I made it clear to his Excellency that, _Russia being thoroughly in earnest, a general war could not be averted_ if Servia were attacked by Austria.
Sir George Buchanan would not have said that if he had not been authorized to do so. He would not have said a "general war could not be averted if Servia were attacked by Austria"; and by "general war" he meant, and we all understand he meant, a war between England, France, and Russia on one side and Germany and Austria on the other.
Servia's reply to the demand of Austria, which was dated July 25, 1914, not being deemed satisfactory, Austria proceeded to a punitive expedition against Servia, and she repeatedly asserted and assured all the other powers that the expedition was merely punitive and that neither the independence nor the territorial integrity of Servia were at all involved or in any danger.
But all this had no effect upon Russia. In fact, when Russia was first informed of the Austrian demand (Annex 4, German "White Book") Minister of Foreign Affairs Sazonof made wild complaints on _July_ 24, 1914, against Austria-Hungary. What he said most definitely was this:
_That Russia could not possibly permit the Servian-Austrian dispute to be confined to the parties concerned._
This was the keynote of the Russian situation and of the Russian intention. Russia wanted, of course, to expand its realm as far westward as possible, and it wanted to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the necessary consequences of the dreadful insult and cruelty practiced by Servia on Austria, not only to prevent the punishment of Servia, but also to proceed against Germany, for, as Paper 4 says: "Russia could not possibly permit the Servian-Austrian dispute to be _confined_ to the parties concerned."
Who, then, was to blame for not allowing the war to be confined, for not permitting Austria to punish the murderers of her King, but utilizing this opportunity for the purpose of bringing about the great war which Russia and France had carefully prepared long ago? The great war which should involve all the civilized nations in a conflict, and threaten to extinguish Austria and to carry barbarism into the heart of Europe! She _did_ not permit the Servian-Austrian dispute to be confined to the parties concerned.
Again, in Paper 56, (English "White Book,") we find the English Ambassador to Austria writing to Sir Edward Grey on July 27, 1914, the following:
If actual war broke out with Servia it would be _impossible_ to localize it, for _Russia_ was not prepared to give way again.
Again, in Paper 72, (English "White Book,") dated July 28, 1914, from the English Ambassador in Russia to Sir Edward Grey:
I made it clear to his Excellency (German Ambassador) that, _Russia being thoroughly in earnest_, a general war could not be averted if Servia were attacked by Austria.
Paper 121, (English "White Book,") British Ambassador in Berlin to Sir Edward Grey under date of July 31, 1914:
He (the German Secretary of State) again assured me that both the Emperor William, at the request of the Emperor of Russia, and the German Foreign Office had even up till last night been urging Austria to show willingness to continue discussions--and telegraphic and telephonic communications from Vienna had been of a promising nature--_but Russia's mobilization had spoiled everything_.
I could repeat, _ad infinitum_, quotations from these books to show that Russia not only wanted this war if Austria wanted to punish Servia for her misdeeds, but started it against the protest of Germany, and started it, I sincerely believe, largely because encouraged by Great Britain.
_England_: The letter written by the Belgian Charge at St. Petersburg to his Government on July 30, 1914, which letter was published in THE NEW YORK TIMES on Oct. 7, 1914, and which letter, nearly a month before, had been published abroad and never disavowed by the Belgian Government, states distinctly on the part of Belgium:
_What is incontestable is that Germany has striven here, as well as at Vienna, to find some means of avoiding a general conflict...._ M. Sazonof, Russian Foreign Minister, has declared that it would be impossible for Russia not to hold herself ready and to mobilize, but that these preparations were not directed against Germany. This morning an official communique to the newspapers announces that "the reserves have been called under arms in a certain number of Governments."
Knowing the discreet nature of the official communique one can without fear assert that _mobilization is going on everywhere_.
... One can truly ask one's self whether the whole world does not desire war and is trying merely to retard its declaration a little in order to gain time. England began by allowing it to be understood that she did not want to be drawn into a conflict. Sir George Buchanan (British Ambassador) said that openly. Today one is firmly convinced at St. Petersburg--one has even the assurance of it--that England will support France. This support is of enormous weight, and _has contributed not a little to give the upper hand to the war party_.
