The committee established headquarters where Americans might register and obtain assistance. Chandler Anderson, a member of the International Claims Commission, arrived in London from Paris. He said he had been engaged with the work of the commission at Versailles, when he was warned by the American embassy that he had better leave France. He acted promptly on this advice and the commission was adjourned until after the war. Mr. Anderson had to leave his baggage behind him because the railway company would not register it. He said the city of Paris presented a strange contrast to the ordinary animation prevailing there. Most of the shops were closed. There were no taxis in the streets, and only a few vehicles drawn by horses.
The armored cruiser Tennessee, converted for the time being into a treasure ship, left New York on the night of August 6th, 1914, to carry $7,500,000 in gold to the many thousand Americans who were in want in European countries. Included in the $7,500,000 was $2,500,000 appropriated by the government. Private consignments in gold in sums from $1,000 to $5,000 were accepted by Colonel Smith, of the army quartermaster's department, who undertook their delivery to Americans in Paris and other European ports.
The cruiser carried as passengers Ambassador Willard, who returned to his post at Madrid, and army and naval officers assigned as military observers in Europe. On the return trip accommodations for 200 Americans were available.
The dreadnaught Florida, after being hastily coaled and provisioned, left the Brooklyn Navy Yard under sealed orders at 9.30 o'clock the morning of August 6th and proceeded to Tompkinsville, where she dropped anchor near the Tennessee.
The Florida was sent to protect the neutrality of American ports and prohibit supplies to belligerent ships. Secretary Daniels ordered her to watch the port of New York and sent the Mayflower to Hampton Roads. Destroyers guarded ports along the New England coast and those at Lewes, Del., to prevent violations of neutrality at Philadelphia and in that territory. Any vessel that attempted to sail for a belligerent port without clearance papers was boarded by American officials.
The Texas and Louisiana, at Vera Cruz and the Minnesota, at Tampico, were ordered to New York, and Secretary Daniels announced that other American vessels would be ordered north as fast as room could be found for them in navy yard docks.
At wireless stations, under the censorship ordered by the President, no code messages were allowed in any circumstances. Messages which might help any of the belligerents in any way were barred.
The torpedo-boat destroyer Warrington and the revenue cutter Androscoggin arrived at Bar Harbor on August 6th, to enforce neutrality regulations and allowed no foreign ships to leave Frenchman's Bay without clearance papers. The United States cruiser Milwaukee sailed the same day from the Puget Sound Navy Yard to form part of the coast patrol to enforce neutrality regulations.
Arrangements were made in Paris by Myron T. Herrick, the American
Ambassador, acting under instructions from Washington, to take over the
affairs of the German embassy, while Alexander H. Thackara, the American
Consul General, looked after the affairs of the German consulate.
President Poincare and the members of the French cabinet later issued a joint proclamation to the French nation in which was the phrase "mobilization is not war."
The marching of the soldiers in the streets with the English, Russian and French flags flying, the singing of patriotic songs and the shouting of "On to Berlin!" were much less remarkable than the general demeanor and cold resolution of most of the people.
The response to the order of mobilization was instant, and the stations of all the railways, particularly those leading to the eastward, were crowded with reservists. Many women accompanied the men until close to the stations, where, softly crying, farewells were said. The troop trains left at frequent intervals. All the automobile busses disappeared, having been requisitioned by the army to carry meat, the coachwork of the vehicles being removed and replaced with specially designed bodies. A large number of taxicabs, private automobiles and horses and carts also were taken over by the military for transport purposes.
The wildest enthusiasm was manifested on the boulevards when the news of the ordering of the mobilization became known. Bodies of men formed into regular companies in ranks ten deep, paraded the streets waving the tricolor and other national emblems and cheering and singing the "Marseillaise" and the "Internationale," at the same time throwing their hats in the air. On the sidewalks were many weeping women and children. All the stores and cafes were deserted.
All foreigners were compelled to leave Paris or France before the end of the first day of mobilization by train but not by automobile. Time tables were posted on the walls of Paris giving the times of certain trains on which these people might leave the city.
American citizens or British subjects were allowed to remain in France, except in the regions on the eastern frontier and near certain fortresses, provided they made declaration to the police and obtained a special permit.
As to Italy's situation, Rome was quite calm and the normal aspect made tourists decide that Italy was the safest place. Austria's note to Serbia was issued without consulting Italy. One point of the Triple Alliance provided that no member should take action in the Balkans before an agreement with the other allies. Such an agreement did not take place. The alliance was of defensive, not aggressive, character and could not force an ally to follow any enterprise taken on the sole account and without a notice, as such action taken by Austria against Serbia. It was felt even then that Italy would eventually cast its lot with the Entente Allies.
Secretary of the Treasury William G. McAdoo; John Skelton Williams, Comptroller of the Currency; Charles S. Hamblin and William P. G. Harding, members of the Federal Reserve Board, went to New York early in August, 1914, where they discussed relief measures with a group of leading bankers at what was regarded as the most momentous conference of the kind held in the country in recent years.
The New York Clearing House Committee, on August 2d, called a meeting of the Clearing House Association, to arrange for the immediate issuance of clearing house certificates. Among those at the conference were J. P. Morgan and his partner, Henry P. Davison; Frank A. Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank, and A. Barton Hepburn, chairman of the Chase National Bank.
CHAPTER III
WHY THE WORLD WENT TO WAR
While it is true that the war was conceived in Berlin, it is none the less true that it was born in the Balkans. It is necessary in order that we may view with correct perspective the background of the World War, that we gain some notion of the Balkan States and the complications entering into their relations. These countries have been the adopted children of the great European powers during generations of rulers. Russia assumed guardianship of the nations having a preponderance of Slavic blood; Roumania with its Latin consanguinities was close to France and Italy; Bulgaria, Greece, and Balkan Turkey were debatable regions wherein the diplomats of the rival nations secured temporary victories by devious methods.
The Balkans have fierce hatreds and have been the site of sudden
historic wars. At the time of the declaration of the World War, the
Balkan nations were living under the provisions of the Treaty of
Bucharest, dated August 10, 1913. Greece, Roumania, Bulgaria, Serbia and
Montenegro were signers, and Turkey acquiesced in its provisions.
[Illustration: PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY OF BUCHAREST, 1913. (Map showing the Adriatic on the West, the Black Sea on the East, Roumania on the North and Crete on the South. Cross hatching show land allocations among Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, Bulgaria and Roumania.)]
The assassination at Sarajevo had sent a convulsive shudder throughout the Balkans. The reason lay in the century-old antagonism between the Slav and the Teuton. Serbia, Montenegro and Russia had never forgiven Austria for seizing Bosnia and Herzegovina and making these Slavic people subjects of the Austrian crown. Bulgaria, Roumania and Turkey remained cold at the news of the assassination. German diplomacy was in the ascendant at these courts and the prospect of war with Germany as their great ally presented no terrors for them. The sympathies of the people of Greece were with Serbia, but the Grecian Court, because the Queen of Greece was the only sister of the German Kaiser, was whole heartedly with Austria. Perhaps at the first the Roumanians were most nearly neutral. They believed strongly that each of the small nations of the Balkan region as well as all of the small nations that had been absorbed but had not been digested by Austria, should cut itself from the leading strings held by the large European powers. There was a distinct undercurrent, for a federation resembling that of the United States of America between these peoples. This was expressed most clearly by M. Jonesco, leader of the Liberal party of Roumania and generally recognized as the ablest statesman of middle Europe. He declared:
"I always believed, and still believe, that the Balkan States cannot secure their future otherwise than by a close understanding among themselves, whether this understanding shall or shall not take the form of a federation. No one of the Balkan States is strong enough to resist the pressure from one or another of the European powers.
