The violation by Germany of the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg,by André Weiss ... Translated by Walter Thomas ...

STUDIES AND DOCUMENTS ON THE WAR

The violation by Germany

of the

Neutrality of Belgium

and Luxemburg

by

ANDRE WEISS

Member of the « Institut de France »
Professor of international law in the University of Paris

Translated
by

WALTER THOMAS

Professor of English Literature in the University of Lyons

Cette brochure est en vente k la

LIBRAIRIE ARMAND COLIN

103, Boulevard Saint-Michel, PARIS, 5*
au prix de 0 fr. 50

STUDIES AND DOCUMENTS ON THE WAR

PUBLISHING COMMITTEE

MM. Ernest LAVISSE, of the« Academie frangaisc », 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 fran$aise ».

Emilk 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 Uni-
versity of Paris.

Andre WEISS, of the « Academie des Sciences morales
et politiques ».

k\\ communications to be addressed to the Secretary of the Committee
M. Emile DURKHEIM, 4, Avenue d'Orleans, Paris, 14".

Walter Clinton Jackson Library

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Special Collections & Rare Books

World War 1 Pamphlet Collection

STUDIES AND DOCUMENTS ON THE WAR

The violation by Germany

of the

neutrality of Belgium

and Luxemburg

by
ANDRE WEISS

Member of the "Institut de France"
Professor of international law in tlie University of Paris.

Translated

by

WALTER THOMAS
Professor of English Literature in the University of Lyons

LIBRAIRIE ARMAND COLIN

103, BoLilevarcl Saint-Michel, PARIS, 5'

igi5

Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive

in 2010 witii funding from

Lyrasis IVIembers and Sloan Foundation

http://www.archive.org/details/violationbygermaOOweis

THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

OF THE

TNEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM
AND LUXEMBURG

1. — The Neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg.

What perpetual neutrality means. — When war breaks out
Tjetween two or more States, the powers who are not at the
outset involved in the conflict are usually free to decide what
attitude they will maintain during- the hostilities. Follow-
ing the dictates of their own interests, they declare in
favour of one of the belligerents or they determine to remain
neutral, thus promising to give no support, directly or
indirectly, to the armies about to lake the field. But such
an abstention is not always voluntary; it is sometimes im-
posed by international treaties which lay upon a State, so
restricted in all circumstances, except in case of being
attacked, a strict obligation not to engage, in future, in
any warlike enterprise, and to maintain exclusively peaceable
relations with its neighbours : that is perpetual or permanent
neutrality.

This neutrality, unknown in antiquity, always bears the
character of a contract; inasmuch as it implies a restriction
upon the sovereignty of the State that accepts or submits to
it, it can only be the outcome of a treaty.

Sometimes it Is sought by a weak Stale, which, aware that
it is unable to defend its independence with its own re-

4 THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

sources, renounces of its own motion the right to wage war,
and places itself under the protection of powers more strongly
armed, having an interest in maintaining its existence. The
neutral State thus debars itself from securing any addition
to its territory and harbouring any political ambition ; it pays
this price for security. •

Sometimes neutrality is a servitude laid, in the interests of
all, upon a State which, owing to its geographical situation,
is so placed as to form a barrier between neighbouring
powers. In this case its chief object is to secure for the
world the blessings of peace and prevent, by means of an
obstacle created by law, friction and rivalry between States
which might feel inclined to link the weaker nation they covet
to their own policy or military action ; they are kept asunder
by an inviolable zone, by a kind of buffer-state.

The Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand-Duchy of Luxem-
burg are neutral States.

The neutrality of Belgium. — In the case of Belgium this
neutrality goes back to the events of 1850 : it was the
corollary and the condition of her independence.

In 1815, the allied powers had been chiefly anxious to
guard against the ambitious aspirations with which they
credited vanquished France . The Congress of Vienna had
declared the former Belgian provinces belonging to the
French Empire " vacant territories " ; and since these pro-
vinces were no man's land, the Congress had thought it
proper to join them on to Holland, in order to form a new
kingdom, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which would, as
it appeared, be powerful enough to resist the Frencli armies
in case of need. The defensive organization thus begun
was completed when the allies signed, on the 1.^"' of Novem-
ber, \ 81 8, the convention with the Netherlands, called the con-
vention of i/ie /oHrcsses, according to which a certain number
of fortresses in the Netherlands were to receive English
and Prussian garrisons, as soon as [he casus foedey^is should be

OF THE NEUTRALITY OF BELdlUM. 5

declared at>ainsL France. II, was in clVecl ^oing Ijack to Iho
system cslablishcd by the harrier treaty oi" 1715, \vhi<di liad
already granted to Holland the right to occupy with her
troops some border towns belonging to Belgium, then und(!r
Austrian control, in order to protect herself in the event of
a French invasion.

All these precautions were brought to nothing by the revo-
lution of 1850. The proclamation of Belgian independence
proved the frailty of the barrier raised by the Congress of
Vienna. Vainly did the King of the Netherlands appeal to
Europe to have it restored and to recover the integrity of his
kingdom.

A conference of the live great powers (Austria, France,
Great Britain, Prussia and Russia), held in London on the
4"' of November, 1850, deemed it impossible to oppose the
force of circumstances and popular feeling and to undo what
had taken place.

On the 20"' of December it declared the Kingdom of the
Netherlands to be dissolved and authorized the provisional
Government of Brussels to send delegates to London. The
protocol of the same day added that " the conference would
discuss and settle the new^ arrangements best fitted to com-
bine the future independence of Belgium with the interests
and the security of the other nations and with the European
balance of power ".

The arrangement thus announced, which w^as to guarantee
the independence of Belgium, the security of the other
nations and the preservation of the balance of power in Europe,
culminated in the proclamation of the perpetual neulralittj
of the new state. Since the idea had to be given up of making-
Belgium, joined to the Netherlands, into one kingdom strong
enough to defend itself, the conference had recourse to a
measure previously used by Europe in 1815 to preserve
Switzerland from her neighbours' influence and to close to
future conquerors the routes of invasion crossing her territory.

The Fifth article of protocol of the 20"' of January, 1851,

6 THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

which fixed the terms of the separation of Belgium from
Holland, was thus worded : " Belgium shall form a perpe-
tually neutral State. The five Poivers guarantee to it this per-
petual neutrality^ as also the inviolability of its territory. "

This protocol was a little later on confirmed, first by the
treaty of the SG^'' of June, 1851, known under the name of the
" treaty of the 18 articles ", next by the treaty of the following
15"^ of October, called the " treaty of the 24 articles '', to
which the new Kingdom of Belgium adhered a month later
(IS"" November, 1831), the 9"' article of this treaty once more
asserts her perpetual neutrality. An additional clause, a 25"'
article, assures to Belgium the guarantee of the courts of
Austria, of France, of Great Britain, o/'Pr?^ssi«, andof Bussia.

All these engagements were renewed, expanded and stated
with precision by the treaties of the IQ*** of April, 1859.

The neutrality of Luxemburg. — The Grand Duchy of
Luxemburg, from the point of view of neutrality, is in a
similar position to that of Belgium.

After the breaking up of the Germanic Confederation, to
which the treaties of Vienna had attached it, and the failure
of the negotiations with a view to its annexation to the
French Empire, the British Cabinet promoted the meeting,
in London, in 1867, of a conference, in order to settle the
international regime of this small country. To this con-
ference Italy, having become a great Power, was a party
together with the five above-mentioned Powers, and Belgium
herself; and the result of the labours of the conference was
the treaty of the 11"' of May 18G7.

