[BELGIAN LEGATION ARTICLE NO. 1.]
"INNOCENCE OF BELGIUM"
"Reply to Publication of Military Documents by Germany"
The German Government has at last decided to publish the documents
which it says were found in Brussels, and which it claims prove that
Belgium violated her neutrality.
As a matter of fact these documents are the clearest proof of the
innocence of Belgium.
Document No. 1 refers to a conversation between Major Gen. Ducarme and
the English Military Attaché, Lieut. Col. Barnardiston.
The English Military Attaché _went to call_ on the Belgian General and
told him of the anxiety on the part of the English General Staff in
regard to the general political situation and the possibility of war.
"_In case Belgium should be attacked_, the sending of about 100,000
troops was provided for."
He (the British Military Attaché) proceeded in the following terms:
"The landing of the British troops would take place on the French
coast.... The entry of the English into Belgium would take place only
_after the violation of our (Belgian) neutrality by Germany_."
It almost seems as if Col. Barnardiston had foreseen the future.
The document continues as follows: "My visitor laid emphasis on the
following fact: that it (the conversation) was not binding on his
Government ... and that he did not know whether the opinion of his
Sovereign had been consulted." It was thus clearly shown by the
British Military Attaché that his communication was simply a
conversation; it is, moreover, perfectly well known that Military
Attachés have no power to make conventional agreements.
The document further continues: "In the course of another interview,
Lieut. Col. Barnardiston and I studied the combined operations to take
place in the event of a _German offensive_, with Antwerp as its
object, _and under the hypothesis of the German troops marching
through our (Belgian) country_, in order to reach the French
Ardennes"--an additional proof that the object of the conversation was
solely to prevent a violation of Belgian neutrality.
Document No. 2 refers to a conversation between the British Military
Attaché and Gen. Jungbluth, in which the former said that the British
troops would effect a landing "even if we (the Belgians) did not ask
for assistance." This is an additional proof that no agreement or
convention had been made.
To this the Belgian General replied that "our (Belgium's) consent was
necessary," and he added that "we (the Belgians) were, moreover,
perfectly able to prevent the Germans from passing through Belgium,"
thus showing his anxiety to preserve the neutrality of Belgium.
Dr. B. Dernburg claims that England would have sent troops into
Belgium in any event, even if Germany had not invaded Belgium.
Affirmations which are not based upon any evidence cannot destroy the
text itself of the documents.
In a letter of Sir Edward Grey, Secretary for Foreign Affairs of
England, addressed to the British Minister to Belgium, on the 7th of
April, 1913, the British statesman declares in the most formal way,
that: "As long as Belgium's neutrality was not violated by any other
power, we (the British) should certainly not send troops ourselves
into their territory."
The full text of this important letter is as follows:
In speaking to the Belgian Minister today I said, speaking
unofficially, that it had been brought to my knowledge that
there was apprehension in Belgium lest we should be the
first to violate Belgian neutrality. I did not think that
apprehension could have come from a British source.
The Belgian Minister informed me that there had been talk,
from a British source which he could not name, of the
landing of troops in Belgium by Great Britain, in order to
anticipate a possible dispatch of German troops through
Belgium to France.
I said that I was sure that this Government would not be the
first to violate the neutrality of Belgium, and I did not
believe that any British Government would be the first to do
so, nor would public opinion here ever approve of it. What
we had to consider, and it was a somewhat embarrassing
question, was what it would be desirable and necessary for
us, as one of the guarantors of Belgian neutrality, to do if
Belgian neutrality was violated by any power. For us to be
the first to violate it and to send troops into Belgium
would be to give Germany, for instance, justification for
sending troops into Belgium also. What we desired in the
case of Belgium, as in that of other neutral countries, was
that their neutrality should be respected, and, as long as
it was not violated by any other power, we would certainly
not send troops ourselves into their territory. I am, &c.,
(Signed) E. GREY.
Document No. 3 contains, according to Dr. B. Dernburg, the personal
views of the Belgian Minister in Berlin, but it does not, in any way,
indicate the existence of an agreement between Belgium and England
against Germany.
It is impossible to say that these documents constitute a proof of an
agreement between England and Belgium against Germany, unless one
accepts the idea that Germany had a right to violate Belgium's
neutrality and that all measures taken as a precaution against
violation of neutrality must therefore have been taken against
Germany.