"For this reason I am deeply grieved to see in the Balkan coalition of 1912 Roumania not invited. If Roumania had taken part in the first one, we should not have had the second. I did all that was in my power and succeeded in preventing the war between Roumania and the Balkan League in the winter of 1912-13.
"I risked my popularity, and I do not feel sorry for it. I employed all my efforts to prevent the second Balkan war, which, as is well known, was profitable to us. I repeatedly told the Bulgarians that they ought not to enter it because in that case we would enter it too. But I was not successful in my efforts.
"During the second Balkan war I did all in my power to end it as quickly as possible. At the conference at Bucharest I made efforts, as Mr. Pashich and Mr. Venizelos know very well, to secure for beaten Bulgaria the best terms. My object was to obtain a new coalition of all the Balkan States, including Roumania. Had I succeeded in this the situation would be much better. No reasonable man will deny that the Balkan States are neutralizing each other at the present time, which in itself makes the whole situation all the more miserable.
"In October, 1913, when I succeeded in facilitating the conclusion of peace between Greece and Turkey, I was pursuing the same object of the Balkan coalition. On my return from Athens I endeavored, though without success, to put the Greco-Turkish relations on a basis of friendship, being convinced that the well-understood interest of both countries lies not only in friendly relations, but even in an alliance between them.
"The dissensions that exist between the Balkan States can be settled in a friendly way without war. The best moment for this would be after the general war, when the map of Europe will be remade. The Balkan country which would start war against another Balkan country would commit, not only a crime against her own future, but an act of folly as well.
"The destiny and future of the Balkan States, and of all the small European peoples as well, will not be regulated by fratricidal wars, but, with this great European struggle, the real object of which is to settle the question whether Europe shall enter an era of justice, and therefore happiness for the small peoples, or whether we will face a period of oppression more or less gilt-edged. And as I always believed that wisdom and truth will triumph in the end, I want to believe, too, that, in spite of the pessimistic news reaching me from the different sides of the Balkan countries, there will be no war among them in order to justify those who do not believe in the vitality of the small peoples."
The conference at Rome, April 10, 1918, to settle outstanding questions between the Italians and the Slavs of the Adriatic, drew attention to those Slavonic peoples in Europe who were under non-Slavonic rule. At the beginning of the war there were three great Slavonic groups in Europe: First, the Russians with the Little Russians, speaking languages not more different than the dialect of Yorkshire is from the dialect of Devonshire; second, a central group, including the Poles, the Czechs or Bohemians, the Moravians, and Slovaks, this group thus being separated under the four crowns of Russia, Germany, Austria and Hungary; the third, the southern group, included the Sclavonians, the Croatians, the Dalmatians, Bosnians, Herzegovinians, the Slavs, generally called Slovenes, in the western part of Austria, down to Goritzia, and also the two independent kingdoms of Montenegro and Serbia.
Like the central group, this southern group of Slavs was divided under four crowns, Hungary, Austria, Montenegro, and Serbia; but, in spite of the fact that half belong to the Western and half to the Eastern Church, they are all essentially the same people, though with considerable infusion of non-Slavonic blood, there being a good deal of Turkish blood in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The languages, however, are practically identical, formed largely of pure Slavonic materials, and, curiously, much more closely connected with the eastern Slav group—Russia and Little Russia—than with the central group, Polish and Bohemian. A Russian of Moscow will find it much easier to understand a Slovene from Goritzia than a Pole from Warsaw. The Ruthenians in southern Galicia and Bukowina, are identical in race and speech with the Little Russians of Ukrainia.
Of the central group, the Poles have generally inclined to Austria, which has always supported the Polish landlords of Galicia against the Ruthenian peasantry; while the Czechs have been not so much anti-Austrian as anti-German. Indeed, the Hapsburg rulers have again and again played these Slavs off against their German subjects. It was the Southern Slav question as affecting Serbia and Austria, that gave the pretext for the present war. The central Slav question affecting the destiny of the Poles—was a bone of contention between Austria and Germany. It is the custom to call the Southern Slavs "Jugoslavs" from the Slav word Yugo, "south," but as this is a concession to German transliteration, many prefer to write the word "Yugoslav," which represents its pronunciation. The South Slav question was created by the incursions of three Asiatic peoples—Huns, Magyars, Turks—who broke up the originally continuous Slav territory that ran from the White Sea to the confines of Greece and the Adriatic.
[Illustration: Map: Austria-Hungary and surrounding nations]
THE MIXTURE OF RACES IN SOUTH CENTRAL EUROPE.
[Illustration: Photograph of three soldiers firing artillery.]
Copyright Underwood and Underwood, N. Y.
SERBS DEFENDING THE MOUNTAIN PASSES LEADING TO THEIR CAPITAL
Little Serbia, before she was overwhelmed by the concentrated force of
a mighty Teuton drive, and afterward, did some fighting that
astonished the world. The photo shows some of her artillery engaged in
holding back the enemy in the mountain regions near Nish.
[Illustration: A SCENE FROM EARLY TRENCH WARFARE. Painting shows German
soldiers defending a trench line on the left. British attackers are
approaching from the right. Several men are already dead in front of the
trench.]
From the woods in the background the British charge on an angle of the
German breastworks under cover of artillery and machine-gun fire. This
illustrates the early trench warfare before the development of the
elaborate concrete-protected structures the Germans later devised.
They can be seen wearing the famous spiked helmets which were later
replaced by steel ones.
This was the complex of nationalities, the ferment of races existing in 1914. Out of the hatreds engendered by the domination over the liberty-loving Slavic peoples by an arrogant Teutonic minority grew the assassinations at Sarajevo. These crimes were the expression of hatred not for the heir apparent of Austria but for the Hapsburg and their Germanic associates.
By a twist of the wheel of fate, the same Slavic peoples whose determination to rid themselves of the Teutonic yoke, started the war, also bore rather more than their share in the swift-moving events that decided and closed the war.
Russia, the dying giant among the great nations, championed the Slavic peoples at the beginning of the war. It entered the conflict in aid of little Serbia, but at the end Russia bowed to Germany in the infamous peace treaty at Brest-Litovsk. Thereafter during the last months of the war Russia was virtually an ally of its ancient enemy, Turkey, the "Sick Man of Europe," and the central German empires. With these allies the Bolshevik government of Russia attempted to head off the Czecho-Slovak regiments that had been captured by Russia during its drive into Austria and had been imprisoned in Siberia. After the peace consummated at Brest-Litovsk, these regiments determined to fight on the side of the Allies and endeavored to make their way to the western front.
No war problems were more difficult than those of the Czecho-Slovaks. Few have been handled so masterfully. Surrounded by powerful enemies which for centuries have been bent on destroying every trace of Slavic culture, they had learned how to defend themselves against every trick or scheme of the brutal Germans.
