Statement by George Bakhmeteff, Russian Ambassador to the United
States, New York, Oct. 11.
It will be a long time, I suppose, before the American will be able
fully to understand Russia's reasons for entering the present war and
the great racial thought that lies back of it. The whole situation in a
nutshell is that Germany entered the war from racial hate and motives of
commercial greed, while Russia drew her sword out of motives of humane
and kindly sympathy for a small and oppressed nation of her own kindred.
Germany had been grabbing and wished to grab more; Russia rose in arms
to stand by and protect her "little brother."
Indeed you are quite right when you say that there are spiritual forces
back of Russia's deeds in battle far more than there can be in the case
of any other of the warring nations. The reasons lie deep within our
national life, and I doubt if any American will be able fully to
comprehend them without coming to see us in our own country and seeing
us as we are. The great and really wonderful achievements of the German
are visible and material, while ours are things of the spirit--invisible,
modest, resigned. The representative spirit of Germany's materialism
and heartless aggressiveness is that of the megalomaniac Nietzsche and
his followers, Treitschke and von Bernhardi. The spokesmen of what is
more truly Russian today are Tolstoy and Dostoievski, who have recorded
forever the spirit of self-sacrifice, humility and piety in the Russian
soul.
Yes, it is true that those who have learned to know us in Russia are
aware that the epithets of "Hun" and "barbarian" used against us are
stark lies promulgated by bitter enemies who take ignoble advantage of
the tradition in America fostered by the melodramatic exploitation of
the Jewish problem and the occasional brutalities by our drunken soldier
to make you believe that a Russian is a sort of treacherous bandit with
a knife in his teeth ready to betray and slay. We regret exceedingly
that that tradition has taken root in the United States. We admire and
emulate Americans because they have mellowed and complemented their
industrial and political achievements with national charity and
religious ideals.
In Russia the Jewish question, as such, has not arisen since the opening
of the war. Political promises have been made to Poland and these
promises will be kept. It is a mistaken idea here that any overtures
have been made to the Jews as a class. You think we are as anxious as
all that to have them enlist as soldiers? No. We do not wish to make
them any special inducements to enlist. You are well aware that nobody
hates the Jews more cordially than the Pole himself. Our offer was to
the Poles, who have a national entity and a country and home of their
own. The Jews have none of these things.
* * * * *
"The Facts About Belgium"
* * * * *
Statement Issued by the Belgian Legation at Washington.
_The Belgian Legation at Washington has compiled the following statement
of the Belgian case, in the present European War, in answer to the many
inquiries that have been received on the subject._
By the treaty of April 19th, 1839, Prussia, France, England, Austria,
and Russia declared themselves guarantors of the treaty concluded on the
same day between the King of the Belgians and the King of the
Netherlands. This treaty provides:
Belgium forms an independent State of perpetual neutrality.
That is to say, Belgium was forbidden, in case of war, to take the part
of any of the belligerents.
Since then Belgium has fulfilled all her neutrality obligations; she has
acted in a spirit of absolute impartiality. She has left nothing undone
to maintain and make respected her neutrality. Germany's obligation to
respect Belgian neutrality was even more emphatically affirmed by one of
Germany's greatest men, by the creator of the empire. Prince, then
Count, Bismarck, wrote to Baron Nothomb, Belgian Minister in Berlin, on
the 22nd of July, 1870, as follows:
In confirmation of my verbal assurances, I have the honor to give
in writing a declaration which, in view of the treaties in force,
_is quite superfluous_, that the Confederation of the North and its
allies will respect the neutrality of Belgium on the understanding,
of course, that it is respected by the other belligerents.
On July 31 of the present year the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs
and the Secretary General of the Foreign Office had a long conversation
with the German Minister in Brussels. It was pointed out to him that in
the course of the controversy raised in 1911 by the introduction of the
Dutch project for the fortification of the Scheldt, that his
predecessor, Herr von Flotow, had assured the Belgian Government that in
the event of a Franco-German war Germany would not violate Belgian
neutrality; that Mr. Bethmann-Hollweg, the Imperial Chancellor, had
given similar assurance; that in 1913 Herr von Jagow, the German Foreign
Secretary, had made similar statements of a reassuring character in the
budget committee of the Reichstag concerning the neutrality of Belgium;
to which the German Minister replied that he was aware of the
conversation with his predecessor, and that "he was certain that the
sentiments expressed at that epoch had not changed."