The treaty of London, while pieserving the personal union
of Luxemburg with the Netherlands, under the common sceptre
of the House of Orange-Nassau, and while maintaining its
customs union with the German Zollverein, made it, at the
reqtiesl of Prussia herself (i), a perpetually neutral State,

\. Declaration of Count Bismarck to the Diet of North Germany, in
its sitting of the ST"" of September 1867 : « In exchange for the fortress

OF THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM. 7

under the guarantee of Europe. The 2'"^ article of this
treaty runs thus : " The Grand-Duchy of Luxemburg shall
henceforth form a perpetually neutral Stale. It shall be bound
to maintain this same neutrality towards all the other States.
The iri(jh('ont)-acting Parties undertake to respect the principle
of neutrality stipulated in the present article. This principle
is and remains placed under t/ie collective guarantee of the
Powers signing lite present treaty, ivit/i the exception of Bel-
gium, ivho is herself a neutral State " .

Such is to this day the legal status of the Grand-Duchy of
Luxemburg. M. Eyschen, its premier delegate at the Con-
ferences of the Hague, formally declared it at the sitting of
the 6^'^ of June, 1899;^ and note was taken of this declaration.

The neutrality of Luxemburg, like the neutrality of Bel-
gium, is guaranteed by the Powers. The Powers, and
notably Prussia, have pledged themselves, not only them-
selves to respect, but also to make others respect the neutra-
lities thus proclaimed. Discussions may have arisen as to
the extent of the duties implied in such an individual or
collective guarantee, should the neutral State happen to be
attacked ; but no doubt has ever arisen as to the duty of the
guarantors to undertake nothing against the very rights
which they have promised to defend. |

II. — Germany, the guarantor of the neutrality
of both Belgium and Luxemburg, disregards
her international engagements.

The obligation thus assumed in the face of the world and
sanctioned by solemn treaties has been trampled under foot
by the German Empire.

of Luxemburc], we have obtained a compensation consisting in the neutra-
li':iation of the c.ounlrij and in a guarantee which will be maintained —
so I feel convinced, despite all quibbling — on the dag of the final
settlement. From a military point ol' view this guarantee entirely com-
{)ensates us for our renunciation of the right of occupation -.

8 THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

Violation by Germany of the neutrality of Luxemburg
(2"' August, 1 9 14). — As early as the '2'"' of August, 1914, before
war had been declared against France, the soil of Luxem-
burg was invaded by the German troops ; no previous notice
or ultimatum had been addressed to the grand-ducal Govern-
ment; no pretext even had been alleged to explain an aggres-
sion which the accumulation of numerous forces on the fron-
tier for many years, as well as the construction of the
camps at Elsenborn and Wasserliesch, and the arrangement
of the railway lines show clearly enough to have been planned
long before.

Disarmed through its fortresses having been razed in
accordance with the treaty of 1807, the Grand-Duchy of
Luxemburg was unable to defend itself; it could only pro-
test (1). And these are the terms in which M. Paul Eyschen,
Minister of State, President of the Government, called the
Cabinets of the guaranteeing Powers to witness of the
violence offered to his country :

" I have the honour to bring to Your Excellency's notice
the following facts.

" On Sunday, 2"'' August, very early, German troops,
according to the information which has up to now reached
the Grand-Ducal Government, penetrated into Luxemburg
territory by the bridges of Wasserbillig and Remich, and
proceeded especially towards the south and in the direction
of Luxemburg, the capital of the Grand-Duchy.

" A certain number of armoured trains, with troops and
ammunition, have been sent along the railway Ime from
Wasserbillig to Luxemburg, where their arrival is imme-
diately expected.

1. ■■No responsibility can be held to be incurred by the Grand-
Duchy, if it does not repel an attack directed against it. since it has
been left powerless to do so; what can alone be demanded, is that it
should not connive with an aggressor, and that, should an aggression
arise, it should denounce and protest against the same. » E. Servais .
The Grand-Duchy of Luxembunj and the treaty of London of the ll"" of
May 1867, p. 175.

A. WEISS (AngL).

OF THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM. 9

" These occurrences constitute acts wlcicli are manifestly
contrary to the neutrality of the Grand Duchy, as guaranteed
by the Treaty of London o/'18G7.

" TJie Liixemhurg Government have not failed to address
an energetic protest against this aggression to the representa-
tives of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany at Luxemburg.

" An identical protest will be sent by telegraph to the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Berlin. "

Luxembursr, 2"'' August 1914.

Eyschen,
Minister of State,
President of the Government.

A few weeks later, on ^the 10"' of November, the Grand-
Duchess of Luxemburg-, on the occasion of the opening of
the parliamentary session, again affirmed, in tragically
simple words, the rights of her country which had been
treated with contempt.

" The neutrality of Luxemburg has been violated. I and
my Government have at oncp protested, and informed the
Powers guaranteeing the convention of London of our
situation. Our rights liavebeen treated luith contempt, but will
be ^maintained.

" Luxemburg does not consider herself in any way
released from her obligations of neutrality, and will still in
future loyally fulfil them. Our protest remains in its entirety.
The population have shown themselves correct and tactful
with the troops that have passed through our territory. 1
thank them for doing so.

" We cannot, however, be reproached with willingly faih'ng
to keep our international obligations. Till lately, Luxem-
burg, as an independent Slate, was happy and discharged
all her duties both at home and abroad. She had shown
herself capable and wortiiy of existence. She is determined
to exist and she must succeed. "

A. WEISS (Angl.). 2

dO THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

The violation of Belgian neutrality by Germany (4"' August,

|9|4). — The plans for a sudden attack long- worked out in
Berlin took no more account of the neutrality of Belgium,
proclaimed and preserved with jealous dignity since the
kingdom svas born to international life, even in 1870, when
the cannons of Sedan were thundering at its frontier, than
of that of Luxemburg. Still the Imperial Government
thought it necessary to honour King Albert with an ulti-
matum, in order to give him due notice of their intentions.
This historical document is dated the S"'' of August, 1914; on
that same day, the German minister at Brussels had given
what seemed to be formal assurances respecting Belgian
neutrality (1).

German ultimatum {2"'^ August, lOi^). — The note handed
in to the Foreign Office at 7 p. m. was thus worded (2):
" Reliable information has been received by the German
Government to the effect that French forces intend to march
on the line of the Meuse by Givet and Namur. This infor-
mation leaves no doubt as to the intention of France to
march through Belgian territory against Germany. The
German Government cannot but fear that Belgium, in spite
of the utmost good will, will be unable without assistance
to repel so considerable a French invasion with sufficient
prospect of success to afford an adequate guarantee against
danger to Germany. It is essential for the self-defence of Ger-
many tJiat she should anticipate any such hostile attack by
the enemy.

" The German Government would, however, feel the
deepest regret if Belgium regarded as an act of hostility
against herself the fact that the measures of Germany's ene-
mies force Germany for her own protection to enter Belgium
territory. In order to exclude any possibility of misun-
derstanding the German Government make the following
declaration :

1. Grey Book, 1914, No 49.

2. Gi^ey Book, 1914, schedule added to No 20.

OF THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM. M

■■ !'\ Germany has in view no act of hoslilily against P)ei-
gium. In the event of Belgium being prepared in the
coming \\ar to maintain an attitude of friendly neutrality
towards Germany, the German Government hind themselves,
at the conclusion of peace, to guarantee the integrity and the
independance of the kingdom in full.

" 2". Germany undertakes, under the aI.)Ove-mentioned
condition, to evacuate Belgian territory on the conclusion of
peace.

" 5". If Belgium adopts a frien(ily idlitude, Germany is
prepared, in co-operation with the Belgian authorities, to
purchase against a cash payment all necessaries for her
troops, and to pay an indemnity for any damage that mny
have been caused by German troops.