The documents contain merely conversations between military officers
in regard to a possible future co-operation of their armies in the
event of violation of Belgian territory by Germany. They never even
resulted in an agreement between those Governments; Military Attachés
have no authority to make such agreements.
The events that happened last August and the sudden invasion of
Belgium by Germany show that the British Government was fully
justified in fearing the violation of Belgian territory by Germany. It
seems incredible, after what has passed, that the German Government
should denounce the British Government for approaching Belgian
military officers and taking precautions against the very thing which
eventually happened.
If further proof should be necessary, the documents published in the
"Gray Book" show as clearly as possible that, when the war broke out,
Belgium had no such agreement with any of the powers.
On July 24 the following letter was sent by the Belgian Minister for
Foreign Affairs to the various Belgian Legations concerned, with
instructions to communicate the same to the powers as soon as said
Legations should have received telegraphic orders to do so:
Mr. Minister:
The international situation is serious; the eventuality of a
conflict between several powers cannot be set aside from the
anxieties of the Government of the King.
Belgium has observed with the most scrupulous exactness the
duties of a neutral State which are imposed on her by the
Treaties of April 19, 1839. These duties, whatever the
circumstances may be, _will be resolutely fulfilled by her_.
The friendly disposition of the powers toward her has been
so often affirmed that Belgium has the confidence that her
territory will be untouched by any attack if hostilities
should break out on her frontiers.
All the necessary measures have nevertheless been taken, in
order to assure the observance of her neutrality.... It is
scarcely necessary to insist upon their character.... These
measures _are not and can not have been inspired by a design
to participate in an armed struggle of the powers, nor by
any sentiment of defiance toward any one of them_.
Belgium declared that she would not fail to fulfill all of her duties,
that she had not a single agreement of alliance with any one, and that
she wanted to remain absolutely neutral.
Seven days later the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs communicated
to the Belgian Legations his answer to the question which Sir Edward
Grey had asked Belgium in the name of England:
"Mr. Minister:
"The British Minister requested to see me very urgently and
communicated to me the following:
"'Sir Edward Grey has asked the French and German Governments,
separately, whether each of them was prepared to respect the
neutrality of Belgium.
"'In view of the existing treaties, I am also instructed to inform the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belgium that _Sir Edward Grey presumes
that Belgium will do her utmost to maintain her neutrality_.'
"I immediately thanked Sir Francis Villiers for this communication,
which the Belgian Government appreciates very highly, and I added that
Great Britain and the other nations, guarantors of our independence,
might be sure that we would neglect no effort to maintain our
neutrality, and that we were convinced that the other powers, in view
of the excellent relations of friendship and confidence which we have
always enjoyed with them, would observe and maintain this neutrality."
At the decisive moment, the attitude of Belgium was thus
irreproachable. She was not bound to any other nation; she had her
hands free. She declared that she was ready to make the necessary
sacrifices to defend her neutrality and to resist any aggression from
whatever source, and she added that, trusting in her friendly
relations with the powers, she was unwilling to believe that any of
them would violate her neutrality.
On Aug. 3, at 7 A.M., after having received the ultimatum from
Germany, Belgium declared that she refused to repudiate her
engagements.
The next day, the 4th of August, at 3 P.M., the Belgian Minister for
Foreign Affairs received from Sir F. Villiers, Minister of England in
Brussels, the following note:
BRUSSELS, Aug. 4, 1914.
I am instructed to inform the Belgian Government that if
Germany exercises pressure for the purpose of compelling
Belgium to abandon her position of a neutral country, the
Government of his Britannic Majesty expects Belgium to
resist by every possible means. The Government of his
Britannic Majesty is ready, in that event, to join with
Russia and France, _if desired by Belgium_, to offer to the
Belgian Government, at once, common action for the purpose
of resisting the use of force by Germany against Belgium,
and at the same time to offer a guarantee to maintain the
independence and the integrity of Belgium in the future.
England offered her help _but did not impose it_. She did not intend
to send troops into Belgian territory as a preventive measure. She
expressly subordinated her assistance _to the desire of Belgium_.
It was only on the 4th of August, during the evening, after having
vainly hoped and waited for a change in the attitude of Germany, that
Belgium called England, France, and Russia to co-operate, as guarantor
powers, in the defense of her territory.
