Chapter II: Part 2

"It is understood that the action of Japan will not extend to the
Pacific Ocean beyond the China Seas, except in so far as it may be
necessary to protect Japanese shipping lines in the Pacific, nor
beyond Asiatic waters westward of the China Seas, nor to any
foreign territory except territory in German occupation on the
Continent of Eastern Asia."

_DECLARATION OF COMMON POLICY._

On September 5, 1914, the British Official Press Bureau issued the following statement from the Foreign Office:--

DECLARATION.

The undersigned duly authorised thereto by the respective
Governments hereby declare as follows:--

The British, French, and Russian Governments mutually engage not to
conclude peace separately during the present war. The three
Governments agree that when terms of peace come to be discussed no
one of the Allies will demand terms of peace without the previous
agreement of each of the other Allies. In faith whereof the
undersigned have signed this Declaration and have affixed thereto
their seals.

Done at London in triplicate, the 5th day of September, 1914.

E. Grey, His Britannic Majesty's Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs.

Paul Cambon, Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the French Republic.

Benckendorff, Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of His Majesty the Emperor of
Russia.

TURKEY JOINS GERMANY.

Directly war broke out the Turkish Army was mobilised, under the supreme command of Enver Pasha, who was entirely in German hands.[48] Although the Turkish Government had declared their intention of preserving their neutrality, they took no steps to ensure its maintenance. They forfeited their ability to do so by the admission of the German warships, "Goeben" and "Breslau," which, fleeing from the Allied Fleets, had entered the Dardanelles on August 10.

Instead of interning these war vessels with their crews, as they were repeatedly asked to do by the Allied Governments, the Turkish Government allowed the German Admiral and his men to remain on board, and while this was the case the German Government were in a position to force the hand of the Turkish Government whenever it suited them to do so.

In pursuance of a long-prepared policy, the greatest pressure was exercised by Germany to force Turkey into hostilities. German success in the European War was said to be assured; the perpetual menace to Turkey from Russia might, it was suggested, be averted by an alliance with Germany and Austria; Egypt might be recovered for the Empire; India and other Moslem countries would rise against Christian rule, to the great advantage of the Caliphate of Constantinople; Turkey would emerge from the War the one great power of the East, even as Germany would be the one great power of the West. Such was the substance of German misrepresentations.

Enver Pasha, dominated by a quasi-Napoleonic ideal, and by the conviction of the superiority of German arms, proved a most active agent on behalf of Germany.

A strong German element was imported into the remainder of the Turkish Fleet, even before the British Naval Mission, which had been reduced to impotence by order of the Minister of Marine, was recalled by His Majesty's Government. Large numbers of Germans were imported from Germany to be employed in the forts of the Dardanelles and Bosphorus, and at other crucial points.

Numerous German merchant vessels served as bases of communication, and as auxiliaries to what had become in effect the German Black Sea Fleet. Secret communications with the German General Staff were established by means of the "Corcovado," which was anchored opposite the German Embassy at Therapia. The German Military Mission in Turkey acted in closest touch with the Turkish Militarist Party. They were the main organisers of those military preparations in Syria which directly menaced Egypt.

Emissaries of Enver Pasha bribed and organised the Bedouins on the frontier; the Syrian towns were full of German officers, who provided large sums of money for suborning the local chiefs. The Khedive of Egypt, who was in Constantinople, was himself a party to the conspiracy, and arrangements were actually made with the German Embassy for his presence with a military expedition across the frontier. All the Turkish newspapers in Constantinople and most of the provincial papers became German organs; they glorified every real or imaginary success of Germany or Austria, and minimised everything favourable to the Allies.

Millions of money were consigned from Germany to the German Embassy in Constantinople, and delivered under military guard at the Deutsche Bank. At one time these sums amounted to L4,000,000. A definite arrangement was arrived at between the Germans and a group of Turkish Ministers, including Enver Pasha, Talaat Bey and Djemal Pasha, that Turkey should declare war as soon as the financial provision should have attained a stated figure.

The final point was reached when Odessa and other Russian ports in the Black Sea were attacked by the Turkish Fleet on October 29, 1914. It is now certain that the actual orders for these attacks were given by the German Admiral on the evening of October 27.

On October 30 the Russian Ambassador asked for his passports and there was nothing left but for the British and French Ambassadors to demand theirs on the same day. The Russian Ambassador left Constantinople on October 31, while the British and French Ambassadors left the following evening.[49]

Thenceforward the Turks, at the instigation of the Germans, unsuccessfully endeavoured to raise Mahomedans in all countries against Great Britain and her Allies. The Sultan of Turkey, misusing his position as Padishah and Titular Head of the Moslems, gave a perverted history of the events and proclaimed a Holy War. The Sultan, in his speech from the Throne on December 14, 1914 (at which ceremony the ex-Khedive of Egypt was present), said:--

"We were just in the best way to give reforms in the interior a
fresh impetus when suddenly the great crisis broke out. While our
Government was firmly resolved to observe the strictest neutrality,
our Fleet was attacked in the Black Sea by the Russian Fleet.
England and France then began actual hostilities by sending troops
to our frontiers. Therefore I declared a state of war. These
Powers, as a necessity, compelled us to resist by armed force the
policy of destruction which at all times was pursued against the
Islamic world by England, Russia, and France, and assumed the
character of a religious persecution. In conformity with the Fetwas
I called all Moslems to a Holy War against these Powers and those
who would help them."[50]

What the Moslems of India thought of the situation is succinctly shown by a speech delivered on October 1, 1914, by the Agha Khan, the spiritual head of the Khoja community of Mahomedans and President of the All-India Moslem League.[51] He said he had always been convinced that Germany was the most dangerous enemy of Turkey and other Moslem countries, for she was the Power most anxious to enter by "peaceful penetration" Asia Minor and Southern Persia. But she had been posing for years past as a sort of protector of Islam--_though Heaven forbid that they should have such an immoral protector_.