" i". Should Belgium oppose the German troops and in
particular should she throw difficulties in the way of their
march by a resistance of the fortresses on the Meuse or by
destroying railways, roads, tunnels or other similar works,
Germany will to her regret be compelled to consider Belgium
as an enemy.

" In this event Germany could undertake no obligations
towards Belgium, but the adjustment of the relations bet-
ween the two States must be left to the decision of arms.

" The German Government, however, entertain the distinct
hope that such an eventuality will not occur and that the
Belgian Government will know how to take necessary
measures to prevent the occurrence of incidents such as
those mentioned above.

'' In that case the friendly ties which l)ind the two neigh-
bouring States will grow stronger and more enduring.

Belgian ni:pi.v (7)"' August, 191 4). — To this insolent and
brutal demand made by one of the powers that had guaran-
teed her neutrality, Belgium gave, a few hours later, the
following dignified reply (1) :

1. Grey nook. 1914. No '22.

12 THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

" The German Government stated in their note of the
2""^ of August, 1914, that, according to reliable mformation,
French troops intended to march on the Meuse, via Givet
and Namur, and that Belgium, in spite of the best inten-
tions, would not be in a position to repulse, without assis-
tance, an advance of French troops.

" The German Government, therefore, considered them-
selves compelled to anticipate this attack and to violate Bel-
gian territory. In these circumstances, Germany proposed
to the Belgian Government to adopt a friendly attitude
towards her and undertook on the conclusion of peace to
guarantee the integrity of the Kingdom and its possessions
to their full extent.

" The note added that, if Belgium put difficulties in the
way of the advance of German troops, Germany would be
compelled to consider her as an enemy and to leave the
ultimate adjustment of the relations between the two States
to the decision of war.

" This note has made a deep and painful impression upon
the Belgian Government. The intentions attribided to France
are in contradiction to the formal declarations made to us,
on the 1^* of Augtcst, in the name of the French Govern-
inent.

" Moreover, if, contrary to our expectation, Belgian neu-
trality should be violated by France, Belgium intends to
fulfil her international obligations and the Belgian army
would offer the most vigorous resistance to the invader.
The treaties of 1839, confirmed by the treaties of 1870, vouch
for the independence and neutrality of Belgium, under the
guarantee of the Powers, and notably of the Government
of His Majesty the King of Prussia.

" Belgium has always remained faithful to her interna-
tional obligations; she has carried out her duties in a spirit
of loyal impartiality; and she has left nothing undone to
maintain and enforce respect for her neutrality. The attack
upon her independence with which the German Government

OF THE nf:utrality of Belgium. i3

threaten her constitutes a fIa<>Tanl violation of international
law.

" No slralegic interest juslifies such a violation of law. The
Belgian Government, if they were to accept the proposals
submitted to them, would sacrifice the honour of the nation
and betray their duty towards Europe. Conscious of the part
luhic/i Belgium has 'played for more than eigJity years in the
civilisation of the world, they refuse to believe that the inde-
pendence of Belgium can only be preserved at the price of the
violation of her neutrality. If this Jiope is disappointed, the
Belgian Government are firmly resolved to repel, by all the
ineans in their poiuer, every attack icpon their rights. "

Belgium's appeal to the guaranteeing Powers. — In answer
to the German threats the King of the Belgians placed on
record the justice of his cause and prepared to defend it in
arms. He further appealed to the intervention of France,
of Great Britain and of Russia who, jointly ivith Prussia,
had guaranteed the independence and the neutrality of his
country.

The British cabinet, before they received this appeal, had
already taken measures to ascertain the intentions of France
and Germany as to the neutrality of Belgium. At the very
beginning of the mobilization. Sir Edward Grey had wired
in the same terms to Paris and to Berlin, to enquire whether
the French and German Governments were respectively
ready to undertake, as in 1870, to respect Belgian neutrality.

Assurances given by France. — • The French reply was
straightforward and clear : " The French Government are
resolved to respect the neulrality of Belgium, and it would
only be in the event of some other Power violating that
neutrality that France might find herself under the necessity,
in order to assure the defence of her own security, to act
otherwise(l) ". And M. Klobukowski, Minister of France
in Brussels, had already, in several interviews with M. Davi-

1. Telegram from Sii- F. Bertio, Britisli Ainl)assa(ior in Paris, to
Sir Edward Grey, oC the 7A" of .luly V.)li {JUue Book, I'lli, No 1'25.)

1 't THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

gnon, the Foreign Secretary, spoken officially in the same
terms (1).

The German equivocation. — Quite different was the atti-
tude of Germany. In 1911, Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg
had been requested by the Belgian Government to make a
declaration in the Reichstag calculated to quiet public opi-
nion which had been excited by the Dutch plans for the
fortification of Flushing. He had declined to do so, alleg-
ing that such a declaration would weaken the military
situation of Germany as against France who, reassured as to
the North, would move all her forces on to her Eastern fron-
tier (2j. In July, 1914, when war was imminent, Herr von
Jagow did not prove more disposed to give to England the
engagement he was asked to make. Visibly embarrassed,
he alleged the necessity for a consultation with the Emperor
and the Chancellor; and as Sir Edward Goschen, the British

1. Letter addressed, on July 51", 1914, by M. Davignon. Foreign Se-
cretary, to the King's Ministers in Berlin, Paris and London : '• The
French Minister came to show me a telegram from the Agence Havas
reporting a state of war in Germany, and said : -I seize this opportunity
to declare that no entry of French troopis into Belgium will take place ^ even
if considerable forces are massed on the frontiers of your counlry. France
does not wish to incur the responsibility so far as Belgium is concerned
of taking the first hostile step. Instructions in this sense tvill be given
to the French aulhorilies. '

■• I thanked M. Klobukowski for his communication, and I felt bound
to observe that we had always had the greatest confidence in the loyal
observance by both our neighbouring States of their engagements
towards us. We have also every reason to believe that the attitude of
the Gerrnayi Government will be the same as that of the Government of
the French Republic ". (Grey Book, [914, No 9).

Letter addressed, on the l"of August 191i, by M. Davignon, Foreign
Secretary, to the King's Ministers in Berlin, Paris and London :

" I have the honour to inform you that the French Minister has
made the following verbal communication to me : • I am authorized
to declare that in case of an international war the French Government
in accordance with the declarations they have always made, will
respect the neutrality of Belgium. In the event of this neutrality not
being respected by another Power, the French Government, to secure
their own defence, might find it necessary to modify their attitude''.

" I thanked his Excellency, and added that we on our side had taken
without delay all the measures necessary to insure that our inde-
pendence and our frontiers should be respected. '" {Grey Book, 1914,
No 15).

2. Grey Book, 1914, No 12.

OF TIIK NHUTRALITV OF BELGIUM. 15

Ambassador in Berlin, expressed a hope Ihal Ihe expeclcd
declaration would not be long in reaching him, the German
Secretary of State dispelled every illusion on the point by
giving him to understand that any answer whatever would,
in case of war, have the disadvantage of divulging part of
the German plan of campaign, adding — what was false — that
Belgium had already given up her neutrality by putting an
embargo on a cargo of corn bound for Germany (1).

British ultim\ti:m and Anglo-German conversations, —
The Foreign Office had now made up its mind; any fresh
diplomatic intervention was doomed to failure; and it was
with due knowledge, and with a dcliljerate consciousness of
the duty laid upon them by their honour and their respect for
their pledged word, that King George's Government, hearing
of the entry of the German troops into Belgium, showed
their firm resolve to place all the forces of the Empire at the
service of the people so unjustly attacked. An ultimatum,
demanding an immediate reply, with an assurance that Bel-
gian neutrality would be respected by Germany, was handed
in by Sir Edmond Goschen to the Imperial Foreign Office
on the 4"^ of August (2).