On August 2nd, in the course of the day, the German Minister in
Brussels, M. De Below Saleske, gave an interview to the newspaper Le
Soir, and declared that Belgium had nothing to fear from Germany. He
went so far as to employ this expression:
You will see, perhaps, your neighbor's house on fire, but your
house will remain intact.
The same day, at 7 o'clock in the evening, he communicated the following
note to the Belgian Government:
The German Note.
The German Government has received unimpeachable news to the effect
that the French forces have the intention of marching on the Meuse
by Givet and Namur. This news leaves no doubt as to the intention
of France to march upon Germany from Belgian territory. The
Imperial Government of Germany cannot help fearing that Belgium, in
spite of the best intentions, will not be in a position to repulse
without help an incursion by the French of such great magnitude. In
this case it is sufficiently certain that Germany is seriously
threatened. It is the urgent business of Germany to forestall this
attack on the part of the enemy. The German Government would be
filled with lively regret if Belgium were to regard as an act of
hostility against her the fact that her precautionary measures
oblige her to violate on her side Belgian territory.
In order to avoid the possibility of misunderstanding, the German
Government makes the following comment:
1st. Germany contemplates no act of hostility against Belgium. If
Belgium consents to assume in the war which is about to commence
the attitude of friendly neutrality toward Germany, the German
Government on its side engages, when peace is restored, to
guarantee the integrity of the kingdom and its possessions.
2nd. Germany engages herself, on the aforesaid conditions, to
evacuate Belgian territory as soon as peace is concluded.
3rd. If Belgium observes a friendly attitude, Germany is ready, in
co-operation with the authorities of the Government of Belgium, to
buy for cash everything that is necessary for her troops, and to
pay indemnities for damage done in Belgium; but if Belgium behaves
in a hostile manner against the troops, and in particular places
difficulties in the way of their advance by opposition by the
fortifications of the Meuse, or by the destruction of roads,
railways, tunnels, or other works, Germany will be obliged to
consider Belgium as an enemy.
In that case Germany will enter into no agreement with the kingdom,
but will allow the further relationship of the two States to be
left to the decision of arms. The German Government feels that it
is justified in hoping that this eventuality will not materialize
and that the Belgian Government will know how to take appropriate
measures to prevent its materialization. In that case the friendly
relations which unite the two neighboring States will become closer
and more lasting.
Such is the German note. It will be noticed that there is no question of
the alleged entry of French aviators and officers into Belgium, as has
been stated in several papers here. The document, in fact, knocks that
fable on the head. The only reason given for the violation of Belgian
territory is the alleged intention of the French Army to march upon
Givet and Namur. This assertion is supported by no proof, and is denied
by the French Government, which officially declared to Belgium and
England its intention of not violating Belgian territory. On the
contrary, the premeditated intention of Germany to violate Belgian
neutrality is proved in the most irrefutable way, namely, by the
affirmation of the German Secretary of State himself, and by that of the
German Chancellor.
To the request of Sir William Goschen, the English Ambassador in Berlin,
to be allowed to know if Germany would pledge herself to respect the
neutrality of Belgium, the German Secretary of State replied that "this
neutrality had already been violated by Germany." Herr von Jagow went
again into the
reasons why the Imperial Government had been obliged to take this
step, namely, that they had to advance into France by the quickest
and easiest way so as to be able to get well ahead with their
operations and endeavor to strike some decisive blow as early as
possible. It was a matter of life and death to them, for, if they
had gone by the more southern route, they could not have hoped, in
view of the paucity of the roads and the strength of the
fortresses, to have got through without formidable opposition
entailing great loss of time. This loss of time would mean time
gained by the Russians for the bringing up of their troops to the
German frontier. Rapidity of action was the great German asset,
while that of Russia was the inexhaustible supply of troops.