The Czecho-Slovak plan in Russia was of great value to the Allies all over the world, and was put at their service by Professor Thomas G. Masaryk. He went to Russia when everything was adrift and got hold of Bohemian prisoners here and there and organized them into a compact little army of 50,000 to 60,000 men. Equipped and fed, he moved them to whatever point had most power to thoroughly disrupt the German plans. They did much to check the German army for months. They resolutely refused to take any part in Russian political affairs, and when it seemed no longer possible to work effectively in Russia this remarkable little band started on a journey all round the world to get to the western front. They loyally gave up most of their arms under agreement with Lenine and Trotzky that they might peacefully proceed out of Russia via Vladivostok.
While they were carrying out their part of the agreement, and well on the way, they were surprised by telegrams from Lenine and Trotzky to the Soviets in Siberia ordering them to take away their arms and intern them.
The story of what occurred then was told by two American engineers, Emerson and Hawkins, who, on the way to Ambassador Francis, and not being able to reach Vologda, joined a band of four or five thousand. The engineers were with them three months, while they were making it safe along the lines of the railroad for the rest of the Czecho-Slovaks to get out, and incidentally for Siberians to resume peaceful occupations. They were also supported by old railway organizations which had stuck bravely to them without wages and which every little while were "shot up" by the Bolsheviki.
Distress in Russia would have been much more intense had it not been for the loyalty of the railway men in sticking to their tasks. Some American engineers at Irkutsk, on a peaceful journey out of Russia, on descending from the cars were met with a demand to surrender, and shots from machine guns. Some, fortunately, had kept hand grenades, and with these and a few rifles went straight at the machine guns. Although outnumbered, the attackers took the guns and soon afterward took the town. The Czecho-Slovaks, in the beginning almost unarmed, went against great odds and won for themselves the right to be considered a nation.
Seeing the treachery of Lenine and Trotzky, they went back toward the west and made things secure for their men left behind. They took town after town with the arms they first took away from the Bolsheviki and Germans; but in every town they immediately set up a government, with all the elements of normal life. They established police and sanitary systems, opened hospitals, and had roads repaired, leaving a handful of men in the midst of enemies to carry on the plans of their leaders. American engineers speaking of the cleanliness of the Czecho-Slovak army, said that they lived like Spartans.
The whole story is a remarkable evidence of the struggle of these little people for self-government.
The emergence of the Czecho-Slovak nation has been one of the most remarkable and noteworthy features of the war. Out of the confusion of the situation, with the possibility of the resurrection of oppressed peoples, something of the dignity of old Bohemia was comprehended, and it was recognized that the Czechs were to be rescued from Austria and the Slovaks from Hungary, and united in one country with entire independence. This was undoubtedly due, in large measure, to the activities of Professor Masaryk, the president of the National Executive Council of the Czecho-Slovaks. His four-year exile in the United States had the establishment of the new nation as its fruit.
Professor Masaryk called attention to the fact that there is a peculiar discrepancy between the number of states in Europe and the number of nationalities—twenty-seven states to seventy nationalities. He explained, also, that almost all the states are mixed, from the point of nationality. From the west of Europe to the east, this is found to be true, and the farther east one goes the more mixed do the states become. Austria is the most mixed of all the states. There is no Austrian language, but there are nine languages, and six smaller nations or remnants of nations. In all of Germany there are eight nationalities besides the Germans, who have been independent, and who have their own literature. Turkey is an anomaly, a combination of various nations overthrown and kept down.
Since the eighteenth century there has been a continuing strong movement from each nation to have its own state. Because of the mixed peoples, there is much confusion. There are Roumanians in Austria, but there is a kingdom of Roumania. There are Southern Slavs, but there are also Serbia and Montenegro. It is natural that the Southern Slavs should want to be united as one state. So it is with Italy.
There was no justice in Poland being separated in three parts to serve the dynasties of Prussia, Russia and Austria. The Czecho-Slovaks of Austria and Hungary claimed a union. The national union consists in an endeavor to make the suppressed nations free, to unite them in their own states, and to readjust the states that exist; to force Austria and Prussia to give up the states that should be free.
In the future, said Doctor Masaryk, there are to be sharp ethnological boundaries. The Czecho-Slovaks will guarantee the minorities absolute equality, but they will keep the German part of their country, because there are many Bohemians in it and they do not trust the Germans.
CHAPTER IV
THE PLOTTER BEHIND THE SCENES
One factor alone caused the great war. It was not the assassination at Sarajevo, not the Slavic ferment of anti-Teutonism in Austria and the Balkans. The only cause of the world's greatest war was the determination of the German High Command and the powerful circle surrounding it that "Der Tag" had arrived. The assassination at Sarajevo was only the peg for the pendant of war. Another peg would have been found inevitably had not the projection of that assassination presented itself as the excuse.
Germany's military machine was ready. A gray-green uniform that at a distance would fade into misty obscurity had been devised after exhaustive experiments by optical, dye and cloth experts co-operating with the military high command. These uniforms had been standardized and fitted for the millions of men enrolled in Germany's regular and reserve armies. Rifles, great pyramids of munitions, field kitchens, traveling post-offices, motor lorries, a network of military railways leading to the French and Belgian border, all these and more had been made ready. German soldiers had received instructions which enabled each man at a signal to go to an appointed place where he found everything in readiness for his long forced marches into the territory of Germany's neighbors.
More than all this, Germany's spy system, the most elaborate and unscrupulous in the history of mankind, had enabled the German High Command to construct in advance of the declaration of war concrete gun emplacements in Belgium and other invaded territory. The cellars of dwellings and shops rented or owned by German spies were camouflaged concrete foundations for the great guns of Austria and Germany. These emplacements were in exactly the right position for use against the fortresses of Germany's foes. Advertisements and shop-signs were used by spies as guides for the marching German armies of invasion.
[Illustration: Painting of KAISER WILLIAM II.]
Copyright Press Illustrating Service.
KAISER WILLIAM II OF GERMANY
Posterity will regard him as more responsible than any other human
being for the sacrifice of millions of lives in the great war, as a
ruler who might have been beneficent and wise, but attempted to
destroy the liberties of mankind and to raise on their ruins an odious
despotism. To forgive him and to forget his terrible transgressions
would be to condone them.
[Illustration: Men marching past a band.]
Copyright Underwood and Underwood, N, Y.
FRANCIS JOSEPH I OF AUSTRIA, THE "OLD EMPEROR," ON A STATE OCCASION.
Francis Joseph died before the war had settled the fate of the
Hapsburgs. The end came on November 21, 1916, in the sixty-eighth year
of his reign. His life was tragic. He lived to see his brother
executed, his Queen assassinated, and his only son a suicide, with
always before him the specter of the disintegration of his many-raced
empire.
In brief, Germany had planned for war. She was approximately ready for it. Under the shelter of such high-sounding phrases as "We demand our place in the sun," and "The seas must be free," the German people were educated into the belief that the hour of Germany's destiny was at hand.
[Illustration: Map of Africa.]