Herr von Jagow had in vain endeavoured, up to the last

2. Telegram from Sir Edm. Goschen to Sir Edward Grey, of the
31" of Jufy 1914 {Blue Book, 1914, No ■12'2).

5. Telegram from Sir Edward Grey ;,to Sir Edm. Goschen, dated
4"> August. 1914 :

•' We hear that Germany has addressed a note to Belgian Minister
for Foreign AlTairs, slating that the German Government will be com-
pelled to carry out, if necessary, by force of arms, the measures
considered indispensable.

" We arc also informed that Belgian territory has been violated at
Gemmenich.

" In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that Germany
declined to give the same assurance respecting Belgium as France
gave last week in reply to our request made simultaneously at Ber-
lin and Paris, we must I'cpeat that request, and ask that a satisfac-
tory reply to it and to my telegram of this morning be received here
by 12 o' clock to-night. If not, you arc inslrucled to ask for your pass-
ports, and to say that His Majesty's Government feel bound to lake
all steps in their power to u|)hoI(l the neutrality of Belgium and the
observance of a treaty to which Germany is as much a party as our-
selves. " {Blue Book, 1914, No 159).

<6 THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

moment, to disarm British vigilance by protestations as to
the purity of his master's intentions. " Please dispel any
mistrust that may subsist on the part of the British Govern-
ment with regard to our intentions, by repeating most posi-
tively formal assurance that, even in the case of armed
conflict ivith Belgium, Germany will, under no pretence
whatever, annex Belgian territory. Sincerity of this decla-
ration is borne out by fact that we solemnly pledged our
word to Holland strictly to respect her neutrality. It is

OBVIOUS THAT WE COULD NOT PROFITABLY ANNEX BELGIAN TERRI-
TORY WITHOUT MAKING AT THE SAME TIME TERRITORIAL ACQUISI-
TIONS AT EXPENSE OF HoLLAND. Plcasc imprcss upon Sir E.
Grey that German army could not be exposed to French
attack across Belgium, which was planned according to ab-
solutely unimpeachable information. Germany had conse-
quently to disregard Belgian neutrality, in being for her a
question of life or death to prevent French advance. " (i)

Sir Edm. Goschen has related, in his letter to the Foreign
Office of the 8'*^ of August, 1914,(2) the dramatic circums-
tances that attended the handing of the ultimatum from his
Government to Germany ; it is a page of history. The
astonishment, the disillusionment felt by the statesmen of
Berlin at the straightforward attitude of England and her
respect for international engagements, are plainly expressed;
words were uttered which the world has heard with amaze-
ment and which inflict eternal shame upon German honour :

" In accordance with the instructions contained in your
telegram of the 4"" instant I called upon the Secretary of
State that afternoon and enquired, in the name of His Ma-
jesty's Government, whether the Imperial Government v/ould
refrain from violating Belgian neutrality. Herr von Jagow
at once replied that he was sorry to say that his answer
must be ' No ', as, in consequence of the German troops
having crossed the frontier that morning, Belgian neutrality

4. Blue Book, 1914, No 157.
2. Blue Book, 1914, No 160.

OF THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM. 17

had been already viola led. Herr von Ja<^ow again went
inlo the reasons why Ihe Imperial Government had been
obliged to take this step, namely, Utal they /tad to advance
inlo France by the quickest and easiest way, so as to be able
to get luell ahead loith their operations and endeavour to
strike some decisive blow as early as possible. It was a
matter of life and death for them, as if they had gone by the
more southern route they could not have hoped, in view of
the paucity of roads and the strength of the fortresses^ to
have got through luithout formidable opposition entailing
great loss of time. This loss of time ivould have meant time
gained by the Russians for bringing up their troops to the
German frontier. Rapidity of action was the great German
asset, while that of Russia was an inexhaustible supply of
troops. I pointed out to Herr von .lagow that this fait
accompli of the violation of the Belgian frontier rendered,
as he would readily understand, the situation exceedingly
grave, and I asked him whether there was not still lime to
draw back and avoid possible consequences, which bolh he
and I would deplore. He replied that, for the reasons he
had given me, it was now impossible for them to draw
back. ...

" I then said that I should like to go and see the Chan-
cellor, as it might be, perhaps, the last lime I should have
an opportunity of seeing him. He begged me to do so. I
found the Chancellor very agitated. His Excellency at once
began an harangue, which lasted for about twenty minutes.
He said that the step taken by His Majesty's Government
was terrible to a degree; just for a word — ' neutrality, ' a
word ivhich in war time had so often been disregarded —
JUST FOR A scrap OF PAPER Great Britain was going to make
war un kindred station who desired not/dng belter than to be
friends with her. All his cfTorts in that direction had been
rendered useless by this last terrible step, and the policy to
which, as I knew, he had devoted himself since his acces-
sion to office had tumbled down like a house of cards. What
A. wiiiss (Aiif^L). 3

18 THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

we had done was unthinkable; it was hke striking a man
from behind while he was fighting for his life against two
assailants. He held Great Britain responsible for all the
terrible events that might happen. I protested strongly
against that statement, and said that, in the same way as he
and Ilerr von Jagow wished me to understand that for stra-
tegical reasons it tvas a matter of life and death to Germany
to advance through Belgium and violate the latter s neutra-
lity, so I ivould wish him to understand that it was^ so to
speak, a matter of ' life and death ' for the honour gf Great
Britain that she should keep her solemn engagement to do
her utmost to defend Belgium's neutrality if attacked. That
solemn compact simply had to he kept, or what confidence
could, anyone have in engagements given by Great Britain
in the future? The Chancellor said, ' But at what price will
that compact have been kept. Has the British Government
thought of that? ' I hinted to his Excellency as plainly as
I could that fear of consequences could hardly be regarded
as an excuse for breaking solemn engagements, but his Excel-
lency was so excited, so evidently overcome by the news of our
action, and so little disposed to hear reason that I refrained
from adding fuel to tlie fiame by further argument. "

Declaration of war by great Britain against the German
EMPIRE {h:^^ August 1914). — Great Britain was soon to pass
from words to acts. On the 5"' of August, at 12.15 a. m.,
the following official note was published in London
" Owing to the summary rejection by the German Govern-
ment of the request addressed to them by His Majesty's
Government, demanding an assurance that the neutrality of
Belgium would be respected. His Majesty's Ambassador has
received his passports and His Majesty's Government has
declared to the German Government that a state of war exists
between Great Britain and Germany, as from 11 p. m. on
August the 4'". "

The Triple Entente at work. — France, against whom
the German Empire had. a few hours earlier, declared war

OF THE NEUTRALITY 01" BELGIUM. «

on the flimsiest and most lying pretext, and Belgium, who
had been treacherously invaded, could thus reckon, in their
resistance to their aggressor, on the unreserved support of
England. And for many months past the allied soldiers,
bound by an indissoluble brotherhood in arms, are vying in
valour with one another on the Northern battle fields, oppo-
sing to the German onset the living rampart of their breasts
and their determination to conquer, while on the East, on
the frontier of East Prussia, of Posnania and of Silesia, can
be heard the rumblings of approaching invasion.