[Official Report of the British Ambassador in Berlin to the British
Government.]
"A Scrap of Paper."
This conversation preceded by a few minutes that in which the German
Chancellor, giddy at the sight of the abyss into which Germany was
falling, uttered these celebrated words:
Just for a word, NEUTRALITY, a word which in war times has been so
often disregarded; just for A SCRAP OF PAPER, Great Britain is
going to make war on a kindred nation. At what price would that
compact [neutrality] have been kept? Has the British Government
thought of that?
Sir William Goschen replied, that fear of consequences would hardly be
regarded as an excuse for breaking a solemn engagement. [Official report
of the British Ambassador in Berlin to his Government.]
It is very clear from these documents that Germany had for a long time
premeditated the violation of the neutrality of Belgium and that she has
even reconciled herself to the terrible danger of war with Great
Britain, rather than renounce the advantages she thought she would gain
by not respecting the treaty. In the face of these confessions the
allegations that France wished to violate the neutrality of Belgium, an
allegation supported by no proof, falls to the ground.
To continue the analysis of the German note:
If Belgium consents to assume in the war which is about to commence
the attitude of friendly neutrality toward Germany, the German
Government, on its side, engages, when peace is restored, to
guarantee the integrity of the kingdom and its possessions.
Could Belgium, without being false to her duties of neutrality, take up
the position which the German Government calls "friendly neutrality"?
That is to say, could she allow the German armies to pass without
opposition through her territory? Can the German Government itself
answer that question?
It is enough to reread the conversation given above between the British
Ambassador and the German Secretary of State to come to a clear
conclusion in that respect. If the violation of Belgian territory was to
procure so signal an advantage to Germany that she had no fear of
bringing on war with England to attain it, then for Belgium to lend
herself to the passage of German troops must have meant the certainty of
fatal consequences for France. Thus for Belgium to have yielded to the
German ultimatum would _ipso facto_ have conferred a considerable
advantage to Germany, to the detriment of the other belligerent, and
would have constituted a breach of neutrality.
Germany concludes her note by threats. She engages, on the condition
already defined, to evacuate Belgian territory at the conclusion of
peace. If Belgium behaves in a hostile manner [_that is to say, if she
does her duty_] Germany will be obliged to consider Belgium as an enemy.
She would then leave the ultimate arrangements of the relations of the
two States to the decision of arms. In other words, if Belgium does not
agree to violate the treaty, Germany will treat her as an enemy, and she
adds a veiled threat of annexing a part or the whole of her territory.
The moral fibre of nations is not always measured by their size or
power. Belgium is small and weak, but her answer bears witness to her
love of justice and to her respect of the right. She would rather die
with honor than live dishonored.
That was made clear by the answer of her Government. The answer was as
follows:
Reply to German Note.
The German note has been a painful surprise to the Belgian
Government. The intentions which the note attributes to France are
in contradiction to the formal declarations which were made to us
on the 1st of August in the name of the republic. Besides, if
contrary to our expectations, France is about to violate the
neutrality of Belgium, Belgium would be prepared to fulfil its
neutrality obligations, and her army would offer to the invader the
most vigorous resistance. The treaties of 1839, confirmed by the
treaties of 1870, commit to the guarantee of the powers and notably
to the Government of his Majesty the King of Prussia the
independence and neutrality of the Kingdom of Belgium.
The Chancellor of the German Empire said in a sitting of the Reichstag
on the 4th of August:
We are in a state of legitimate defense _Necessity knows no law_.
Our troops have occupied Luxemburg and have perhaps already
penetrated into Belgium. This is against the law of nations.
France, it is true, has declared to Brussels that she is determined
to respect the neutrality of Belgium as long as her adversary
respects it, but we know that France was ready to invade Belgium.
France can afford to wait; we cannot. A French attack on our flank
in the region of the lower Rhine might have been fatal. It is for
that reason we have been compelled to ignore the just protests of
the Governments of Luxemburg and Belgium. The _injustice_ which we
thus commit we will _repair_ as soon as our military object has
been attained.