The German Emperor during these times believed England to be really and honestly striving to avoid the war; he went so far as to announce in one of his letters published in the "White Book" that "he had shoulder to shoulder with England tried to bring about a peaceful solution." It certainly now appears that all this while England had made her arrangements with France and with Russia, and had strengthened the war party in Russia to such an extent that Russia's desire to set Europe afire was rendered possible.
_Belgian neutrality._ It is charged that Germany violated an alleged treaty with Belgium, which treaty is supposed to have guaranteed the integrity of Belgium. When Germany found her efforts to maintain peace frustrated, Russian troops having crossed the German frontier on the afternoon of Aug. 1, while France opened hostilities on Aug. 2, she announced to Belgium on Aug. 2, 1914, that she found herself under obligation, to prevent a French attack through Belgium, to pass through Belgian territory; she expressed her readiness to guarantee the integrity of the kingdom and its possessions and to pay any damage caused if Belgium would, in a friendly way, permit such a passage of troops through it.
The English "White Book" contains, Paper 151, dated Aug. 3, 1914, which paper we repeat in full:
(British Minister to Belgium to Sir Edward Grey.)
French Government have offered through their Military Attache the support of five French Army corps to the Belgian Government. Following reply has been received today: We are sincerely grateful to the French Government for offering eventual support. In the actual circumstances, however, _we do not propose to appeal to the guarantee of the powers_. Belgian Government will decide later on the action which they may think it necessary to take.
In short, Belgium says in the foregoing notice to France, that she does not propose to appeal to the guarantee of the powers.
Was Germany justified in disregarding any previous treaty which related to Belgium if her interests required her so to do?
_United States Supreme Court:_ In its unanimous opinion in the Chinese exclusion cases, reported on Pages 581 to 611 of Vol. 130 of United States Reports, the Supreme Court of the United States had this very question before it. A treaty had been entered into by the United States and China, allowing Chinese subjects the right to visit and reside in the United States and to there enjoy the same privileges that are enjoyed by citizens of the United States. After that treaty an act of Congress was passed in violation of the treaty, providing it to be unlawful thereafter for Chinese laborers to enter the United States. The question was, whether we had the right to violate a treaty solemnly entered into with another country? On this subject the court said (Page 600):
The effect of legislation upon conflicting treaty stipulations was elaborately considered in THE HEAD MONEY CASES, and it was there adjudged: "that so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification, or repeal," 112 U.S. 580, 599. This doctrine was affirmed and followed in WHITNEY v. ROBERTSON, 124 U.S. 190, 195. It will not be presumed that the legislative department of the Government will lightly pass laws which are in conflict with the treaties of the country; _but that circumstances may arise which would not only justify the Government in disregarding their stipulations, but demand in the interests of the country that it should do so, there can be no question.
Unexpected events may call for a change in the policy of the country._
In the same opinion the Supreme Court calls attention to an act passed in 1798, declaring that the United States were freed and exonerated from the stipulations of previous treaties with France. This subject was fully considered by Justice Curtis, who held, as the Supreme Court says (Page 602): "That whilst it would always be a matter of the utmost gravity and delicacy to refuse to execute a treaty, the power to do so was a prerogative of which no nation could be deprived without deeply affecting its independence."
We observe, therefore, that under our own ideas of international law the United States claims the right to disregard its stipulations if the interests of the country should require it. And the same right we should concede to other nations. Particularly to Germany in the present instance, when we find her battling for her very existence against enemies that seek to destroy her, against enemies that surround her on all sides, against enemies that do not hesitate to bring troops into the conflict from the wilds of Africa and Asia, and who do not hesitate to drag Japan into this war, causing her to disregard Chinese neutrality in her effort to capture a small settlement, lawfully occupied in China by a handful of German soldiers.