FOOTNOTES:

[48] Cd. 7716.

[49] Cd. 7628 and Cd. 7716.

[50] A Reuter's Amsterdam telegram of December 15, 1914.

[51] _Times_, October 2, 1914,

MORE GERMAN INTRIGUES.

The vastness of German intrigues throughout the world in preparation for a great war have come out piece by piece.

=The Near East.=--Taking the Near East first, we find that Germany, having suborned the ex-Khedive of Egypt, Abbas Hilmi, proceeded weeks before the rupture with Turkey to give orders, through the Ottoman Empire, to Shukri, the acting Chief of the Turkish Special Mission, to prepare public opinion in Egypt for Turkish invasion and to await the coming of the German Mors, whose trial was attended by such startling disclosures.[52]

Mors had been introduced to Enver Pasha by Dr. Pruefer (Secretary to Prince Hatzfeldt when he was German Agent in Egypt) and had held long conferences with Omar Fauzi Bey, of the Turkish General Staff, who on September 6, 1914, worked out a scheme for disturbances in Egypt by bands of criminals led by Turkish officers and for an attack on the Suez Canal.

In 1908 Prince Hatzfeldt succeeded Count Bernstorff, as German Agent in Egypt, and he at once established close relations with the Egyptian disloyalists of the extreme faction. In this he appears to have been aided by Baron von Oppenheim, and by Dr. Pruefer, the Oriental Secretary of the Agency, who was a fine Arabic scholar, and who had travelled a great deal in Syria and the Near East. The leaders of the disloyal section in Egypt were kept in the closest touch, and visited Prince Hatzfeldt at the German Agency, and were in constant communication with Dr. Pruefer, who, in Oriental disguise, often visited them, and other Panislamic Agents.[53]

=The Far East.=--In India the German merchants joined our Chambers of Commerce and were elected as representatives of commercial life, and as trustees of port trusts, which gave them a knowledge of our local defences. In some instances they appear to have become volunteers, and so to have gained knowledge of our forts and armouries. Small German merchants and traders in the Punjab and other districts constantly endeavoured to undermine the British Raj, and preached sedition wherever they went. Such were the agents and spies of the German Government.

Since the Mutiny at Singapore it has been proved that the Germans were calling home their reserves from Singapore and the East in May, 1914, and even as early as April of last year.[54] The first thing the mutineers did was to go to the German Encampment, open the doors, and supply those inside with rifles. Sir Evelyn Ellis, member of the Singapore Legislative Council, who was President of the Commission appointed by the Governor to collect evidence with reference to the Mutiny, which took place on February 15, 1915, stated that:--

"They were not to think that they had been engaged in suppressing a
small local disturbance. On the contrary, there was evidence to
show that they had assisted in defeating one of the aims of the
destroyer of Europe. They had been dealing with work that had been
engineered by the agents of our common foes, and they had
contributed to the suppression of a most diabolical plot. What had
taken place in Singapore was only part of a scheme for the murder
of women and children such as they had had instances of on the East
Coast of England."[55]

The head of a big German firm in Singapore, after being released on parole, was found with a wireless installation in his house, with which he was stated to have kept the "Emden" supplied with news.[56]

In Persia and Arabia there is abundant proof of German intrigues, while in China few opportunities have been lost by German agents of impugning British good faith, and German money appears to have been used for years in keeping the Chinese press--in Peking more particularly--as anti-British as possible. Since the declaration of war an attempt has been made by Captain Pappenheim, Military Attache of the German Legation in Peking, to organise an expedition into Russian Siberia to damage the Trans-Siberian railway. His action was, of course, a gross abuse of his diplomatic position, and has been disclaimed by the Chinese Government.[57]

=West Africa.=--In West Africa the report of Colonel F. C. Bryant on operation in Togoland shows how well the Germans were prepared for war in that region.[58]

=South Africa.=--In South Africa[59] it has been proved that so far back as 1912 the Germans were in communication with Lieut.-Colonel Maritz with a view to a rebellion. The latter appears to have brooded over schemes for the establishment of a Republic in South Africa. As the Blue Book, published in Cape Town on April 28, 1915, states: "One witness, Captain Leipold, of the Government Intelligence Department, who was sent to find out how things stood with Maritz, describes how the rebel leader dramatically threw his cards on the table in the shape of a bundle of correspondence with the German Administration at Windhuk, dating as far back as August, 1912."[60]

In a speech to his troops on August 9, 1914, Maritz declared that he had 6,000 Germans ready to help him, and he further stated that Beyers and De Wet had been fully informed of his plans long before the war.[61]

Evidence was also given during the trial of De Wet that the rebellion in South Africa "was planned a couple of years ago when General Hertzog left the Ministry."[62] The Germans, either directly or indirectly, suborned, amongst others, Maritz, De Wet, De La Rey, Beyers, Kemp, and Kock. But the magnificent services of General Botha and the loyalists of South Africa--both British and Dutch--rendered nugatory the machinations of the German Government.

