By T. von Bethmann-Hollweg, German Imperial Chancellor.
_Following is the full text of the speech delivered by the
German Chancellor at the session of the Reichstag in Berlin on
Dec. 2, 1914:_
The Emperor, who is absent with the army, has charged me to transmit his
best wishes and cordial greetings to the German Reichstag, with whom he
is known to be united till death in the stress of danger and in the
common concern for the weal of the Fatherland.
Our first thought goes out to the Kaiser and the army and navy--our
soldiers who are fighting for the honor and greatness of the empire.
Full of pride and unshakable confidence, we look to them and to our
Austro-Hungarian comrades in arms, who are firmly united to us, to fight
great battles with brilliant bravery.
Our most recent ally in battle who has been obliged to join us is the
Ottoman Empire, which knows well that with the destruction of the German
Empire it, too, would lose its national right to control its own
destiny. As our enemies have formed a powerful coalition against us,
they will, I hope, find that the arm of our brave allies reaches the
weak spots in their world position.
On Aug. 4 the Reichstag expressed the firm resolution of the whole
people to undertake the war which had been forced upon them and to
defend their independence to the utmost.
Since then great deeds have been accomplished. The incomparable
gallantry of our troops has carried the war into the enemy's country.
There we still stand firm and can regard the future with every
confidence, but the enemy's resistance is not broken.
We are not yet at the end of our sacrifices. The nation will continue to
support those sacrifices with the same heroism as hitherto, for we must
and will fight to a successful end our defensive war for right and
freedom. We will then remember how our defenseless compatriots in
hostile countries were maltreated in a manner which is a disgrace to all
civilization. The world must learn that no one can hurt a hair on the
head of a German subject with impunity.
It is evident to us who is responsible for this--the greatest of all
wars. The apparent responsibility falls on those in Russia who ordered
and carried out the mobilization of the Russian Army; the real
responsibility, however, falls on the British Government. The Cabinet in
London could have made the war impossible if it had without ambiguity
declared at Petrograd that Great Britain would not allow a Continental
war to develop from the Austro-Servian conflict.
Such a declaration would also have obliged France to take energetic
measures to restrain Russia from undertaking warlike operations. Then
our action as mediators between Petrograd and Vienna would have been
successful, and there would have been no war.
But Great Britain did not act thus. Great Britain was aware of the
bellicose machinations of the partly irresponsible but powerful group
around the Czar. She saw how the ball was rolling, but placed no
obstacle in its path. In spite of all its assurances of peace London
informed Petrograd that Great Britain was on the side of France and,
consequently, on the side of Russia.
The Cabinet of London allowed this monstrous worldwide war to come about
hoping, with the help of the Entente, to destroy the vitality of
England's greatest European competitor in the markets of the world.
Therefore, England and Russia have before God and men the responsibility
for the catastrophe which has fallen upon Europe. Belgian neutrality,
which England pretended to defend, was nothing but a disguise.
On the evening of Aug. 2 we informed Brussels that we were obliged, in
the interest of self-defense and in consequence of the war plans of
France, which were known to us, to march through Belgium, but already,
on the afternoon of the same day, Aug. 2, before anything of our action
in Brussels could have been known in London, the British Government
promised France unconditional assistance in case the German fleet should
attack the French coast. Nothing was said about Belgium neutrality.
How can England maintain that she drew the sword because we violated
Belgian neutrality? How could the British statesmen, whose past is well
known, speak at all of Belgian neutrality? When, on Aug. 4, I spoke of
the wrong which we were committing with our march into Belgium it was
not yet established whether the Belgian Government at the last moment
would not desire to spare the country and retire under protest to
Antwerp. For military reasons I cannot go into whether there was the
possibility of such a development on Aug. 4.
As to the guilt of the Belgian Government, many indications were already
known at that time, but there were no positive and written proofs. Now,
however, that it is demonstrated by documents found in Brussels how the
Belgians surrendered their neutrality to England the entire world knows
two facts.
One is that when our troops on the night of Aug. 3-Aug. 4 entered
Belgian territory they were on the ground of a State which had given up
its neutrality long ago. The other is that, not for the sake of the
neutrality of Belgium, which she had herself undermined, did England
declare war on us, but because she believed that she would be able to
master us with the help of two great Continental powers.
Since Aug. 2, since her promise to assist France, England was no longer
neutral, and was actually at war with us, and the argument that the
declaration of war was a sequel to the violation of Belgian neutrality
is nothing but a piece of play-acting performed to mystify the English
people and neutral States.
Now that the Anglo-Belgian war plans are unveiled in their smallest
details, the policy of British statesmen is branded before the tribunal
of history for all time.