GERMANY'S POSSESSIONS IN AFRICA PRIOR TO 1914
German psychologists, like other German scientists, had co-operated with the imperial militaristic government for many years to bring the Germanic mind into a condition of docility. So well did they understand the mentality and the trends of character of the German people that it was comparatively easy to impose upon them a militaristic system and philosophy by which the individual yielded countless personal liberties for the alleged good of the state. Rigorous and compulsory military service, unquestioning adherence to the doctrine that might makes right and a cession to "the All-Highest," as the Emperor was styled, of supreme powers in the state, are some of the sufferances to which the German people submitted.
German propaganda abroad was quite as vigorous as at home, but infinitely less successful. The German High Command did not expect England to enter the war. It counted upon America's neutrality with a leaning toward Germany. It believed that German colonization in South Africa and South America would incline these vast domains toward friendship for the Central empires. How mistaken the propagandists and psychologists were events have demonstrated.
It was this dream of world-domination by Teutonic kultur that supplied the motive leading to the world's greatest war. Bosnia, an unwilling province of Austria-Hungary, at one time a province of Serbia and overwhelmingly Slavic in its population, had been seething for years with an anti-Teutonic ferment. The Teutonic court at Vienna, leading the minority Germanic party in Austria-Hungary, had been endeavoring to allay the agitation among the Bosnian Slavs. In pursuance of that policy, Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir-presumptive to the thrones of Austria and Hungary, and his morganatic wife, Sophia Chotek, Duchess of Hohenberg, on June 28, 1914, visited Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia. On the morning of that day, while they were being driven through the narrow streets of the ancient town, a bomb was thrown at them, but they were uninjured. They were driven through the streets again in the afternoon, for purpose of public display. A student, just out of his 'teens, one Gavrilo Prinzep, attacked the royal party with a magazine pistol and killed both the Archduke and his wife.
Here was the excuse for which Germany had waited. Here was the dawn of "The Day." The Germanic court of Austria asserted that the crime was the result of a conspiracy, leading directly to the Slavic court of Serbia. The Serbians in their turn declared that they knew nothing of the assassination. They pointed out the fact that Sophia Chotek was a Slav, and that Francis Ferdinand was more liberal than any other member of the Austrian royal household, and finally, that he, more than any other member of the Austrian court, understood and respected the Slavic character and aspirations.
At six o'clock on the evening of July 23d, Austria sent an ultimatum to Serbia, presenting eleven demands and stipulating that categorical replies must be delivered before six o'clock on the evening of July 25th. Although the language in which the ultimatum was couched was humiliating to Serbia, the answer was duly delivered within the stipulated time.
The demands of the Austrian note in brief were as follows:
1. The Serbian Government to give formal assurance of its condemnation of Serb propaganda against Austria.
2. The next issue of the Serbian "Official Journal" was to contain a declaration to that effect.
3. This declaration to express regret that Serbian officers had taken part in the propaganda.
4. The Serbian Government to promise that it would proceed rigorously against all guilty of such activity.
5. This declaration to be at once communicated by the King of Serbia to his army, and to be published in the official bulletin as an order of the day.
6. All anti-Austrian publications in Serbia to be suppressed.
7. The Serbian political party known as the "National Union" to be suppressed, and its means of propaganda to be confiscated.
8. All anti-Austrian teaching in the schools of Serbia to be suppressed.
9. All officers, civil and military, who might be designated by Austria as guilty of anti-Austrian propaganda to be dismissed by the Serbian Government.
10. Austrian agents to co-operate with the Serbian Government in suppressing all anti-Austrian propaganda, and to take part in the judicial proceedings conducted in Serbia against those charged with complicity in the crime at Sarajevo.
11. Serbia to explain to Austria the meaning of anti-Austrian utterances of Serbian officials at home and abroad, since the assassination.
To the first and second demands Serbia unhesitatingly assented. To the third demand, Serbia assented, although no evidence was given to show that Serbian officers had taken part in the propaganda.
The Serbian Government assented to the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth demands also.
Extraordinary as was the ninth demand, which would allow the Austrian Government to proscribe Serbian officials, so eager for peace and friendship was the Serbian Government that it assented to it, with the stipulation that the Austrian Government should offer some proof of the guilt of the proscribed officers.
The tenth demand, which in effect allowed Austrian agents to control the police and courts of Serbia, it was not possible for Serbia to accept without abrogating her sovereignty. However, it was not unconditionally rejected, but the Serbian Government asked that it be made the subject of further discussion, or be referred to arbitration. The Serbian Government assented to the eleventh demand, on the condition that if the explanations which would be given concerning the alleged anti-Austrian utterances of Serbian officials would not prove satisfactory to the Austrian Government, the matter should be submitted to mediation or arbitration.
Behind the threat conveyed in the Austrian ultimatum was the menacing figure of militant Germany. The veil that had hitherto concealed the hands that worked the string, was removed when Germany, under the pretense of localizing the quarrel to Serbian and Austrian soil, interrogated France and England, asking them to prevent Russia from defending Serbia in the event of an attack by Austria upon the Serbs. England and France promptly refused to participate in a tragedy which would deliver Serbia to Austria as Bosnia had been delivered. Russia, bound by race and creed to Serbia, read into the ultimatum of Teutonic kultur a determination for warfare. Mobilization of the Russian forces along the Austrian frontier was arranged, when it was seen that Serbia's pacific reply to Austria's demands would be contemptuously disregarded by Germany and Austria.
During the days that intervened between the issuance of the ultimatum and the actual declaration of war by Germany against Russia on Saturday, August 1st, various sincere efforts were made to stave off the world-shaking catastrophe. Arranged chronologically, these events may thus be summarized: Russia, on July 24th, formally asked Austria if she intended to annex Serbian territory by way of reprisal for the assassination at Sarajevo. On the same day Austria replied that it had no present intention to make such annexation. Russia then requested an extension of the forty-eight-hour time-limit named in the ultimatum.
Austria, on the morning of Saturday, July 25th, refused Russia's request for an extension of the period named in the ultimatum. On the same day, the newspapers published in Petrograd printed an official note issued by the Russian Government warning Europe generally that Russia would not remain indifferent to the fate of Serbia. These newspapers also printed the appeal of the Serbian Crown Prince to the Czar dated on the preceding day, urging that Russia come to the rescue of the menaced Serbs. Serbia's peaceful reply surrendering on all points except one, and agreeing to submit that to arbitration, was sent late in the afternoon of the same day, and that night Austria declared the reply to be unsatisfactory and withdrew its minister from Belgrade.
England commenced its attempts at pacification on the following day, Sunday, July 26th. Sir Edward Grey spent the entire Sabbath in the Foreign Office and personally conducted the correspondence that was calculated to bring the dispute to a peaceful conclusion. He did not reckon, however, with a Germany determined upon war, a Germany whose manufacturers, ship-owners and Junkers had combined with its militarists to achieve "Germany's place in the sun" even though the world would be stained in the blood of the most frightful war this earth has ever known. Realization of this fact did not come to Sir Edward Grey until his negotiations with Germany and with Austria-Hungary had proceeded for some time. His first suggestion was that the dispute between Russia and Austria be committed to the arbitration of Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany. Russia accepted this but Germany and Austria rejected it. Russia had previously suggested that the dispute be settled by a conference between the diplomatic heads at Vienna and Petrograd. This also was refused by Austria.