The history of German intrigues, both before and since the war, in British and French colonies, and in neutral countries throughout the world, which are now known and proved to the hilt, may be gauged from the examples given in the foregoing brief notes. The German newspaper _Der Tag_, which, during the first month of the war, declared: "Herr Gott, sind diese Tage schoen" (O Lord, how beautiful are these days), subsequently summarised the German outlook when it naively declared:--[63]

"So many of our calculations have deceived us. We expected that
British India would rise when the first shot was fired in Europe,
but in reality thousands of Indians came to fight with the British
against us. We anticipated that the whole British Empire would be
torn to pieces, but the Colonies appear to be closer than ever
united with the Mother Country. We expected a triumphant rebellion
in South Africa, yet it turned out nothing but a failure. We
expected trouble in Ireland, but instead, she sent her best
soldiers against us. We anticipated that the party of 'peace at any
price' would be dominant in England, but it melted away in the
ardour to fight against Germany. We reckoned that England was
degenerate and incapable of placing any weight in the scale, yet
she seems to be our principal enemy.

"The same has been the case with France and Russia. We thought that
France was depraved and divided and we find that they are
formidable opponents. We believed that the Russian people were far
too discontented to fight for their Government, and we made our
plans on the supposition of a rapid collapse of Russia, but,
instead, she mobilised her millions quickly and well, and her
people are full of enthusiasm and their power is crushing. Those
who led us into all those mistakes and miscalculations have laid
upon themselves a heavy responsibility."

FOOTNOTES:

[52] _Times_, April 28, 1915.

[53] _Times_, January 6, 1915.

[54] _Times_, April 24, 1915. (Speech by the Bishop of Singapore.)

[55] _Daily News and Leader_, April 27, 1915.

[56] _Morning Post_, March 27, 1915.

[57] Letter from the Chinese Legation to the _Times_, March 13 and 20, 1915.

[58] _Daily News and Leader_, April 22, 1915.

[59] Cd. 7874.

[60] _Times_, April 30, 1915.

[61] _Times_, March 17, 1915.

[62] _Times_, February 19, 1915.

[63] _Times_, April 26, 1915.

HOW THE GERMANS MAKE WAR.

It has often been asked what would happen if savages were armed with the products of modern science and with the intelligence to use them. Germany has answered the question. Every resource of science lies at the German command; the chemist, the physicist, the metallurgist, have all worked in this war to place the most effective tools of destruction in the Germans' hands, and to satisfy their ambitions they have shut the gates of mercy on mankind. The Official Handbook of Instructions issued to Officers of the German Army by the German General Staff urges the "exploitation of the crimes of third parties (assassination, incendiarism, robbery and the like) to the prejudice of the enemy." This Official Handbook says:--

"A war conducted with energy cannot be directed merely against the
combatants of the Enemy State and the positions they occupy, but it
will and must in like manner seek to destroy the total intellectual
and material resources of the latter."[64]

The German Emperor, addressing the troops which he sent to take part in the International Expedition in China in 1900, said:--

"When you come into contact with the enemy strike him down.
_Quarter is not to be given. Prisoners are not to be made._ Whoever
falls into your hands is into your hands delivered. Just as a
thousand years ago the Huns, under their King Attila, made for
themselves a name which still appears imposing in tradition, so may
the name of German become known in China in such a way that never
again will a Chinaman dare to look askance at a German. The
blessing of the Lord be with you. Give proof of your courage and
the Divine blessing will be attached to your colours."

At midnight on August 4, Great Britain declared war on Germany for violating the neutrality of Belgium, and it will be remembered that earlier in the day the German Imperial Chancellor had stated that German troops "perhaps are already on Belgian soil," and that Germany could only have one thought--how she was to "hack her way through." Simultaneously with the thought, came action. What was actually taking place is described, by Lord Bryce's Committee of Inquiry, in the following words[65]:--

"On August 4th the roads converging upon Liege from north-east,
east, and south were covered with German Death's Head Hussars and
Uhlans pressing forward to seize the passage over the Meuse. From
the very beginning of the operations the civilian population of the
villages lying upon the line of the German advance were made to
experience the extreme horrors of war. 'On the 4th of August,' says
one witness, 'at Herve' (a village not far from the frontier), 'I
saw at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, near the station, five
Uhlans, these were the first German troops I had seen. They were
followed by a German officer and some soldiers in a motor car. The
men in the car called out to a couple of young fellows who were
standing about 30 yards away. The young men, being afraid, ran off,
and then the Germans fired and killed one of them named D----.'

"The murder of this innocent fugitive civilian was a prelude to the
burning and pillage of Herve and of other villages in the
neighbourhood, to the indiscriminate shooting of civilians of both
sexes, and to the organised military execution of batches of
selected males. Thus at Herve some 50 men escaping from the burning
houses were seized, taken outside the town and shot. At Melen, a
hamlet west of Herve, 40 men were shot. In one household alone the
father and mother (names given) were shot, the daughter died after
being repeatedly outraged, and the son was wounded. Nor were
children exempt....

"The burning of the villages in this neighbourhood and the
wholesale slaughter of civilians, such as occurred at Herve,
Micheroux, and Soumagne, appear to be connected with the
exasperation caused by the resistance of Fort Fleron, whose guns
barred the main road from Aix la Chapelle to Liege. Enraged by the
losses which they had sustained, suspicious of the temper of the
civilian population, and probably thinking that by exceptional
severities at the outset they could cow the spirit of the Belgian
nation, the German officers and men speedily accustomed themselves
to the slaughter of civilians."