In the preface published by Dr. B. Dernburg, with the documents, it is
said that "only the prompt action at Liége that put this important
railway centre, commanding the railway connections to France and
Germany, into German hands, prevented the English landing and invading
Belgium."
It is impossible to conceive how the taking of Liége prevented the
English from landing and invading Belgium. That statement is hardly a
compliment to the intelligence or the geographical knowledge of the
American people. The fact is that Liége was taken a long time before
the British troops landed at Calais, and it is still today in the
hands of the Germans without in the least interfering with the arrival
of British reinforcements in France and in the territory still left in
the possession of Belgium. The fact is that Liége was not taken to
prevent the British from entering Belgium, but because it was part of
the plan of the German General Staff to invade Belgium at once, to
march across her territory, to crush the army of France as soon as
possible, and then to turn and attack the Russians on the east.
It is interesting to recall here the famous conversation held between
the British Ambassador in Berlin, on one side, and the Chancellor of
the Empire, Mr. Bethmann-Hollweg, and the German Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, Mr. von Jagow, on the other side, at the time of the invasion
of Belgium by the German troops. These conversations prove,
indisputably, the premeditated intention of Germany to violate
Belgium's neutrality:
To the request of Sir Edward 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.)
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 Edward 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.)
Finally, the solemn avowal of the German Chancellor, during the
sitting of the Reichstag on Aug. 4, 1914, settles this question
definitely: "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."
The truth is that every step taken by Germany was a clear indication
of her intentions against Belgium. Her strategic railroads are
concentrated on the Belgian frontier, and her military writers, von
Bernhardi, von Schliefenbach, and von der Goltz, made no secret of her
plan to carry on her war by means of an invasion of Belgium's neutral
country. Events have shown how, long before the war, preparations had
been made to carry this plan into effect.
Dr. B. Dernburg says that the one-sidedness of the Belgian inclination
is indicated by the placing of all Belgian fortresses on the eastern
frontier. The distinguished statesman (apparently confused by the
ardor of discussion) has already in another article, published in The
Independent of Dec. 7, 1914, placed Antwerp at the mouth of the Rhine;
today he places Namur on the German frontier, whereas that fortress is
situated near the frontier of France. There are three fortresses in
Belgium--Antwerp, Liége, and Namur. Antwerp is in the north, Liége in
the east, and Namur in the south. Namur, being near the French
frontier, could menace Germany only in case the Germans should have
penetrated about one-third of Belgium. It is, in fact, a fortress
against France.
Nothing has been brought forward to show that, if Germany had not
invaded Belgium, France or England would have done so. The exact
contrary is clearly indicated by the documents.
Dr. B. Dernburg cites a decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States and attempts to apply it to the case of Germany's violation of
Belgian neutrality and to justify Germany by the law of necessity. The
example chosen (the Chinese question) does not involve massacres,
bombardments, nor the burning of towns. It is not an analogous case.
The following would be a closer analogy to Germany's action in regard
to Belgium: A man pretending that he has been attacked in the street
by a powerful enemy, claims that he is justified in killing an
innocent person, if by doing so he can gain an advantage over his
adversary.
It would be difficult for any one to produce a decision of the Supreme
Court justifying a crime on the plea that the perpetration of the
crime was advantageous to the culprit who committed it.
When a nation has to resort to such arguments to defend its actions it
must realize that its case is desperate.
Germany has converted smiling and peaceful Belgium into a land of
sorrow, of mourning, and of ruins. There is not a family that does not
mourn one of its dear ones. In the face of the indignation which has
aroused the world, Germany, today, endeavors to refute the accusation
which rises against her from so many tombs, and she endeavors to throw
upon the innocent the terrible responsibility of her own crimes.
It is not probable that this course of action will win back to Germany
the sympathy which she has lost throughout the world.
The foregoing documents show clearly that Belgium had made no
agreement with England for attacking Germany, nor even an agreement
for British military defense of Belgian neutrality.
[Having replied to the representations made in the German
indictment drawn by Dr. Dernburg, the Belgian authorities
proceeded to compile a pamphlet, the contents of which are
reproduced on the following pages, purporting to show from
original documents the manner of the German violation of
Belgium's neutralized territory.]
* * * * *