Sir Edward Grey renewed his efforts on Monday, July 27th, with an invitation to Germany to present suggestions of its own, looking toward a settlement. This note was never answered. Germany took the position that its proposition to compel Russia to stand aside while Austria punished Serbia had been rejected by England and France and it had nothing further to propose.
During all this period of negotiation the German Foreign Office, to all outward appearances at least, had been acting independently of the Kaiser, who was in Norway on a vacation trip. He returned to Potsdam on the night of Sunday, July 26th. On Monday morning the Czar of Russia received a personal message from the Kaiser, urging Russia to stand aside that Serbia might be punished. The Czar immediately replied with the suggestion that the whole matter be submitted to The Hague. No reply of any kind was ever made to this proposal by Germany.
[Illustration: THE GERMAN CONFEDERATION IN 1815 (Map: Baltic Sea on the
North, Adriatic Sea on the South, Eastern France and Belgium on the
West, Poland on the East.)]
All suggestions and negotiations looking forward to peace were brought to a tragic end on the following day, Tuesday, July 28th, when Austria declared war on Serbia, having speedily mobilized troops at strategic points on the Serbian border. Russian mobilization, which had been proceeding only in a tentative way, on the Austrian border, now became general, and on July 30th, mobilization of the entire Russian army was proclaimed.
Germany's effort to exclude England from the war began on Thursday, July 29th. A note, sounding Sir Edward Grey on the question of British neutrality in the event of war was received, and a curt refusal to commit the British Empire to such a proposal was the reply. Sir Edward Grey, in a last determined effort to avoid a world-war, suggested to Germany, Austria, Serbia and Russia that the military operations commenced by Austria should be recognized as merely a punitive expedition. He further suggested that when a point in Serbian territory previously fixed upon should have been reached, Austria would halt and would submit her further action to arbitration in the conference of the Powers. Russia and Serbia agreed unreservedly to this proposition. Austria gave a half-hearted assent to the principle involved. Germany made no reply.
The die was cast for war on the following day, July 31st, when Germany made a dictatorial and arrogant demand upon Russia that mobilization of that nation's military forces be stopped within twelve hours. Russia made no reply, and on Saturday, August 1st, Germany set the world aflame with the dread of war's horror by her declaration of war upon Russia.
Germany's responsibility for this monumental crime against the peace of the world is eternally fixed upon her, not only by these outward and visible acts and negotiations, not only by her years of patient preparation for the war into which she plunged the world. The responsibility is fastened upon her forever by the revelations of her own ambassador to England during this fateful period. Prince Lichnowsky, in a remarkable communication which was given to the world, laid bare the machinations of the German High Command and its advisers. He was a guest of the Kaiser at Kiel on board the Imperial yacht Meteor when the message was received informing the Kaiser of the assassination at Sarajevo. His story continues:
Being unacquainted with the Vienna viewpoint and what was going on there, I attached no very far-reaching significance to the event; but, looking back, I could feel sure that in the Austrian aristocracy a feeling of relief outweighed all others. His Majesty regretted that his efforts to win over the Archduke to his ideas had thus been frustrated by the Archduke's assassination.
I went on to Berlin and saw the Chancellor, von Bethmann-Hollweg. I told him that I regarded our foreign situation as very satisfactory as it was a long time indeed since we had stood so well with England. And in France there was a pacifist cabinet. Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg did not seem to share my optimism.
He complained of the Russian armaments. I tried to tranquilize him with the argument that it was not to Russia's interest to attack us, and that such an attack would never have English or French support, as both countries wanted peace.
I went from him to Dr. Zimmermann (the under Secretary) who was acting for Herr von Jagow (the Foreign Secretary), and learned from him that Russia was about to call up nine hundred thousand new troops. His words unmistakably denoted ill-humor against Russia, who, he said, stood everywhere in our way. In addition, there were questions of commercial policy that had to be settled. That General von Moltke was urging war was, of course, not told to me. I learned, however, that Herr von Tschirschky (the German Ambassador in Vienna) had been reproved because he said that he had advised Vienna to show moderation toward Serbia.
Prince Lichnowsky went to his summer home in Silesia, quite unaware of the impending crisis. He continues:
When I returned from Silesia on my way to London, I stopped only a few hours in Berlin, where I heard that Austria intended to proceed against Serbia so as to bring to an end an unbearable state of affairs. Unfortunately, I failed at the moment to gauge the significance of the news. I thought that once more it would come to nothing; that even if Russia acted threateningly, the matter could soon be settled. I now regret that I did not stay in Berlin and declare there and then that I would have no hand in such a policy.
There was a meeting in Potsdam, as early as July 5th, between the German and Austrian authorities, at which meeting war was decided on. Prince Lichnowsky says:
I learned afterwards that at the decisive discussion at Potsdam on July 5th the Austrian demand had met with the unconditional approval of all the personages in authority; it was even added that no harm would be done if war with Russia did come out of it. It was so stated at least in the Austrian report received at London by Count Mensdorff (the Austrian Ambassador to England).
At this point I received instructions to endeavor to bring the English press to a friendly attitude in case Austria should deal the death-blow to "Greater-Serbian" hopes. I was to use all my influence to prevent public opinion in England from taking a stand against Austria. I remembered England's attitude during the Bosnian annexation crisis, when public opinion showed itself in sympathy with the Serbian claims to Bosnia; I recalled also the benevolent promotion of nationalist hopes that went on in the days of Lord Byron and Garibaldi; and on these and other grounds I thought it extremely unlikely that English public opinion would support a punitive expedition against the Archduke's murderers. I thus felt it my duty to enter an urgent warning against the whole project, which I characterized as venturesome and dangerous, I recommended that counsels of moderation he given Austria, as I did not believe that the conflict could be localized (that is to say, it could not be limited to a war between Austria and Serbia).
[Illustration: Photographs of Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg and Prince
Maximilian.]
Photos from International Film Service.
THE GERMAN CHANCELLORS
On the right is Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg who is held responsible
in large measure for bringing on the war. On the left is Prince
Maximilian of Baden, the Kaiser's camouflage chancellor who was
appointed in a vain attempt to fool the American people into thinking
that a democratic government had been set up in Germany.
[Illustration: Photograph of ex-Emperor Charles and ex-Empress Zita.]
Copyright Press Illustrating Service. THE DEPOSED RULERS OF
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY The ex-Emperor Charles and his wife, the ex-Empress
Zita, in deep conversation with Hungarian leaders who are explaining
the distressing situation confronting the country.
Herr von Jagow answered me that Russia was not prepared; that there would be more or less of a rumpus; but that the more firmly we stood by Austria, the more surely would Russia give way. Austria was already blaming us for flabbiness and we could not flinch. On the other hand, Russian sentiment was growing more unfriendly all the time, and we must simply take the risk. I subsequently learned that this attitude was based on advices from Count Pourtales (the German Ambassador in Petrograd), that Russia would not stir under any circumstances; information which prompted us to spur Count Berchtold on in his course. On learning the attitude of the German Government I looked for salvation through English mediation, knowing that Sir Edward Grey's influence in Petrograd could be used in the cause of peace. I, therefore, availed myself of my friendly relations with the Minister to ask him confidentially to advise moderation in Russia in case Austria demanded satisfaction from the Serbians, as it seemed likely she would.