As a German soldier's diary, examined by Lord Bryce's Committee, says:--"The inhabitants without exception were brought out and shot. This shooting was heart-breaking as they all knelt down and prayed, but that was no ground for mercy. A few shots rang out and they fell back into the green grass and slept for ever."[66]

During the invasion of Belgium and France, German procedure was almost the same in all cases. "They advance along a road, shooting inoffensive passers-by--particularly bicyclists--as well as peasants working in the fields. In the towns or villages where they stop, they begin by requisitioning food and drink, which they consume till intoxicated. Sometimes from the interior of deserted houses they let off their rifles at random, and declare that it was the inhabitants who fired. Then the scenes of fire, murder, and especially pillage, begin, accompanied by acts of deliberate cruelty, without respect to sex or age. Even where they pretend to know the actual person guilty of the acts they allege, they do not content themselves with executing him summarily, but they seize the opportunity to decimate the population, pillage the houses, and then set them on fire. After a preliminary attack and massacre they shut up the men in the church, and then order the women to return to their houses and to leave their doors open all night."[67]

Innumerable German atrocities are on record and well authenticated. For example, Professor Jacobs, at a medical meeting in Edinburgh, stated that, as head of the Belgian Red Cross, he "had visited a chateau but found the Red Cross had not been respected. It had been completely destroyed, and the bodies of six girls, aged from ten to seventeen, were lying on the lawn. A convent containing sixty sisters had been entered by the German soldiers and every one had been violated. On the evidence of the doctor of the institution twenty-five were pregnant. Professor Jacobs had operated on the wife of a doctor living near Namur. Three weeks after the operation, when convalescing and still in bed, their house was entered by German soldiers; she was raped by seven of them and died two days after."[68]

1. A few typical examples of the wholesale atrocities of German troops are given in Appendix C, but to show that in many cases such atrocities were not only countenanced, but ordered by officers in command, we quote the following:--

August 22, 1914.

The inhabitants of the town of Andenne, after having protested
their peaceful intentions, made a treacherous surprise attack on
our troops.

It was with my consent that the General had the whole place burnt
down, and about 100 people shot.

I bring this fact to the knowledge of the town of Liege, so that
its inhabitants may know the fate with which they are threatened if
they take up a similar attitude.

The General Commanding-in-Chief,
VON BULOW.[69]

2. Here is an order of the day given on August 26 by General Stenger commanding the 58th German Brigade:--

After to-day no more prisoners will be taken. All prisoners are to
be killed. Wounded, with or without arms, are to be killed. Even
prisoners already grouped in convoys are to be killed. Let not a
single living enemy remain behind us.

Oberlieutenant und Kompagnie-Chef STOY;
Oberst und Regiments Kommandeur NEUBAUER;
General-Major und Brigade-Kommandeur STENGER.[70]

With reference to the above Order, Professor Joseph Bedier says: "Some thirty soldiers of Stenger's Brigade (112th and 142nd Regt. of the Baden Infantry), were examined in our prisoners' camps. I have read their evidence, which they gave upon oath and signed. All confirm the statement that this order of the day was given them on August 26, in one unit by Major Mosebach, in another by Lieut. Curtius, &c.; the majority did not know whether the order was carried out, but three of them say they saw it done in the forest of Thiaville, where ten or twelve wounded French soldiers who had already been spared by a battalion were despatched. Two others saw the order carried out on the Thiaville road, where some wounded found in a ditch by a company were finished off."[71]

3. The following are extracts from a Proclamation posted by the Germans at Namur on August 25, 1914:--

(3) Every street will be occupied by a German Guard, who will take
ten hostages from each street, whom they will keep under
surveillance. If there is any rising in the street the ten hostages
will be shot.

(4) Doors may not be locked, and at night after eight o'clock there
must be lights in three windows in every house.

(5) It is forbidden to be in the street after eight o'clock. The
inhabitants of Namur must understand that there is no greater and
more horrible crime than to compromise the existence of the town
and the life of its citizens by criminal acts against the German
Army.

The Commander of the Town,
VON BULOW.[72]

4. On October 5 the following Proclamation was posted in Brussels "and probably in most of the Communes of the Kingdom."

During the evening of September 25, the railway line and the
telegraph wires were destroyed on the line Lovenjoul-Vertryck. In
consequence of this, these two localities have had to render an
account of this, and had to give hostages in the morning of
September 30.

In future, the localities nearest to the place where similar acts
take place will be punished without pity; _it matters little if
they are accomplices or not_. For this purpose _hostages have been
taken_ from all localities near the railway line thus menaced, and
at the first attempt to destroy the railway line, or the telephone
or telegraph wires, _they will be immediately shot_.

Further, all the troops charged with the duty of guarding the
railway have been ordered to shoot any person who, in a suspicious
manner, approaches the line, or the telegraph or telephone wires.

The Governor-General of Belgium,
(S.) BARON VON DER GOLTZ, Field-Marshal.[73]

For purposes of record it should be noted that Lord Bryce's Committee mention by name three German Generals whose armies have disgraced civilisation; they are those of General Alexander von Kluck, General von Buelow and General von Hausen.[74]

Some of the main heads of the barbarities of Germany and of the way she has violated the recognised rules of International Law, may be set out as follows:--[75]

(_a_) The treatment of civilian inhabitants in Belgium and the North of France has been made public by the Belgian and French Governments, and by those who have had experience of it at first hand. Modern history affords no precedent for the sufferings that have been inflicted on the defenceless and non-combatant population in the territory that has been in German military occupation. Even the food of the population was confiscated, until, in Belgium, an International Commission, largely influenced by American generosity and conducted under American auspices, came to the relief of the population, and secured from the German Government a promise to spare what food was still left in the country, though the Germans still continue to make levies in money upon the defenceless population for the support of the German Army.