It has been shown how much value can be attached to the assertion of the
alleged intention of France to invade Belgium. That intention, and the
realization of that intention belongs exclusively to Germany and they
must be left in her possession. This is especially the case in view of
the fact that the military dispositions undertaken by France absolutely
refute the allegations of the German Chancellor. So true is this that
when the violation of Belgian territory became an accomplished fact, and
when the King of Belgium appealed under the terms of the treaty of 1839
for support, in maintaining the neutrality of Belgium which these powers
had guaranteed, France was so little prepared to invade Belgium that it
took her more than ten days to get her troops into the country.
The world is familiar with the way Germany has repaired in Belgium the
injustice of which she was guilty, to use the words of the German
Chancellor.
Atrocities in Belgium.
Under the pretext that her troops were attacked by civilians, and even
under no pretext at all, whole villages have been razed to the ground.
Important towns whose boast it was to represent part of the common
inheritance of civilization were not spared. Their monuments, which have
been respected during the centuries in all of the constant wars of which
Belgium has been the theatre, were deliberately destroyed. Open cities
were bombarded. Exorbitant taxation was imposed upon conquered towns,
and when the inhabitants were unable to pay the taxes, a large number of
their houses were set on fire. That is what happened to Wavre, among
other cities, whose 8,500 inhabitants were unable to pay a tax of
$600,000. Termonde, with 10,000 inhabitants, was utterly destroyed. On
the 15th of September, there only remained in that town 282 houses out
of 1,400. The town of Aerschot, with 8,000 inhabitants, is now nothing
but a mass of ruins and more than 150 of its inhabitants have been shot.
Dirigible balloons have thrown bombs at night upon Antwerp. It cannot be
maintained by those who were in the balloons that they were trying to
hit the forts, as the forts are outside the boundaries of the town, and
a good distance outside them as well. Nor could the bombs thrown have
had any effect upon the forts, which are even stronger than those of
Liége. There was no warning of this bombardment, a fact which
constitutes a violation of Article 26 of the Fourth Convention of The
Hague, and more than a dozen people were killed, all of them
non-combatants and several of them women and children.
The town of Louvain, with its 42,000 inhabitants, was one of the centres
of Belgian culture. It had no mercy shown to it and has been nearly
obliterated. Several quarters of the town were set on fire, the Church
of St. Pierre, a marvelous example of Gothic art; the buildings of the
University, including the Library with more than 70,000 volumes, of
which a large number were ancient manuscripts, the collections belonging
to the University; nearly all the scientific institutions, and nearly
all the houses of the town were _deliberately_ burned. They are now
nothing more than heaps of ashes. Their destruction has been a loss to
the whole civilized world.
Numbers of absolutely innocent women and children lost their lives in
the fire which was started by order of the German military officials. Of
those who were saved, several thousand, including women enfeebled by
age, and children in arms, are today wandering homeless over the roads,
without food or clothing. They are not to blame for anything, unless it
is because they belong to a nation which has refused to purchase peace
at the price of dishonor. That can be the only crime accounted to them
and it is for that they have lost all their possessions upon the earth.
From the declaration made by the Imperial German Chancellor it may be
seen that the German Government is conscious of its wrongdoing. As one
of the guarantors of Belgium's neutrality, it wanted to force Belgium to
relinquish its neutrality for Germany's benefit. Because Belgium would
not consent to this injustice and because Germany could not reproach her
with anything else, Germany invaded and covered with blood and ruin a
small peaceful country of hard-working and honest people, a country
which it had promised to protect.
This attack upon her neutrality is the first violation for which Belgium
asks judgment from the universal conscience.
The entire Belgo-German question today is dominated by the fact of this
violation of the neutrality of Belgium. Therefore, there is not a single
shot fired by a German soldier in Belgium, which is not manifestly and
avowedly belying most sacred things: the keeping of a solemn pledge, and
the right for an honest nation that never wanted war, nor showed
aggressive dispositions, to be allowed to live its peaceful and neutral
life.
Such is the Belgian case. Humanity will judge it.
* * * * *