The English press was quiet at first, and friendly to Austria, the assassination being generally condemned. By degrees, however, more and more voices made themselves heard, in the sense that, however necessary it might be to take cognizance of the crime, any exploitation of it for political ends was unjustifiable. Moderation was enjoined upon Austria. When the ultimatum came out, all the papers, with the exception of the Standard, were unanimous in condemning it. The whole world, outside of Berlin and Vienna, realized that it meant war, and a world war too. The English fleet, which happened to have been holding a naval review, was not demobilized.
The British Government labored to make the Serbian reply conciliatory, and "the Serbian answer was in keeping with the British efforts." Sir Edward Grey then proposed his plan of mediation upon the two points which Serbia had not wholly conceded. Prince Lichnowsky writes:
M. Cambon (for France), Marquis Imperiali (for Italy), and I were to meet, with Sir Edward in the chair, and it would have been easy to work out a formula for the debated points, which had to do with the co-operation of imperial and royal officials in the inquiries to be conducted at Belgrade. By the exercise of good will everything could have been settled in one or two sittings, and the mere acceptance of the British proposal would have relieved the strain and further improved our relations with England. I seconded this plan with all my energies. In vain. I was told (by Berlin) that it would be against the dignity of Austria. Of course, all that was needed was one hint from Berlin to Count Berchtold (the Austrian Foreign Minister); he would have satisfied himself with a diplomatic triumph and rested on the Serbian answer. That hint was never given. On the contrary, pressure was brought in favor of war….
After our refusal Sir Edward asked us to come forward with our proposal. We insisted on war. No other answer could I get (from Berlin) than that it was a colossal condescension on the part of Austria not to contemplate any acquisition of territory. Sir Edward justly pointed out that one could reduce a country to vassalage without acquiring territory; that Russia would see this, and regard it as a humiliation not to be put up with. The impression grew stronger and stronger that we were bent on war. Otherwise our attitude toward a question in which we were not directly concerned was incomprehensible. The insistent requests and well-defined declarations of M. Sasanof, the Czar's positively humble telegrams, Sir Edward's repeated proposals, the warnings of Marquis San Guiliano and of Bollati, my own pressing admonitions were all of no avail. Berlin remained inflexible—Serbia must be slaughtered.
Then, on the 29th, Sir Edward decided upon his well-known warning. I told him I had always reported (to Berlin) that we should have to reckon with English opposition if it came to a war with France. Time and again the Minister said to me, "If war breaks out it will be the greatest catastrophe the world has ever seen." And now events moved rapidly. Count Berchtold at last decided to come around, having up to that point played the role of "Strong man" under guidance of Berlin. Thereupon we (in answer to Russia's mobilization) sent our ultimatum and declaration of war—after Russia had spent a whole week in fruitless negotiation and waiting.
Thus ended my mission in London. It had suffered shipwreck, not on the wiles of the Briton but on the wiles of our own policy. Were not those right who saw that the German people was pervaded with the spirit of Treitschke and Bernhardi, which glorifies war as an end instead of holding it in abhorrence as an evil thing? Properly speaking militarism is a school for the people and an instrument to further political ends. But in the patriarchal absolutism of a military monarchy, militarism exploits politics to further its own ends, and can create a situation which a democracy freed from junkerdom would not tolerate.
That is what our enemies think; that is what they are bound to think when they see that in spite of capitalistic industrialism, and in spite of socialistic organizations, the living, as Nietzsche said, are still ruled by the dead. The democratization of Germany, the first war aim proposed by our enemies, will become a reality.
This is the frank statement of a great German statesman made long before Germany received its knock-out blow. It was written when Germany was sweeping all before it on land, and when the U-boat was at the height of its murderous powers on the high seas. No one in nor out of Germany has controverted any of its statements and it will forever remain as one of the counts in the indictment against Germany and the sole cause of the world's greatest misery, the war.
America's outstanding authority on matters of international conduct, former Secretary of State Elihu Root declared that the World War was a mighty and all-embracing struggle between two conflicting principles of human right and human duty; it was a conflict between the divine right of kings to govern mankind through armies and nobles, and the right of the peoples of the earth who toil and endure and aspire to govern themselves by law under justice, and in the freedom of individual manhood.
After the declaration of war against Russia by Germany, events marched rapidly and inevitably toward the general conflagration. Germany's most strenuous efforts were directed toward keeping England out of the conflict. We have seen in the revelations of Prince Lichnowsky how eager was England to divert Germany's murderous purpose. There are some details, however, required to fill in the diplomatic picture.
President Poincare, of the French Republic, on July 30th, asked the British Ambassador in Paris for an assurance of British support. On the following day he addressed a similar letter to King George of England. Both requests were qualifiedly refused on the ground that England wished to be free to continue negotiations with Germany for the purpose of averting the war. In the meantime, the German Government addressed a note to England offering guarantees for Belgian integrity, providing Belgium did not side with France, offering to respect the neutrality of Holland and giving assurance that no French territory in Europe would be annexed if Germany won the war. Sir Edward Grey described this as a "shameful proposal," and rejected it on July 30th.
On July 31st England sent a note to France and Germany asking for a statement of purpose concerning Belgian neutrality. France immediately announced that it would respect the treaty of 1839 and its reaffirmation in 1870 guaranteeing Belgium's neutrality. This treaty was entered into by Germany, England, France, Austria and Russia. Germany's reply on August 1st was a proposal that she would respect the neutrality of Belgium if England would stay out of the war. This was promptly declined. On August 2d the British cabinet agreed that if the German fleet attempted to attack the coast of France the British fleet would intervene. Germany, the next day, sent a note agreeing to refrain from naval attacks on France provided England would remain neutral, but declined to commit herself as to the neutrality of Belgium. Before this, however, on August 2d, Germany had announced to Belgium its intention to enter Belgium for the purpose of attacking France. The Belgian Minister in London made an appeal to the British Foreign Office and was informed that invasion of Belgium by Germany would be followed by England's declaration of war. Monday, August 3d, was signalized by Belgium's declaration of its neutrality and its firm purpose to defend its soil against invasion by France, England, Germany or any other nation.
The actual invasion of Belgium commenced on the morning of August 4th, when twelve regiments of Uhlans crossed the frontier near Vise, and came in contact with a Belgian force driving it back upon Liege. King Albert of Belgium promptly appealed to England, Russia and France for aid in repelling the invader. England sent an ultimatum to Germany fixing midnight of August 4th as the time for expiration of the ultimatum. This demanded that satisfactory assurances be furnished immediately that Germany would respect the neutrality of Belgium. No reply was made by Germany and England's declaration of war followed.
Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg, of the German Empire, wrote Germany's infamy into history when, in a formal statement, he acknowledged that the invasion of Belgium was "a wrong that we will try to make good again as soon as our military ends have been reached." To Sir Edward Vochen, British Ambassador to Germany, he addressed the inquiry: "Is it the purpose of your country to make war upon Germany for the sake of a scrap of paper?" The treaty of 1839-1870 guaranteeing Belgium's neutrality was the scrap of paper.