(_b_) We have from time to time received most terrible accounts of the barbarous treatment to which British officers and soldiers have been exposed after they have been taken prisoner, while being conveyed to German prison camps. Evidence has been received of the hardships to which British prisoners of war are subjected in the prison camps, contrasting most unfavourably with the treatment of German prisoners in this country. The Germans make no attempt to save sailors from British war vessels they sink, although we have saved a large number of German sailors in spite of great danger to our men.[76]For example, on May 1, 1915, in the destroyer action in the North Sea, the Germans imprisoned two British sailors below and when their vessel was sinking, saved themselves, but left their prisoners to sink below because "time was short."

As Lord Kitchener said, Germany "has stooped to acts which will surely stain indelibly her military history and which would vie with the barbarous savagery of the Dervishes of the Sudan."[77] On the same day, in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister declared: "When we come to the end of this war, which, please God, we may, we shall not forget--and ought not to forget--this horrible record of calculated cruelty and crime, and we shall hold it to be our duty to exact such reparation against those who are proved to have been guilty agents or actors in the matter, as it may be possible for us to exact. I do not think we should be doing our duty to these brave and unfortunate men or to the honour of our own country and the plain dictates of humanity if we were content with anything less than that."[78]

(_c_) At the very outset of war a German mine-layer was discovered laying a mine-field on the high seas. Further mine-fields have been laid from time to time without warning, and are still being laid on the high seas, and many neutral, as well as British vessels, have been sunk by them.

(_d_) At various times during the war German submarines have stopped and sunk British merchant vessels, thus making the sinking of merchant vessels a general practice, though it was admitted previously, if at all, only as an exception; the general rule, to which the British Government have adhered, being that merchant vessels, if captured, must be taken before a Prize Court. The Germans have also sunk British merchant vessels by torpedo without notice, and without any provision for the safety of the crew. They have done this in the case of neutral as well as of British vessels, and a number of non-combatant and innocent lives, unarmed and defenceless, have been destroyed in this way. The Germans have sunk without warning emigrant vessels, have tried to sink an hospital ship, and have themselves used an hospital ship for patrol work and wireless. The torpedoeing of the "Lusitania" on May 7, 1915, involving the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians--British and neutral--was acclaimed with great relish in Berlin.

(_e_) Unfortified, open, and defenceless towns, such as Scarborough, Yarmouth and Whitby, have been deliberately and wantonly bombarded by German ships of war, causing, in some cases, considerable loss of civilian life, including women and children.

(_f_) German aircraft have dropped bombs on the East Coast of England, in places where there were no military or strategic points to be attacked.

(_g_) The Germans have used poisonous gases in killing Allied troops at the Front, although Germany was a signatory to the following article in the Hague Convention:--

"The Contracting Powers agree to abstain from the use of
projectiles, the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating
or deleterious gases."[79]

And finally the German troops in South Africa have poisoned drinking wells and infected them with disease.[80]

FOOTNOTES:

[64] _Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege._ Berlin, 1902, in the series "Kriegsgeschichtliche Einzelschriften," published in 1905. A translation of this monograph by Professor J. H. Morgan has recently been published.

[65] Cd. 7894, page 7, 8.

[66] Cd. 7894, page 9.

[67] See Appendix C. Official Reports issued by the Belgian Legation (1914). The Commission chiefly responsible for these official Belgian reports was composed of M. Cooreman, Minister of State (President); Count Goblet d'Alviella, Minister of State and Vice-President of the Senate; M. Ryckmans, Senator; M. Strauss, Alderman of the City of Antwerp; M. van Cutsem, Hon. President of the Law Court of Antwerp; and, as Secretaries, Chevalier Ernst de Bunswyck, Chef du Cabinet of the Minister of Justice, and M. Orts, Councillor of Legation.

[68] Meeting of Edinburgh Obstetrical Society, December 9, 1914. _Lancet_, December 19, 1914, page 1, 440.

[69] Reports on the Violation of the Rights of Nations and of the Laws and Customs of War in Belgium.

[70] _German Atrocities from German Evidence._ One of the series of "Studies and Documents on the War." Publishing Committee: Mm. Ernest Lavisse, of the Academie francaise, President; Charles Andler, professor of German literature and language in the University of Paris; Joseph Bedier, professor at the College de France; Henri Bergson, of the Academie francaise; Emile Boutroux, of the Academie francaise; Ernest Denis, professor of history in the University of Paris; Emile Durkheim, professor in the University of Paris; Jacques Hadamard, of the Academie des Sciences; Gustave Lanson, professor of French literature in the University of Paris; Charles Seignobos, professor of history in the University of Paris; Andre Weiss, of the Academie des Sciences morales et politiques.

[71] _German Atrocities from German Evidence._ See footnote on page 32.

[72] Reports on the Violation of the Rights of Nations and of the Laws and Customs of War in Belgium.

[73] Reports on the Violation of the Rights of Nations and of the Laws and Customs of war in Belgium.

[74] Cd. 7894, page 10.

[75] Most of the points referred to in the following record are to be found in Sir Edward Grey's reply to the U.S. Note--dated March 15.

[76] Cd. 7921, issued May 19, 1915, shows that although 1,282 men had been rescued by the British from German warships, not a single rescue had been effected by German men-of-war.

[77] House of Lords, April 27, 1915.

[78] House of Commons, April 27, 1915.

[79] See Appendix D.

[80] Report _re_ Swakopmund, issued by Secretary of State for Colonies. _Times_, May 6, 1915.

GERMANY'S ATTEMPTED BRIBERY.

We thus see with what an easy conscience Germany tears up her treaties and how she repudiates her most solemn pledges. In light of these facts let us examine the rush of promises Germany was prepared to give in order to ensure our neutrality in the War.