In this connection I quote the British sentiment, as expressed by Gladstone regarding Belgium neutrality in the year 1870:
But I am not able to subscribe to the doctrine of those who have held in this House, what plainly amounts to the assertion that the simple fact of the existence of a guarantee is binding to every party to it, irrespective altogether of the particular position in which it may find itself at the time when the occasion for _acting on the question arises_.
This shows that England herself reserved the right, whenever her interests required her to do so, to act in violation of the treaty with Belgium. That, at least, is my understanding of Gladstone's language.
England did not respect Danish neutrality a hundred years ago, when she destroyed the Danish fleet at Copenhagen because her interests required, and England does not now, through its Asiatic ally, and directly, respect Chinese neutrality, claiming the right primarily to consult her own interests. Should this right, asserted by our own Supreme Court, and actually assumed by England and Japan, be denied to Germany? Finally, I understand that The Hague Conference of 1907 drafted a convention which reads:
The territory of neutral powers is inviolable. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral power. Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy refused to sign it and did not sign it. Russia was not represented.
MILITARISM. There is one more subject which many people in this country have failed to understand, and that is the matter of militarism. German militarism is supposed to be something dreadful, and many good people believe that it would be a great advance toward eternal peace if that militarism could be wiped out. Well, now, let us see.
If Germany did not require every one of her sons to spend a year, or at most two years, in the army, and if she had not provided for all these men sufficient arms and accoutrements for immediate use in case of war, what would have happened when Russia entered her territory, or when France came on a like errand?
Any one who lives among enemies is expected to be sufficiently prepared to defend himself should they attack him, be he ever so peaceful.
At the time the United States of America was born there was no such thing as Germany. Every country around it had a slice of it. Napoleon took the larger western part of Germany as his property, England held Hanover, the former Kingdom of Poland held Saxony, Austria held Silesia, and so there was no Germany. The Teutonic races had no home in which they could develop and live without interference by others. To prevent such interference Germany of all nations needed an army; to prevent similar interference at sea England of all nations needed a navy. That great British Navy bears precisely the same relation to the protection of Great Britain at sea which the German Army bears to the protection of Germany on land.
To sum up, what are the countries fighting for? Russia for her enlargement; she has no grudge whatever against Germany except that it exists. France for revenge; she has no grudge whatever against Germany except that she wants revenge for 1870. What grudge has England against Germany, except that Germany has grown commercially, financially, and industrially to a position which threatens to crowd England into a second rank? Jealousy appears to control the English attitude.
The position apparently assumed by England is best expressed by the King of England in his telegram to Prince Henry of Prussia, dated July 30, 1914:
My Government is doing its utmost, suggesting to Russia and France to _suspend further military preparations_ if Austria will consent to be satisfied with occupation of Belgrade and neighboring Servian territory as a hostage for satisfactory settlement of her demands, other countries meanwhile suspending their war preparations. Trust William will use his great influence to induce Austria to accept this proposal, thus proving that Germany and England are working together to prevent what would be an international catastrophe.
On July 31, the very next day, Sir Edward Grey wrote the telegram, No.
111, (English "White Book,") to the British Ambassador at Berlin, in which we find the following:
I would undertake to sound St. Petersburg, whether it would be possible for the four disinterested powers to offer to Austria that they would undertake to see that she obtained full satisfaction of her demands on Servia, provided that they did not impair Servian sovereignty and the integrity of Servian territory. _As your Excellency is aware, Austria has already declared her willingness to respect them._ (Established by Paper 3, July 24, and Paper 5, July 26, German "White Book.")
Hence, we find that all King George said he wanted had been granted, and yet England entered into the war. Why? Probably because she thought, as France had expressed it, that she acted in pursuance of her interests.
And what is Germany fighting for? Does she want anything from anybody?
She wants to be left alone; she always wanted to be left alone; she prospered while she was left alone; she grew while she was left alone.
Not being left alone she has to defend herself. Hence, I bespeak for Germany and for her side fair play, just judgment on behalf of the American people.
ARTHUR v. BRIESEN.
New York, Oct. 17, 1914.
PARTING.