[Illustration: Photographs]
KING ALBERT I, QUEEN ELIZABETH, THE HEROIC RULERS OF BELGIUM
[Illustration: Photograph showing bombed out shells of buildings. In the
foreground a building has been leveled to the ground.]
Copyright International News Service.
THE RED RUINS OF YPRES
Ypres, the British soldiers "Wipers," was the scene of much of the
bloodiest fighting of the war. Three great battles were fought for its
possession. The photograph shows what was once the market place.
With the entrance of England into the war, the issue between autocracy and democracy was made plain before the people of the world. Austria, and later Turkey, joined with Germany; France, and Japan, by reason of their respective treaty obligations joined England and Russia. Italy for the time preferred to remain neutral, ignoring her implied alliance with the Teutonic empires. How other nations lined up on the one side and the other is indicated by the State Department's list of war declarations, and diplomatic severances, which follows:
Austria against Belgium, Aug. 28, 1914.
Austria against Japan, Aug. 27, 1914.
Austria against Montenegro, Aug. 9, 1914.
Austria against Russia, Aug. 6, 1914.
Austria against Serbia, July 28, 1914.
Belgium against Germany, Aug. 4, 1914.
Brazil against Germany, Oct. 26, 1917.
Bulgaria against Serbia, Oct. 14, 1915.
China against Austria, Aug. 14, 1917.
China against Germany, Aug. 14, 1917.
Costa Rica against Germany, May 23, 1918.
Cuba against Germany, April 7, 1917.
Cuba against Austria-Hungary, Dec. 16, 1917.
France against Austria, Aug. 13, 1914.
France against Bulgaria, Oct. 16, 1915.
France against Germany, Aug. 3, 1914.
France against Turkey, Nov. 5, 1914.
Germany against Belgium, Aug. 4, 1914.
Germany against France, Aug. 3, 1914.
Germany against Portugal, March 9, 1916.
Germany against Roumania, Sept. 14, 1916.
Germany against Russia, Aug. 1, 1914.
Great Britain against Austria, Aug. 13, 1914.
Great Britain against Bulgaria, Oct. 15, 1915.
Great Britain against Germany, Aug. 4, 1914.
Great Britain against Turkey, Nov. 5, 1914.
Greece against Bulgaria, Nov. 28, 1916. (Provisional Government.)
Greece against Bulgaria, July 2, 1917. (Government of Alexander.)
Greece against Germany, Nov. 28, 1916. (Provisional Government.)
Greece against Germany, July 2, 1917. (Government of Alexander.)
Guatemala against Germany and Austria-Hungary, April 22, 1918.
Haiti against Germany, July 15, 1918.
Honduras against Germany, July 19, 1918.
Italy against Austria, May 24, 1915.
Italy against Bulgaria, Oct. 19, 1915.
Italy against Germany, Aug. 28, 1916.
Italy against Turkey, Aug. 21, 1915.
Japan against Germany, Aug. 23, 1914.
Liberia against Germany, Aug. 4, 1917.
Montenegro against Austria, Aug. 8, 1914.
Montenegro against Germany, Aug. 9, 1914.
Nicaragua against Germany, May 24, 1918.
Panama against Germany, April 7,1917.
Panama against Austria, Dec. 10, 1917.
Portugal against Germany, Nov. 23, 1914. (Resolution passed authorizing
military intervention as ally
of England)
Portugal against Germany, May 19, 1915. (Military aid granted.)
Roumania against Austria, Aug. 27, 1916. (Allies of Austria also
consider it a declaration.)
Russia against Germany, Aug. 7, 1914.
Russia against Bulgaria, Oct. 19, 1915.
Russia against Turkey, Nov. 3, 1914.
San Marino against Austria, May 24, 1915.
Serbia against Bulgaria, Oct. 16, 1915.
Serbia against Germany, Aug. 6, 1914.
Serbia against Turkey, Dec. 2, 1914.
Siam against Austria, July 22, 1917.
Siam against Germany, July 22, 1917.
Turkey against Allies, Nov. 23, 1914.
Turkey against Roumania, Aug. 29, 1916.
United States against Germany, April 6, 1917.
United States against Austria-Hungary, Dec. 7, 1917.
SEVERANCE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
The Nations that formally severed relations whether afterward declaring war or not, are as follows:
Austria against Japan, Aug. 26, 1914.
Austria against Portugal, March 16, 1916.
Austria against Serbia, July 26, 1914.
Austria against United States, April 8, 1917.
Bolivia against Germany, April 14, 1917.
Brazil against Germany, April 11, 1917.
China against Germany, March 14, 1917.
Costa Rica against Germany, Sept. 21, 1917.
Ecuador against Germany, Dec. 7, 1917.
Egypt against Germany, Aug. 13, 1914.
France against Austria, Aug. 10, 1914.
Greece against Turkey, July 2, 1917. (Government of Alexander.)
Greece against Austria, July 2, 1917. (Government of Alexander.)
Guatemala against Germany, April 27,1917.
Haiti against Germany, June 17, 1917.
Honduras against Germany, May 17, 1917.
Nicaragua against Germany, May 18, 1917.
Peru against Germany, Oct. 6, 1917.
Santo Domingo against Germany, June 8, 1917.
Turkey against United States, April 20, 1917.
United States against Germany, Feb. 3,1917.
Uruguay against Germany, Oct. 7, 1917.
CHAPTER V
THE GREAT WAR BEGINS
Years before 1914, when Germany declared war against civilization, it was decided by the German General Staff to strike at France through Belgium. The records of the German Foreign Office prove that fact. The reason for this lay in the long line of powerful fortresses along the line that divides France from Germany and the sparsely spaced and comparatively out-of-date forts on the border between Germany and Belgium. True, there was a treaty guaranteeing the inviolability of Belgian territory to which Germany was a signatory party. Some of the clauses of that treaty were:
Article 9. Belgium, within the limits traced in conformity with the principles laid down in the present preliminaries, shall form a perpetually neutral state. The five powers (England, France, Austria, Prussia and Russia), without wishing to intervene in the internal affairs of Belgium, guarantee her that perpetual neutrality as well as the integrity and inviolability of her territory in the limits mentioned in the present article.
Article 10. By just reciprocity Belgium shall be held to observe this same neutrality toward all the other states and to make no attack on their internal or external tranquillity while always preserving the right to defend herself against any foreign aggression.
This agreement was followed on January 23, 1839, by a definitive treaty, accepted by Belgium and by the Netherlands, which treaty regulates Belgium's neutrality as follows:
Article 7. Belgium, within the limits defined in Articles 1, 2 and 4 shall form an independent and perpetually neutral state. She is obligated to preserve this neutrality against all the other states.
To convert this solemn covenant into a "scrap of paper" it was necessary that Germany should find an excuse for tearing it to pieces. There was absolutely no provocation in sight, but that did not deter the German High Command. That august body with no information whatever to afford an excuse, alleged in a formal note to the Belgian Government that the French army intended to invade Germany through Belgian territory. This hypocritical and mendacious note and Belgium's vigorous reply follow:
Note handed in on August 2, 1914, at 7 o'clock P. M., by Herr von
Below-Saleske, German Minister, to M. Davignon, Belgian Minister for
Foreign Affairs.
BRUSSELS, 2d August, 1914.