On July 29, 1914, Germany, having decided on the War in conjunction with Austria against Russia and France, made what our Ambassador at Berlin called "a strong bid for British neutrality," to which reference has been made, on page 14. Provided that Britain remained neutral Germany stated that every assurance would be given to Great Britain that the German Government aimed at no territorial acquisitions at the expense of France in Europe, should they prove victorious. Germany categorically stated that she was unable to give a similar undertaking with reference to the French colonies. She made a statement with regard to the integrity of Holland, and said that it depended upon the action of France what operations Germany might be forced to enter upon in Belgium, but that when the War was over Belgian integrity would be respected if she had not sided against Germany. In other words, Great Britain was to stand by and

=See Belgium invaded and, if she resisted, annexed by Germany;=

=See all the French Colonies taken by Germany;=

=Acquiesce in France, our neighbour and friend, being crushed under
the iron heel of Germany, and, as Bismarck threatened, bled white
by a war indemnity when all was over.=

As Sir Edward Grey replied on July 30: "From the material point of view such a proposal is unacceptable, for France, without further territory in Europe being taken from her, could be so crushed as to lose her position as a Great Power, and become subordinate to German policy. Altogether, apart from that it would be a disgrace for us to make this bargain with Germany at the expense of France, a disgrace from which the good name of this country would never recover."[81]

That is the "infamous bargain" which Britain spurned and to which the Prime Minister referred on August 6 in the House of Commons, in the following words:--

="What would have been the position of Great Britain to-day ... if
we had assented to this infamous proposal? Yes, and what are we to
get in return for the betrayal of our friends and the dishonour of
our obligations? What are we to get in return? A promise--nothing
more; a promise as to what Germany would do in certain
eventualities; a promise, be it observed--I am sorry to have to say
it, but it must be put upon record--given by a Power which was at
that very moment announcing its intention to violate its own treaty
and inviting us to do the same. I can only say, if we had dallied
or temporised, we, as a Government, should have covered ourselves
with dishonour, and we should have betrayed the interests of this
country, of which we are trustees."=[82]

This suggestion of Germany is not the only infamous proposal she has made to Great Britain. She has made them with a persistence worthy of a better cause. In February, 1912, Lord Haldane went to Berlin on behalf of the Cabinet in order to obtain the basis of a friendly understanding between the two countries. What transpired is made clear in a speech delivered by Mr. Asquith, at Cardiff, on October 2, 1914, when the Prime Minister said:--

"We laid down in terms, carefully approved by the Cabinet, and
which I will textually quote, what our relations to Germany ought,
in our view, to be. We said, and we communicated this to the German
Government:--

'Britain declares that she will neither make, nor join in, any
unprovoked attack upon Germany. Aggression upon Germany is not
the subject, and forms no part of any Treaty, understanding,
or combination to which Britain is now a party, nor will she
become a party to anything that has such an object.'

"There is nothing ambiguous or equivocal about that. But that was
not enough for German statesmanship. They wanted us to go further.
They asked us to pledge ourselves absolutely to neutrality, in the
event of Germany being engaged in war, and this, mind you, at a
time when Germany was enormously increasing both her aggressive and
defensive forces, and especially upon the sea. They asked us--to
put it quite plainly--for a free hand, so far as we were concerned,
if and when they selected the opportunity to overpower and dominate
the European world. To such a demand one answer was possible, and
that was the answer we gave."[83]

FOOTNOTES:

[81] _Great Britain and the European Crisis_, No. 101.

[82] House of Commons, August 6, 1914.

[83] _South Wales Daily News_, October 3, 1914.

IF BRITAIN HAD REFUSED TO FIGHT.

If, in view of all this evidence, Britain had refused to fight, what would have been her position? The Prime Minister, speaking at the Guildhall on September 4, 1914, said:--

"But let me ask you, and through you the world outside, what would
have been our condition as a nation to-day if, through timidity, or
through a perverted calculation of self-interest or through a
paralysis of the sense of honour and duty, we had been base enough
to be false to our word and faithless to our friends?

"Our eyes would have been turned at this moment with those of the
whole civilised world to Belgium--a small State which has lived for
more than 70 years under a several and collective guarantee, to
which we, in common with Prussia and Austria, were parties--and we
should have seen, at the instance, and by the action of two of
these guaranteeing Powers, her neutrality violated, her
independence strangled, her territory made use of as affording the
easiest and most convenient road to a war of unprovoked aggression
against France.

"We, the British people, should have at this moment been standing
by with folded arms and with such countenance as we could command,
while this small and unprotected State (Belgium), in defence of her
vital liberties, made a heroic stand against overweening and
overwhelming force.

"We should have been watching as detached spectators the siege of
Liege, the steady and manful resistance of a small Army, the
occupation of Brussels with its splendid traditions and memories,
the gradual forcing back of the patriotic defenders of their native
land to the ramparts of Antwerp, countless outrages suffered by
them, and buccaneering levies exacted from the unoffending civil
population, and finally the greatest crime committed against
civilisation and culture since the Thirty Years' War--the sack of
Louvain, with its buildings, its pictures, its unique library, its
unrivalled associations, a shameless holocaust of irreparable
treasures lit up by blind barbarian vengeance....

"For my part I say that sooner than be a silent witness--which
means in effect a willing accomplice--of this tragic triumph of
force over law and of brutality over freedom, I would see this
country of ours blotted out of the pages of history."

