Asquith only mentioned the neutrality of Belgium,
Holland and Switzerland, but not that of the Scandinavian countries. He
might have mentioned Switzerland with reference to France, but Holland
and Belgium are situated close to England on the opposite side of the
Channel, and that is why England is so concerned for the neutrality of
these countries.
Why is Mr. Asquith silent about the Scandinavian countries? Perhaps
because he knows that it does not enter our head to touch these
countries' neutrality; or would England possibly not consider Denmark's
neutrality as a noli me tangere for an advance in the Baltic or for
Russia's warlike operations.
Mr. Asquith wishes people to believe that England's fight against us is
a fight of freedom against might. The world is accustomed to this manner
of expression. In the name of freedom, England, with might and with the
most recklessly egotistic policy, has founded her mighty colonial
empire, in the name of freedom she has destroyed for a century the
independence of the Boer republics, in the name of freedom she now
treats Egypt as an English colony and thereby violates international
treaties and solemn promises, in the name of freedom one after another
of the Malay States is losing its independence for England's benefit, in
the name of freedom she tries, by cutting German cables, to prevent the
truth being spread in the world.
The English Prime Minister is mistaken. When England joined with Russia
and Japan against Germany she, with a blindness unique in the history of
the world, betrayed civilization and handed over to the German sword the
care of freedom for European peoples and States.
* * * * *