But British diplomacy went further. At England's request Japan snatches
away heroic Kiao-Chau and violates the neutrality of China. Has England
interfered in this violation of neutrality? Has England shown a care for
neutral States in this case?
When, five years ago, I was called to office the Triple Alliance was
opposed by a firmly united Entente. England's work was designed to serve
the known principle of the balance of power, which means in plain German
that the principle, followed for centuries by British policy and
directed against the strongest Continental power, should find its
strongest tool in the Triple Entente. This proves from the beginning the
aggressive character of the Entente toward the plainly defensive
tendencies of the Triple Alliance.
This was the germ of the forcible explosion. German policy was obliged
to try to avert the danger of war by an understanding with the
individual powers of the Entente. At the same time she was obliged to
strengthen her defensive forces so that she should be prepared if war
should come all the same. We did both. In France we always encountered
ideas of revanche felt by ambitious politicians. With Russia some
agreements were concluded, but Russia's firm alliance with France, her
antagonism to us and our ally, Austria-Hungary, her Pan-Slavistic desire
for power, her artificial hatred for Germany, made it impossible to
conclude an agreement which in the case of a political crisis would
exclude the danger of war.
England was comparatively free. Here the best attempt at an
understanding could be made which would have effectively guaranteed the
peace of the world. I acted accordingly. The way was narrow, which I
knew well. For decades the British insular intellect has been evolving
the political principle, the dogma that the arbitrament of the world is
due to England, which she can only maintain by undisputed supremacy on
the sea and the much-quoted balance of power on the Continent.
I never hoped to break the old principle by persuasion. What I believe
possible was that the growing power of Germany and the growing danger of
war could be made to compel England to perceive that this old principle
was untenable and unpractical, and that a peaceable arrangement with
Germany was preferable, but that dogma always paralyzed the possibility
of an understanding. After the crisis of 1911 public opinion forced
British rulers to a rapprochement toward Germany. By wearisome work an
understanding was finally reached in different disputed questions of
economic interest which related to Africa and Asia Minor. This
understanding should have diminished possible political friction if the
free development of our strength were not impeded. Both peoples had
sufficient space to measure their strength in peaceful competition.
This was the principle always upheld by German policy. But while we were
negotiating England was always thinking of strengthening her relations
with Russia and France. The decisive factor was that more binding
military agreements for the case eventually of a Continental war were
concluded outside the political sphere. England negotiated, if possible,
secretly. If anything leaked out of importance it was minimized in press
and Parliament. It could not be concealed from us. The whole situation
was as follows:
England was willing to come to an understanding with us in individual
questions, but the first principle always was that Germany's free
development of strength must be checked by the balance of power.
We did not fail to warn the British Government. As recently as the
beginning of July I notified the British Government that we knew of the
secret naval negotiations with Russia concerning the Naval Convention. I
pointed out the serious danger which British policy meant for the peace
of the world. A fortnight later what I predicted occurred. When war had
broken out England dropped her disguise. She loudly announced that she
would fight till Germany was conquered in an economical and military
sense. We have only one answer. Germany cannot be destroyed. As her
military strength has stood the test so has her financial strength.
Look at the diminution in the number of unemployed. The unemployed of
yesterday are the army of today--their spirit is that of the soldier of
yesterday and of today--the one spirit that animates us all.
When this spirit, this moral greatness of the people, when the proved
heroism of our troops is called by our enemies militarism, if they call
us Huns and barbarians, we can be proud enough and need not worry. This
wonderful spirit in the hearts of the German people, this unprecedented
unity, must and will be victorious. When a glorious and happy peace is
concluded we will maintain this spirit as the holiest legacy of this
terrible and serious and great time. I repeat the words of the Emperor:
"I know no parties. I know only Germans. When the war is ended parties
will return without parties, without a political fight. There is no
political life, not even for the freest and most united people."
Many seats are vacant here. Where are their holders? You know. There is
the vacant seat of Herr Frank, (Socialist member;) but he will return no
more. The spirit of cheerful self-sacrifice which animates us here as
the guardians of the people's weal inspires the entire people.
Japan joined our enemies from a desire to seize as booty the monument
of German culture in the Far East. On the other hand, we have found an
ally in Turkey, as all the Moslem peoples want to throw off the English
yoke and shatter the foundations of England's colonial power. Under the
banner of our army and the flag of our fleet we shall conquer.
This, then, is our inspiration--our vow! Germany shall fight on and
continue to sacrifice herself on the altar of civilization and progress
and patriotism until she shall have secured a guarantee from all that
none henceforth shall disturb--shall dare to disturb--the peace of this,
our German land.