III. — Vain efforts and excuses of Germany to
escape from universal reprobation.

The violation of Belgian neutrality by the imperial troops
in defiance of the solemn promises made over the signature
of William IPs ancestors, has called forth on all sides indigna-
tion. The neutral States, still irresponsive to the German
" Kultur, " have felt themselves threatened in their own
security by the contingency of a triumph of Germany, which
would mean a defeat for civilization. A cry of reprobation
has arisen every-where, and the cruel treatment inflicted on
" the small nation with a great soul, "(1) the unprovoked
devastation and looting of her unarmed towns, the destruc-
tion of the wonderful monuments of her history and her faith,
the deliberately ordered torture of so many harmless inhabi-
tants, whose only crime was their trust in the sanctity of
treaties, have won for the allies' cause most precious and
disinterested sympathy. This cause now appeals to all as
the cause of right opposed to barbarism, of liie liberty and
the independence of all peoples as opposed to a mad dream
of universal domination.

Trusting in their own strength, relying on the success of
the sudden attack they were plotting against France, the

L M. Henri Bel^,^Sl)n, in the Academy ol Moral and I'olilical Sciences
;Sitting of August 8'\ 1914).

20 THE VIOLATION BV GKUMANY

German Government had by no means foreseen such an
explosion of public opinion. In vain did they again try, after
the fall of Liege, to slay the heroic resistance of the Belgians
by fresh promises.

Proposals of peace to Belgium. — On the 'J"' of August,
the Belgian Minister at The Hague received the following
official document which was at once communicated to the
King's Government :

" The fortress of Liege has been stormed after a brave
defence. The German Government most deeply regrets
that, m conseqiience of the Belgian Government's attitude
towards Germany, bloody encounters should have taken place.
Germany did not enter Belgium as an enemy. It was only
through the force of circumstances that she was obliged,
owing to the military measures of France, to come to the
grave determination of entering Belgium and occupying
Liege as a basis for her future military operations. Now
that the Belgian army, by a heroic resistance against great
odds, has maintained in the most brilliant manner the honour
of its arms, tlie German Government beg His Majesty the
King and the Belgian Government to spare Belgium the
further horrors of war. The German Government are ready
to make any agreement with Belgium consistent with their
conflict with France. Germany again renews her solemn
assurance that she has not been actuated by any wish to
appropriate Belgian territory, and that she harbours no such
intent. Germany is still ready to evacuate Belgium, as soon
as the state of war will allow (I). "

Belgium's reply to these hypocritical protests may easily
be guessed. Albert I's Government knew to their cost what
German friendship and German promises were worth. A
contemptuous refusal met the strange overtures from Berlin :
" The proposal made to us by the German Government repeats

1. Grey Book, 1914, l\os 62 and 70.

OF THK NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM. 21

the proposal which was formulated in the ullimatum of Ihe
2"'' of August. Faithful to her international obligations, Bel-
gium can only reiterate Iter reply to that ultimatum^ t/ie more
so as, since ihe o^^ of August, her neutrality /las been violated,
a distressing war has been waged on her territory, and the
guarantors of her neutrality have responded loyally and with-
out delay to her appeal {\). "

Though she has given up the attempt to make the noble
Belgian people a resigned accomplice of her ambitious de-
signs, Germany has not shrunk from the impossible task of
trying to justify her aggression. She has endeavoured to
coerce public opinion, and for that purpose she has appealed
to the imagination of her writers and statesmen; she has
enlisted all the subtlety of her scholars; she has mobilised
her intellectual classes.

Charges against France. — Already Baron von Schoen,
in the declaration of war which he handed in to the Quai
d'Orsay on theo"' of August, had claimed to lay upon France
the responsibility for the infringement of the Belgian neu-
trality : " Several French military airmen., " stated that histo-
rical document, " have openly violated t/ic neutrality of Bel-
gium, by flying over the territory of that country {^). "

This unfounded assertion M. Viviani, the Foreign Secre^
tary of the Republic, did not fail formally to contradict (3).
But had it been well founded, the alleged aerial incursions
could not have constituted a violation of the neutrality of
Belgium for the excellent reason that no slate of war
existed as yet on the 5"^ of August between her neighbours.
Did France see an act of hostility in the landing on our terri-
tory of a Zeppelin and several German military aeroplanes,
in the course of the last few years? In times of peace, inci-

1. Telegram addressed, on the 12" of August lOIi, by M. Davignon,
Foreign Secretary, to Baron Fallon, the King's Minister at The Hague.

l.Gre>i Bonk. 19ii,'.\'o 71).
' 1. 'Yellow Book, VM, No 147.
'2. Yellow Book, 191i, No 148.

22 THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

dents of the kind have no importance other than what the
parties concerned are disposed to give them, and diplomacy
is meant to prevent their giving rise to a conflict. The Bel-
gian Government does not appear to have made any com*
plaint about an alleged violation of its frontiers by our
airmen. We may then brush aside this mere legend, as well
as that which, according to eye-witnesses, pretented that the
town of Brussels was occupied, as early as July, by French
regiments. The German Minister in Belgium would have
conspicuously failed in the duty of his office if he had not
notified to his Government an occurrence so unusual as the
presence of foreign soldiers in the town where he resided.
And he took good care not to father such a fabrication.
Those phantom airmen and soldiers must have belonged to
the same corps as the French officers disguised as motorists,
whose crossingof neutral territory on their way to the German
frontier General von Emmich mentioned, on the 4"' of Au-
gust(l), in his proclamation to Belgium invaded by his troops.
Thus France had not forestalled Germany in the violation
of Belgian neutrality. No serious evidence of any such
action can be produced against her : her enemies themselves
are forced to own as much. So, to justify their deed, they
prefer to take refuge in the more convenient domain of inten-
tions; they do not hesitate to accuse the French General
Staff of planning an invasion. True, on the day of the Ger-
man ultimatum, the French armies had not yet crossed the
Belgian frontier; but they would have felt no scruple as to
crossing it, they intended to cross it, they would surely have
crossed it, if they had been given time. Can it be made a
grievance against Germany that she won the prize in a race

3. Proclamation of the general commander-in-chief of the army of
the Mouse, von Emmich, distrihuted on the entering of the German
troops into Belgium :

■' It is to my greatest regret that the German troops find themselves
obliged to cross the frontier of Belgium. T/iey are anting under inevi-
table necessity, as llie neutrality of Brlgium has already been violated by
French officiers who, unter a disgi.tisk, /min? crossed the Belgian territory
in motor-cars, to enter Germany. "

OF THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM. 27,

for time, llic slake of which was the vciy existence of the
Empire? That is the only reason brought forward by the
Government of Berhn, in its note addressed lo Belgium, to
explain the approaching occupation of its territory. It rests
only on "reliable information, to the effect that French forces
intend to march on the line of the Meuse, Givet and Namur.
This information leaves no doubt as to the intention of
France to march through Belgian territory against Ger-
many" (1).