IMPERIAL GERMAN LEGATION IN BELGIUM
(Highly confidential)
The German Government has received reliable information according to which the French forces intend to march on the Meuse, by way of Givet and Namur. This information leaves no doubt as to the intention of France of marching on Germany through Belgian territory. The Imperial Government cannot avoid the fear that Belgium, in spite of its best will, will be in no position to repulse such a largely developed French march without aid. In this fact there is sufficient certainty of a threat directed against Germany.
It is an imperative duty for the preservation of Germany to forestall this attack of the enemy.
The German Government would feel keen regret if Belgium should regard as an act of hostility against herself the fact that the measures of the enemies of Germany oblige her on her part to violate Belgian territory. In order to dissipate any misunderstanding the German Government declares as follows:
1. Germany does not contemplate any act of hostility against Belgium. If Belgium consents in the war about to commence to take up an attitude of friendly neutrality toward Germany, the German Government on its part undertakes, on the declaration of peace, to guarantee the kingdom and its possessions in their whole extent.
2. Germany undertakes under the conditions laid down to evacuate Belgian territory as soon as peace is concluded.
3. If Belgium preserves a friendly attitude, Germany is prepared, in agreement with the authorities of the Belgian Government, to buy against cash all that is required by her troops, and to give indemnity for the damages caused in Belgium.
4. If Belgium behaves in a hostile manner toward the German troops, and in particular raises difficulties against their advance by the opposition of the fortifications of the Meuse, or by destroying roads, railways, tunnels, or other engineering works, Germany will be compelled to consider Belgium as an enemy.
In this case Germany will take no engagements toward Belgium, but she will leave the later settlement of relations of the two states toward one another to the decision of arms. The German Government has a justified hope that this contingency will not arise and that the Belgian Government will know how to take suitable measures to hinder its taking place. In this case the friendly relations which unite the two neighboring states will become closer and more lasting.
THE REPLY BY BELGIUM
Note handed in by M. Davignon, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to Herr von
Below-Saleske, German Minister.
BRUSSELS, 3d August, 1914. (7 o'clock in the morning.)
By the note of the 2d August, 1914, the German Government has made known that according to certain intelligence the French forces intend to march on the Meuse via Givet and Namur and that Belgium, in spite of her good-will, would not be able without help to beat off an advance of the French troops.
The German Government felt it to be its duty to forestall this attack and to violate Belgian territory. Under these conditions Germany proposes to the King's Government to take up a friendly attitude, and undertakes at the moment of peace to guarantee the integrity of the kingdom and of her possessions in their whole extent. The note adds that if Belgium raises difficulties to the forward march of the German troops Germany will be compelled to consider her as an enemy and to leave the later settlement of the two states toward one another to the decision of arms.
This note caused profound and painful surprise to the King's Government.
The intentions which it attributed to France are in contradiction with the express declarations which were made to us on the 1st of August, in the name of the government of the republic.
Moreover, if, contrary to our expectation, a violation of Belgian neutrality were to be committed by France, Belgium would fulfil all her international duties and her army would offer the most vigorous opposition to the invader.
The treaties of 1839, confirmed by the treaties of 1870, establish the independence and the neutrality of Belgium under the guarantee of the powers, and particularly of the Government of his Majesty the King of Prussia.
Belgium has always been faithful to her international obligations; she has fulfilled her duties in a spirit of loyal impartiality; she has neglected no effort to maintain her neutrality or to make it respected.
The attempt against her independence with which the German Government threatens her would constitute a flagrant violation of international law. No strategic interest justifies the violation of that law.
The Belgian Government would, by accepting the propositions which are notified to her, sacrifice the honor of the nation while at the same time betraying her duties toward Europe.
Conscious of the part Belgium has played for more than eighty years in the civilization of the world, she refuses to believe that the independence of Belgium can be preserved only at the expense of the violation of her neutrality.
If this hope were disappointed the Belgian Government has firmly resolved to repulse by every means in her power any attack upon her rights.
The German attack upon Belgium and France came with terrible force and suddenness. Twenty-four army corps, divided into three armies clad in a specially designed and colored gray-green uniform, swept in three mighty streams over the German borders with their objective the heart of France. The Army of the Meuse was given the route through Liege, Namur and Maubeuge. The Army of the Moselle violated the Duchy of Luxemburg, which, under a treaty guaranteeing its independence and neutrality, was not permitted to maintain an army. Germany was a signatory party to this treaty also. The Army of the Rhine cut through the Vosges Mountains and its route lay between the French cities of Nancy and Toul.
The heroic defense of the Belgian army at Liege against the Army of the Meuse delayed the operation of Germany's plans and in all probability saved Paris. It was the first of many similar disappointments and checks that Germany encountered during the war.
The defense of Liege continued for ten heroic days. Within that interval the first British Expeditionary Forces were landed in France and Belgium, the French army was mobilized to full strength. The little Belgian army falling back northward on Antwerp, Louvain and Brussels, threatened the German flank and approximately 200,000 German soldiers were compelled to remain in the conquered section of Belgium to garrison it effectively.
Liege fortifications were the design of the celebrated strategist Brialmont. They consisted of twelve isolated fortresses which had been permitted to become out of repair. No field works of any kind connected them and they were without provision for defense against encircling tactics and against modern artillery.
The huge 42-centimeter guns, the first of Germany's terrible surprises, were brought into action against these forts, and their concrete and armored steel turrets were cracked as walnuts are cracked between the jaws of a nut-cracker. The Army of the Meuse then made its way like a gray-green cloud of poison gas through Belgium. A cavalry screen of crack Uhlan regiments preceded it, and it made no halt worthy of note until it confronted the Belgian army on the line running from Louvain to Namur. The Belgians were forced back before Louvain on August 20th, the Belgian Government removed the capital from Brussels to Antwerp, and the German hosts entered evacuated Brussels.
During this advance of the Army of the Meuse, strong French detachments invaded German soil, pouring into Alsace through the Belfort Gap. Brief successes attended the bold stroke. Mulhausen was captured and the Metz-Strassburg Railroad was cut in several places. The French suffered a defeat almost immediately following this first flush of victory, both in Alsace and in Lorraine, where a French detachment had engaged with the Army of the Moselle. The French army thereupon retreated to the strong line of forts and earthworks defending the border between France and Germany.
England's first expeditionary force landed at Ostend, Calais and Dunkirk on August 7th. It was dubbed England's "contemptible little army" by the German General Staff. That name was seized upon gladly by England as a spur to volunteering. It brought to the surface national pride and a fierce determination to compel Germany to recognize and to reckon with the "contemptible little army."
The contact between the French, Belgian and British forces was speedily established and something like concerted resistance to the advance of the enemy was made possible. The German army, however, followed by a huge equipment of motor kitchens, munition trains, and other motor transport evidencing great care in preparation for the movement, swept resistlessly forward until it encountered the French and British on a line running from Mons to Charleroi.
The British army was assigned to a position between two French armies. By some miscalculation, the French army that was to have taken its position on the British left, never appeared. The French army on the right was attacked and defeated at Charleroi, falling back in some confusion. The German Army of the Moselle co-operating with the Army of the Meuse then attacked the British and French, and a great flanking movement by the German joint commands developed.