Further, we need not imagine that the peace we should have gained would have been a lasting one. If we had dishonoured our name in the manner Mr. Asquith has described, we should have been left without a friend in the world. Who can doubt that we should have been Germany's next victim if she had succeeded in crushing Belgium and France and warding off the blows of Russia? As Mr. Bonar Law said, on the same occasion:--

"We are fighting for our national existence, for everything which
nations have always held most dear."

The fate which has fallen upon Belgium would have been our fate in a few years' time, but with this difference, that we should have had no powerful friends to give back as far as humanly possible what we had lost, as Russia, France and Britain are determined to do for Belgium.

APPENDIX A.

GERMANY'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE ULTIMATUM DELIVERED BY AUSTRIA-HUNGARY TO SERBIA ON JULY 23, 1914.

Germany did her utmost to make the Great Powers believe that she had no knowledge of the contents of the Ultimatum delivered by Austria-Hungary to Serbia at 6 p.m. on Thursday, July 23, 1914.

Two days before the delivery of the Ultimatum, the Russian Charge d'Affaires in Berlin, at the Diplomatic Audience, said to Herr von Jagow (German Secretary of State), that he supposed the German Government then had full knowledge of the Note prepared by Austria. Herr von Jagow protested that he was in complete ignorance of the contents of that Note, and expressed himself in the same way on that date (July 21) to the French Ambassador also. The very next day (July 22), however, M. Paul Cambon, the French Ambassador in London, in a despatch to the Acting French Minister for Foreign Affairs in Paris, stated:--

"Sir Edward Grey told me that he had seen the German Ambassador,
who stated to him that at Berlin a _demarche_ of the
Austro-Hungarian Government to the Serbian Government was expected.
Prince Lichnowsky assured him that the German Government were
endeavouring to hold back and moderate the Cabinet of Vienna, but
that up to the present time they had not been successful in this,
and that he was not without anxiety as to the results of a
_demarche_ of this kind.... The communications of Prince Lichnowsky
had left Sir Edward Grey with an impression of anxiety which he did
not conceal from me. The same impression was given me by the
Italian Ambassador, who also fears the possibility of fresh tension
in Austro-Serbian relations."[84]

Here it will be noticed that Prince Lichnowsky, the German Ambassador in London, stated that the German Government were endeavouring to "hold back and moderate the Cabinet of Vienna." How could they have done this if they were not aware of the general terms of the Ultimatum which Austria-Hungary proposed sending to Serbia. Moreover, the impression given by the Italian Ambassador was probably derived from his knowledge of what had happened over a year before, when Austria appears to have been resolved on provoking war with Serbia on August 9, 1913.

But unfortunately for Germany the statement was refuted by one of its own States, Bavaria. The Ultimatum to Serbia was not delivered until 6 p.m. on the evening of July 23; yet earlier on that day M. Allize, the French Minister at Munich, in his Report to Paris, stated:--

=" ... Official circles have for some time been assuming with more
or less sincerity an air of real pessimism.=

="In particular, the President of the Council said to me to-day
that the Austrian Note, the contents of which were known to him
(dont il avait connaissance) was in his opinion drawn up in terms
which could be accepted by Serbia, but that none the less the
existing situation appeared to him to be very serious."=[85]

It is difficult to think that the President of the Bavarian Council knew the contents of the Austrian Note while the German Secretary of State at Berlin was kept in ignorance of its terms. Yet, the next day, Herr von Jagow again makes the denial which is forwarded to Paris in the French Ambassador's despatch, dated Berlin, July 24:--

"I asked the Secretary of State to-day in the interview which I had
with him if it was correct, as announced in the newspapers, that
Austria had presented a Note to the Powers on her dispute with
Serbia; if he had received it; and what view he took of it.

"Herr von Jagow answered me in the affirmative, adding that the
Note was forcible and that he approved it, the Serbian Government
having for a long time past wearied the patience of Austria....
_Thereupon I asked him if the Berlin Cabinet had really been
entirely ignorant of Austria's requirements before they were
communicated to Belgrade, and as he told me that that was so, I
showed him my surprise at seeing him thus undertake to support
claims, of whose limit and scope he was ignorant.... It is not less
striking to notice the pains with which Herr von Jagow and all the
officials placed under his orders, pretend to everyone that they
were ignorant of the scope of the Note sent by Austria to
Serbia._"[86]

Confirmation of Germany's complicity is received in a despatch to his Government from the French Ambassador (M. Paul Cambon) in London, dated July 24, 1914:--

"I mentioned the matter to my Russian colleague, who is afraid of a
surprise from Germany, and who imagines that Austria would not have
despatched her Ultimatum without previous agreement with Berlin.

"Count Benckendorff told me that Prince Lichnowsky, when he
returned from leave about a month ago, had intimated that he held
pessimistic views regarding the relations between St. Petersburg
and Berlin. He had observed the uneasiness caused in this latter
Capital by the rumours of a naval _entente_ between Russia and
England, by the Tsar's visit to Bucharest, and by the strengthening
of the Russian Army. Count Benckendorff had concluded from this
that a war with Russia would be looked upon without disfavour in
Germany.