To this audacious assertion, a reply is easy. If France had
prepared the attack with the criminal design of which the
Imperial Government, judging her from themselves, has
dared to charge her, would she, a few days before, have
again pledged herself to the Cabinets, of London and Brussels
to remain true to the treaty which had guaranteed, under her
own signature and wider the signature of the King of Prussia,
the neutrality of the Kingdom of Belgium, and would she
thus have made her perjury more evident. Besides, what
interest would France have had in invading and carrying the
war into Belgian territory without any provocation? Her
Eastern frontier was, by the admission of the Imperial
Government themselves, formidably armed, bristling with
impregnable fortresses, where, as has been proved by subse-
quent events, she might securely await the enemy's attacks
and break his military power, before assuming the decisive
and victorious offensive. And one need not be a shrewd
strategist to brand as foolish a plan which would have con-
sisted in forsaking the protection of our forts, to cross a
country justly stirred up against us, to encounter an armv
whose valour was known to our military leaders, before
joining battle with the German troops massed on the Rhine.
Everything proves that it was in French Lorraine that our
armies were preparing to meet the shock. In vain th? most
famous military writers of Germany had given repeated

1. Oreij Book, 1911, schedule to No 20.

24 THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

notice lo France, forelellinj^, in their books on the future
war, that Belg-ium woukl be its first theatre. In vain the
concentration camps formed at the very gates of Belgium
and numberless strategical railway lines had inscribed the
German threat on the very soil. Relying in spite of all on
the fair play of our opponents, convinced with the venerable
M. Beernaert, who died just in time not to see the ruin and
the devastation of his country, that "Belgium could not be
invaded," (1) our military leaders had confined themselves to
taking, on the northern frontier, quite stripped of fortresses,
the most indispensable measures, reserving their whole effort
and accumulating their best troops, for the purpose of action
on the borders of Alsace. And it was the necessity of alter-
ing the original plan of our operations, and of returning
hurriedly, to fly to Belgium's rescue, that explains the first
failures, due to the overwhelming numerical superiority of
the Germans, in the campaign in Flanders. The retreat of
the French army to the Marne, crowned by the brilliant vic-
tory of GeneralJoffre, was not caused otherwise.

Charges against Belgium and England. — The plea of
French premeditation, justifying the preventive violation of
Belgium neutrality by Germany, is thus strangely feeble.
So the defenders of German " Kultur " and of German
honour have tried to eke it out by throwing back upon
unhappy Belgium the responsibility of the outrage to which
she has been subjected.

They have pretended that an agreement, directed against

i. These are the words pronounced by the eminent Belgian states-
man, on the 6"' of June, 4899, in the committee of the Hague Confe-
rence, with referring to the rules of military occupation :

" As for Belgium, you know, her situation is peculiar. She is neu-
tral, and her neutrality is guaranteed by the great Powers, and more
particularly by our powerful neighbours. We therefore cannot be inva-
ded. " Thus M. Beernaert still believed in the value of treaties, as my
illustrious colleague, M. Louis Renault, remarked with some degree
of sadness, in the yearly public meeting of the five Academies on
the 20''' of October, 1914.

OF THE NEUTRALITV OF BELGIUM. 25

Germany, was some years ago come to l)y lielgium, forgclCul
of the duties imposed on her by the neutrality, and by (ireat
Britain, the guarantor ol' that neutrality; and they have
sought for the proof of such immoral complicity in the
military archives, seized and ransacked by the German
General Staff, after the occupation of Brussels. They have
asserted, basing themselves on documents found in these
archives and reproduced in photograph by the German press,
that a plan of armed co-operation had been worked out, as
early as 1906, between the Belgian War Office and the
British military attache. This criminal land has, therefore,
but met with the just punishment for its treachery. The
devastation of its fields, the destruction of its towns, the
burning of its monuments, the shooting or exile of its inha-
bitants wall teach it to respect the treaties which it was
ready to violate, and of which honest Germany, in her own
despite, was forced to become the custodian and avenger.

One first objection occurs to the critic's mind. Their
reason for violating the neutrality of Belgium was very
loudly proclaimed by the Germans at the very moment when
they committed the outrage. They then confined themselves
to pleading necessity as their excuse. Far from levelling
any reproach at Belgium, they admitted that international
law had been violated at her expense, through the very fact
that Germany even promised to indemnify the victims of her
aggression.

■ Necessity was the true motive of German aggression.
It is by this molive that she must be judged.

The significance of the documents seized at a later date
in Brussels will be appreciated presently. But, before
-discussing them, we must lay down an incontrovertible
principle.

It is natural, il is legitimate, for a neutral Stale, anxious
to keep its engagements and to honour its woi-d, to take
beforehand, in lime of peace, measures proper to maintain
its neutrality, from whatever side it siiould be threatened.

26 THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

and, not content with increasing its military strength, as it
is in duty bound to do, for it to call for the contingent help
of the guaranteeing Powers, whose disinterestedness in the
gathering conflict seems certain. That is an act of elemen-
tary foresight. And if such foresight, shown by Belgium,
may have seemed to be more specially aimed at Germany, it
was because the statesmen of the Empire had said nothing
to dispel the suspicions aroused by their equivocal attitude,
and because its General Staff had not concealed its in-
tentions.

Neutrality would be but a tuorcl^ to use Herr von Beth-
mann-Hollweg's phrase, if the smaller nations, on whom
Europe has imposed it in the common interest, were not
entitled, while tliere is still time, to guard against its viola-
tion, and were to watch unmoved the coming outrage. All
neutrals are equally threatened; and Switzerland, the only
perpetually neutral State in Europe whose territory the
German armies have respected so far, has felt it keenly.
A newspaper in German of the canton of St. Gallon, the
Ostschiveiz, which generally does not favour the Triple En-
tente, has emphatically pointed out what there is unaccep-
table in the theory put forward by the Gei'manic press, and
in particular by the North Gennan Gazette; it claims dis-
tinctly for neutral States the right to conclude a defensive
alliance with a view to protecting their neutrality.

"The States whose neutrality is guaranteed by internatio-
nal treaties should be strong enough to maintain their natio-
nality in arms. But that will hardly ever be the case with the
smaller neutral States of Europe, and that is why we must in
principle claim for every neutral State the right to make sure
of the help of a third party, should it hear on reliable autho-
rity that its neutrality in seriously threatened by one of its
neighbours. How could such a thing occur in Switzerland?
Let us suppose that the Federal Council should learn on
reliable authority that our neighbour X or Y purposes, on a
given occasion, to violate our neutrality and invade our ter-

or Till'] NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM. '27

rilory. S/iould we /lave a rigid in such a conliufjcncy lo con-
clude a defensive alliance luilli another Power? Certainly.
We arc of opinio }i that a convention of that Jcind^ for the pur-
pose of protecting our threatened neutrality, flows from, the
right of a Slate to its own existence and to take measures for
its own preservation. To refuse that right to a neutral and
independent State looiild he equivalent to asking it to deliver
itself, bound hand and foot, lo a stronger Poiuer, even thoug/i
it had long foy^eseen the danger. We maintain that neutral
States must openly claim this right and defend it to the hitter
end'' (1).

Besides, what do the famous documents, so treacherously
turned to account, actually say? They by no means indicate
the existence even of a defensive alliance between Great Bri-
tain and Belgium. No agreement was ever concluded. An
official statement communicated through the Belgian lega-
tion in France has made things clear. The reports seized by
the German authorities in Brussels about which such a stir
was created merely relate conversations held in Brussels,
several years before the present conflict, between the head
of the General Staff and the British military attache, concern-
ing- the possible event of the violation of Belgian territory
by one of its neighbours.

" Colonel Barnardiston, military attache to the British
legation, called, at the end of January, 1906, on the chief of
the War Office Staff, General Ducarne, and had a conversa-
tion with him. Colonel Barnardiston asked General Ducarne
whether Belgium was prepared to defend her neutrality.
The answer was in the affirmative. He then enquired as to
the number of days needed for the mobilisation of our army?
— II takes four days, said the General. How many men can
you raise? continued the military attache. — The general

1. See Le Temps of December 4'\ 1914. Sec also Geffcken, Die Ncu-
liUit, in tlie Ilandburh <(es Viilkervcclils by IIoltzendorlT, IV, § 156; Rivicr,
Principesdu droit des gens^ No 141; Nys, Notes sur la nculralile. L'ludes
de droit international et de politir/ue, 2° serie, p. 144.

28 THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

stated that we would mobilize 100000 men. After receiving
this information, Colonel Barnardiston declared that in case
our neutrality luere violated by Germany, England would
send into Belgium 100000 men to defend us. He again laid
stress on his enquiry as to whether we were prepared to
resist a German invasion. — The General replied we were
prepared to defend ourselves, at Liege against Germany, at
Namur against France, at Antwerp against England. There
were then several conversations between the head of the
General Staff and the military attache as to the measures
which England would take with a view to fulfilling the gua-
rantee. In considering this question, the head of the Gene-
ral Staff only fulfilled his most obvious duty, which was to
work out in detail plans designed to enable Belgium to
repel, single-handed or with the help of the guarantors,
a violation of her neutrality. On the lO^'' of May, 1906,
General Ducarne sent to the Minister of War a report of his
conversations with the British military attache. In this
report., it is twice noted that the sending of British assistance
to Belgium would be conditional upon a violation of her terri-
tory. Nay more, a marginal note of the Minister of War,
which, with additional bad faith, the North German Gazette
does not translate, so that it may escape most German
readers, makes it quite certain that the entrance of the
British into Belgium would take place only after the viola-
tion of our neutrality by Germany. Subsequent events have
sufficiently proved how well-founded these forecasts were.
These very natural conversations between the head of the
General Staff and the British military attach^ merely show
the serious apprehensions of England as to the violation by
Germany of the neutralit}^ of Belgium. Were these apprehen-
sions well founded? To be convinced it is enough to read
the works of the Great German military writers of the day,
von Bernhardi, von Schliefenbach, von der Goltz (I). " •

1. Le Temps of December 9'\ 1914.

OF THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM. 29

After Lhese minute and straig-htforward declarations, wiiat
remains of the charge of duphcity brought by Germany
against her glorious victim? The Belgian Government did
what it was their duty to do, in order to assure the security
of their territory, which was guaranteed by solemn treaties;
they never suggested or promised to assist a British offen-
sive on the Rhine or on the North Sea. And were it neces-
sary, we should find an incontrovertible proof of this in a
letter addressed, on the 1th of April, 1913, by Sir Edward
Grey to the British Minister in Brussels. This letter, which
was not written with a view to the present controversy, and
the publication of which has just been authorized by the
Foreign Office, very frankly states the precise attitude which
Great Britain intended to assume towards Belgium in the
event of a European war :

" In speaking to the Belgian Minister to-day 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 this
apprehension could have come from a British source.

" The Belgian Minister informed me that there had been
talk, in a British source which he could not name, of the
landing of troops in Belgium by Great Britain, in order ta
anticipate a possible dispatch of German troops through Bel-
gium to France.

" / said that I ivas, sure that this Government ivould not be
the first to violate the neutrality of Belgium, and I did not
believe that any British Government luould be the first to do so,
nor would public opinion here ever approve of it. What we
had to consider, and it ivas a someivhat embarrassing question,
was ivhat it would be desirable and necessary for us, as one
of the guarantors of Belgian neutrality, to do if Belgian neu-
trality 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, justifica-
tion for sending troops into Belgium also. What we desi-

30 THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

red in the case of Belgium, as in that of other neutral coun-
tries^ lu as that their neutrality should be respected, and as long
as it was not violated by any other Power we should cer-
tainly not send troops ourselves into their territory.

I am, &c.,
'E. Grey. " (!]

Feeling the ground giving way under him, Herr von
Bethmann-Hollweg tried to prove that the British Govern-
ment was inconsistent. If the love for threatened neutra-
lities, professed by England, were sincere, would she not
have undertaken the defence of the neutrality of China, scan-
dalously violated by her Japanese ally at Kiao-Tcheou?
Would she not have reminded the Empire of the Rising Sun
that Kiao-Tcheou, occupied by Germany, is still, legally,
Chinese territory, and that China up to now has remained
outside the European war? (2)

Such an argument condemns the cause it would serve.
Every one knows under what conditions and by what means
Germany settled at Kiao-Tcheou. Respect for Chinese inde-
pendence and Chinese neutrality seem to have been, in this
enterprise, the least of her cares. What she conquered
through violence, violence takes from her. And the Euro-
pean spectators of this fair requital should be indignant, and
should confirm and sanction her usurpation, and should do
so in the very name of the State she has robbed ! The neu-
trality of that State should be a shield for her hypocritical
conquest! And England ought to safeguard that neutrality
against her own allies! That is the contention of the Impe-
rial Chancellor; and from such premises he argues that the
British Government had no right to come forward as the
champion of Belgian neutrality!

Perhaps German scholars will rest satisfied with a reason-

i. Le Temps of December O"", 1914.

2. Speech of the Chancellor in the Reichstag, in the sitting of De-
cember the 2°^ 1914.

OV THE NEUTRALITY OF 15ELGIUM. 51

ing- which we look upon as setting mere common sense at
defiance. It does not appear however that those who
applauded the Chancellor's words asked him to inform them
ol' the date and terms of the treaty, in which Great Britain
guaranteed tlie neutralit}^ of China and of those of her terri-
tories w hich were in foreign occupation. Such an indiscreet
question was not put; and it could not be put without
knocking to pieces the childish special pleading put forward
in the Reichstag. It is not necessary for the British Empire
to parade as the champion of imperilled neutralities in every
country of the globe for the benefit of her German enemies;
it is enough for her to protect those whom she has promised
to protect, and whom she has pledged her honour to defend.

Thus, the explanation of the woes that have descended
upon Belgium cannot be found in the disloyal machinations
of England or in a sinister conspiracy between England and
that noble country.

But it w ould show slight acquaintance with German science
to suppose that it can be at a loss when called upon to praise or
excuse the excesses and the outrages of the armies whose mis-
sion it is to spread outside Germany the blessings of " Kultur. "

Belgium's resistance to the Divine Will. — Belgium, in
resisting the invasion, has sinned against God; she has for-
gotten that the German people are the elect people, the royal
people, and that it is disregarding the will of Jehovah, who
has become the F^mperor's ally, the " German God, " to
stand in the way of tlie necessary expansion of that people,
of the setting up of their dominion over the rest of the world.
By declining to grant the German forces a passage over her
territory, she has called down on herself the wrath of
Heaven, she has deserved the fate of the Amorites who also
opposed the march of the Israelites through their country
towards the Promised Land, and whom the Lord smote
justly and severely : " Israel sent messengers unto Sihon,
King of the Amorites, the King of Heshbon; and Israel said

52 THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

unto him : Let us pass, we pray thee, through thy land into
my place. But Sihon trusted not Israel to pass through his
coast : but Sihon gathered all his people together, and
pitched in Jahaz, and fought against Israel. And the Lord
God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the
hand of Israel, and they smote them : so Israel possessed
all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country.
And they possessed all the coasts of the Amorites, from
Arnon even unto Jabbok, and from the wilderness even unto
Jordan. So now the Lord God of Israel hath dispossessed
the Amorites from before his people Israel. " (1)

Is not the analogy discovered by the Germans religious
papers striking? (2) It would be still more so, had the people
of Israel previously taken a solemn engagement to guarantee
or at the very least to respect the Amorites' neutrality,
which it had violated. But Scripture says nothing of the
kind, nor does it anywhere announce any providential mis-
sion of Germany.