"The Under-Secretary of State has been struck, as all of us have
been, by the anxious looks of Prince Lichnowsky since his return
from Berlin, and he considers that if Germany had wished to do so,
she could have stopped the despatch of the Ultimatum."[87]

Again on the same day (July 24, 1914) we have an interesting despatch from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs in Paris to the French Ambassadors abroad, detailing what transpired at a visit received from Herr von Schoen (the German Ambassador in Paris), at which the latter twice read (but refused to leave copy of) a note which said:--

"Under these circumstances the course of procedure and demands of
the Austro-Hungarian Government can only be regarded as justified.
In spite of that, the attitude which public opinion as well as the
Government in Serbia have recently adopted does not exclude the
apprehension that the Serbian Government might refuse to comply
with those demands, and might even allow themselves to be carried
away into a provocative attitude towards Austria-Hungary. The
Austro-Hungarian Government, if they do not wish definitely to
abandon Austria's position as a Great Power, would then have no
choice but to obtain the fulfilment of their demands from the
Serbian Government by strong pressure, and, if necessary, by using
military measures, the choice of the means having to be left to
them.... The German Government consider that in the present case
there is only question of a matter to be settled exclusively
between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, and that the Great Powers ought
seriously to endeavour to restrict it to those two immediately
concerned.

"The German Government desire urgently the localisation of the
dispute, because every interference of another Power would, owing
to the natural play of alliances, be followed by incalculable
consequences...."[88]

A note of similar effect was left with Sir Edward Grey by the German Ambassador in London.[89]

Now the details of the Ultimatum to Serbia were only communicated to the French and Russian Governments on July 24, 1914, after 10 o'clock in the morning (nearly 17 hours after they had been delivered to Serbia), and presumably they were communicated to all the other Governments at about the same time. Germany would have us believe that she received the contents at the same time and on the same day as the other Governments. Yet, a few hours later, the German Ambassador in Paris is able, on instructions from his Government, to present a detailed note and to argue the matter in all its bearings. That is to say, Germany would have us believe that the Kaiser and his Ministers received the contents of the Ultimatum in the morning, and, almost within a few minutes, gathered together and discussed a question which they knew, if not carefully handled, must mean a European war; pretend that it was a matter to be settled exclusively between Austria-Hungary and Serbia; and promptly instruct their Ambassador in Paris to the minutest details.

As the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs remarked to the British Ambassador in Petrograd on this fateful morning, "Austria's conduct was both provocative and immoral; she would never have taken such action unless Germany had first been consulted."[90]

It has since been proved that Germany and Austria were parties not only to this, but to an exactly similar conspiracy which took place twelve months before.

On December 5, 1914, in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Signor Giolitti (ex-Premier of Italy) made the following momentous statement:--

"During the Balkan War, on the 9th August, 1913, about a year
before the present war broke out, during my absence from Rome, I
received from my hon. colleague, Signor di San Giuliano (late
Foreign Minister), the following telegram:--

"'Austria has communicated to us and to Germany her intention
of taking action against Serbia, and defines such action as
defensive, hoping to bring into operation the _casus foederis_
of the Triple Alliance, which, on the contrary, I believe to
be inapplicable. (_Sensation._)

"'I am endeavouring to arrange for a combined effort with
Germany to prevent such action on the part of Austria, but it
may become necessary to state clearly that we do not consider
such action, if it should be taken, as defensive, and that,
therefore, we do not consider that the _casus foederis_
arises.

"'Please telegraph to me at Rome if you approve.'

"I replied:--

"'If Austria intervenes against Serbia it is clear that a
_casus foederis_ cannot be established. It is a step which she
is taking on her own account, since there is no question of
defence, inasmuch as no one is thinking of attacking her. It
is necessary that a declaration to this effect should be made
to Austria in the most formal manner, and we must hope for
action on the part of Germany to dissuade Austria from this
most perilous adventure.' (_Hear, hear._)

"This course was taken, and our interpretation was upheld and
recognised as proper, since our action in no way disturbed our
relations with the two Allied Powers. The declaration of neutrality
made by the present Government conforms therefore in all respects
to the precedents of Italian policy, and conforms also to an
interpretation of the Treaty of Alliance which has been already
accepted by the Allies.

"I wish to recall this, because I think it right that in the eyes
of all Europe it should appear that Italy has remained completely
loyal to the observance of her pledges." (_Loud applause._)[91]

As the _Times_ of December 11, 1914, said in a Leading Article:--

"In the face of these facts, what becomes of the pretence of the
German White Book that it was the murders which forced Austria to
take action; what of the contention that Russia, or that England,
is answerable for the war? Germany had known Austria's purpose for
a year when she granted that Power a free hand to deal with Serbia
at her discretion." ... These contemporary telegrams read by Signor
Giolitti "prove that the war is no result of Russian arrogance, of
French revenge, or of English envy, as the German Chancellor avers,
but that it is the consequence of schemes long harboured, carefully
thought out, and deliberately adopted by Austria and by Germany."

On the occasion referred to above it was not the murder of the heir-apparent at Serajevo which was the pretext for aggression; the issue of the moment was the Treaty of Bucharest.

Two days after the delivery of the Ultimatum to Serbia in July, 1914, Herr von Jagow issued another denial. In his Report to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs in Paris, the French Ambassador at Berlin on July 25 wrote:--

"The English Charge d'Affaires also enquired of Herr von Jagow, as
I had done yesterday, if Germany had had no knowledge of the
Austrian Note before it was despatched, and he received so clear a
reply in the negative that he was not able to carry the matter
further; but he could not refrain from expressing his surprise at
the blank cheque given by Germany to Austria."[92]

On the same day (July 25) the Russian representative in Paris reports to his Government, that the German Ambassador (Herr von Schoen) said:--

"that Austria had presented her Note to Serbia without any definite
understanding with Berlin, but that Germany nevertheless approved
of the Austrian point of view, and that undoubtedly 'the bolt once
fired' (these were his own words), Germany could only be guided by
her duties as an ally."[93]

The next day the Acting Director of the "Direction Politique" in Paris, in a note on the visit to that Office paid by Herr von Schoen, the German Ambassador, stated (Paris, Sunday, July 26):--