The German conception of neutrality. — German jurists
agree with the theologians in condemning the courageous
attitude of Belgium and her king. One of them expounds in
the Vossischer Zeitimg, that the Belgian people, in rising to
repel the invader, has gravely infringed the duties prescribed
by neutrality, and has thus set itself outside international
law :

According to this strange interpretation of international
law, the rights and obligations of neutrals are summed up
in two principles : the inviolability of their territory, of
course; but especially the duty not to meddle in any conflict
at their doors. These two principles are not equally autho-
ritative. The inviolability of neutral territory is by no

1. Judges, ch. XI, v. 19, 23. — See also Numbers, ch. XX, v. 14, 21.

2. See the interesting communication by M. Jacques Flach to the
Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, at its meeting of the 5"" of
December, 1914.

OF TIIK NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM. ">3

means absolute. A citizen's domicile is also inviolable; but
obviously the owner of a house cannot prevent his house
bein^- entered to search for a malefactor, or to stop an
outbreak of fire. So too, a neutral State ought not to have
recourse to armed force to prevent a belligerent from
crossing its borders for political or military purposes. The
military power at the neutral State's disposal may only be
used for the maintenance of order at home, or to prevent a
definitive conquest. It is acting against international law to
have recourse to military power in the case of a mere pas-
sage through its territory (1).

Does such a monstrous theory stand in need of refutation?
Its logical result would be to suppress the independence
and the sovereignty of the smaller States, and to place them
at the mercy of their powerful neighbours by taking from
them all means of defending themselves against a seizure
for public purposes, to be decided without appeal by Ihe
invader who is to benefit by the act. Resistance to aggres-
sion becomes a criminal act liable to the severest punish-
ment. Might creates right.

Such was not the teaching of the masters of international
law who were the pride of Germany in former days. They
set up no subtle degrees and distinctions in the prerogatives
and the duties of neutrality; they did not water down the
inviolability of neutral territory; they did not condemn a
neutral State to remain an impotent witness of the violent
occupation of its territory; on the contrary, they held it to
be strictly bound to fight to the bitter end to preserve itself
from all foreign contamination.

Let us hear the famous professor of international law in
Heidelberg University, Bluntschli : " The neutral Slate cannot
permit belligerents to use its territory in order to obtain the
objects with a view to which they wage war. Therefore a

L Le Teinps of the 8"- November, 191i. — See also M. Welscliinger's
admirable lecture on The Neulralitij of Belgium, in the Journal des
Debats of the 27"- of November, 1914.

34 THE VIOLATION BY GERMANY

passage across the neutral territory must be denied to belli-
gerents. — TJte neutral State is bound to take the necessary
measures to have its neutrality respected by other parties.
For this purpose, it may, if need be, have recourse to arms. —
Belligerents are bound to respect absolutely the territory of
neutral States. They must abstain from any infringement
of that territory, whatever circicmstances and whatever strate-
gical interests may be involved. ■ — The fact of defending in
arms a neutral territory, or repelling an attack does not
abrogate the neutrality; it confirms it. " (1)

Heffter, a Berlin professor, whose International Law of
Europe still enjoys, even outside Germany, high authority, is
no less clear on the subject. " Every nation has an uncon-
troverted right to defend in arms the neutrality it has pro-
claimed, and to repel by force every attempt calculated to
infringe it. Neutrality carries with it certain obligations,,
certain duties, which the nations must fulfil if they wish
to enjoy its benefits. These duties are chiefly : Intervention
against any act of hostility attempted by one of the belligerents
against the other on the neutral territory, etc. ..." (2)

As the most illustrious representatives of German science
agree, neutrality must therefore be armed, in order to be
efficient and active. Did not the German Emperor but lately
congratulate the Swiss people on the valour and endurance
of its troops, as against the fancied danger that might come
to it from the West?

The right of legitimate self-defence belonging to neutral
States has also been proclaimed by the conferences at The
Hague, in an unequivocal formula, to which the official
delegates of Germany, diplomatists, jurisconsults, and mili-
tary men, had unreservedly adhered.

1. Le droit international codifie, transl. by M. Lardy, §§ 769, 770, 784,.
790.

2. Le Droit internalional de I'Europe, revised and annotated by
H. Geffcken, Nos 145 and 146.

OF THE NEUTRALITY OF BELCUUM. S&

Fifth Convention of the 18^'' of October, 1907.

1^^ Article : " The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable. "

Article !2 : " Belligerents are foi'bidden to move troops or
convoys whether of munitions of war or of supplies across
the territory of a neutral Power ".

Article 10 : " The fact of a neutral Power's resisting, even
by force, attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded
as a hostile act. "

The plea of necessity. — But the Imperial Chancellor has
declared that treaties are scraps of paper. Herr von Beth-
man-Hollweg, " the most eminent of men now living, " (2)
thinks he can dispense with the arguments and the legal
sophistries with which the scholars of Germany have endeav-
oured, after the event, to justify the inexpiable crime which
the Imperial Government has committed against interna-
tional law, by disowning its signature. He admits and avows
the crime, and declares it a necessity; he counts on success
to absolve it.

The conscience of the civilised world has received with
sorrow the loud declarations made in the Reichstag, in the
historical sitting of the 4^'^ of August, 191-4, by the man who
still represents before the nations the good faith and the
honour of the German people :

" Gentlemen, we are compelled to defend ourselves, and
NECESSITY KNOWS NO LAW. Our troops havc occupied Luxem-
burg, perhaps they have already entered Belgian territo-
rity. That is contrary to the prescriptions of interna-
tional LAW. It is true that the French Government has de-
clared in Brussels that it would respect the neutrality of
Belgium so long as the enemy should respect it. But we

\. Letter by Professor Lasson, of the 29"' of September, 191 i

56 THE VIOLATION OF THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM.

know that France was prepared to attack us. France could
luait, but ive could not. A French attack on our flank, on
the Lower Rhine, might have proved fatal to us. So we
were bound to disregard tlie justified protests of the Go-
vernment of Luxemburg and of the Belgian Government.
The illegality, that ive are thus committing, ive will try to
make up for, as soou as our ^military object is attained.
WJien one is as t/ireatened as ive are, and lu/ien one is fighting
for Oj supreme good, one manages as best one can. "

We shall add nothing to this official utterance. For the
Germany of to-day, the end justifies the means, the most
sacred international engagements give way to military neces-
sities. When making this pronouncement, did the Chan-
cellor reflect that he was countersigning his people's disho-
nour and passing sentence upon his policy? The neutral
countries know now what the victory of the imperial arms
would cost them if such a victory were possible. The inde-
pendence of the whole of Europe is imperilled. Her liber-
lies, her civilization would not survive the triumph of force
in the service of an unscrupulous diplomacy, for which
treaties are scraps of paper. Our confidence is unshaken.
Right is still sovereign on earth.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. — The Neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg.

What perpetual neutrality means 5

The neutrality of Belgium 4

The neutrality of Luxemburg 6

II. — Germany, the guarantor of the neutrality of both Belgium

and Luxemburg

disregards her international engagements.

Violation by Germany of the neutrality of Luxemburg (2°'' Au-
gust, 1014) ." 8

The violation of the neutrality of Belgian by Germany (4"* Au-
gust, 1914) " 10

German ultimatum {1"^ August^ 1914) 10

Belgian reply (5'''' August^ 1914) 11

Belgium's appeal to the guaranteeing Powers 13

Assurances given by France 15

The German equivocation 14

British ultiinatum and Anglo-German conversations 15

Declaration of war by Great Britain against the German Empire

(4"' August, 1914) 18

The Triple Entente at work 18

III. — Vain efforts and excuses
of Germany to escape from universal reprobation.

Proposals of peace to Belgium 20

Charges against France 21

Charges against Belgium and England 24

Belgium's resistance to the Divine Will 51

The German conception of neutrality 52

The plea of necessity 55

PARIS

IMPRIMERIE GENERALE LAHURE

9, rue de Fleurus, 9

Q
Q

C