A FATEFUL ANNIVERSARY

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 198, 4 August 1928, Page 9

A FATEFUL ANNIVERSARY

The Fourth of August

COULD BRITAIN HAVE STAYED OUT?

(By

“Lector " )

“Paramount regard for treaty faith and the pledged word of rulers and peoples Is the common heritage of Great Britain and the Empire.’ 1 —H.M. King George V., September 9th., 1914.

When the crisis first arose, I confess that I was one of those who had the Impulse to hope that even though a European conflagration took place, we might be able to stay out. I had that hope strongly. But in a short time I became convinced that into this war we should be inevitably drawn, and that it really was a question only whether we should enter it honourably or be dragged into it with dishonour.” —The Rt. Hon. A. Bonar Law, August 6th., 1914.

WAS it all a ghastly failure and a colossal tragedy? Yes, if we look in the right direction to fix the appalling responsibility in the proper quarter. But unless we are prepared to believe that the greater part of the civilized world went mad with blood-lust in 1914, it must be admitted that one nation was the aggressor, so that other nations were drawn into the maelstrom as defenders. We are as yet too near the mountainous proportions of the world implications of the Great War to discuss them as dispassionate and calculating analysts, but, fourteen years after we are far enough away to see some aspects of them in clear focus. WHOSE IS THE GUILT? One of these aspects relates to the question of responsibility, and helps us to see more clearly that a world at peace will be possible when nations can implicitly trust each other to adhere with absolute faithfulness to treaty obligations, and not before. How or when such an atmosphere can be created in the world at large as a dependable guarantee against future wars, is beyond the power of diplomatic statesmanship to determine. Apart altogether from the admitted horrors, atrocities, crimes, tears and agonies of war, the human factor must be taken into consideration. Just as when one meets a mad dog, one has to kill or be killed, so It must happen when the essential life of one nation is threatened by another. It does not get us any further forward merely to indulge In the pious hope that there will be no more mad dogs, any more than we could pride ourselves on a brilliant progressive Intuition were we to say that under no conceivable circumstances shall we ever resort to war again :

Intellectual honesty'demands that individuals and nations alike must face facts as they exist, and deal with them in accordance with the principles of justice and honour. Every sympathy is extended to those who realise so clearly the devastations wrought by war on the modern scale, but it is likewise recognised that a just and righteous cause is worthy of any sacrifice. THE HORRORS OF WAR One remark in parenthesis may here be made. It is not the whole truth about war when its mere horror is described. Although we may admit that war is the ugliest and the most cruel thing that ever blighted this fair earth, it has revealed the glories and the grandeurs of human nature as nothing else has ever done—glories and grandeurs, that is to say, on the sacrificial side. If the ex-servloe man today says (as he probably will) that some of the most ghastly and horrible days of his life happened In war-time, he will hasten to add that he made discoveries of true human comradeship, experienced genuine touches of human kindness, and witnessed deeds of Joyal selfsacrifice, such as oould never otherwise have been conceived. Such things are just as valid facts as are any others relating to war. WHAT WOULD YOU DO? One may be pardoned for going a little further and venturing to say that were precisely similar circumstances to arise to-day such as arose in 1914, and were a plebiscite of genuine old soldiers to be taken—i.e., of those who real’y “went through it”—they would for the most part do their bit all over again; not because they liked it before; not because they had their eyes closed to the soul-wracking horrors; but because once more the life, the honour and the peace of their nearest and dearest would be threatened, and because as honest men and citizens they could do no other. To know what the world ought to be like Is one thing. To recognise It to be what It ie, is another. Ostrich tactics simply do not work out in the face of an aggressive enemy. HOW IT HAPPENED. In order still further to realise the significance of this anniversary to-day, it may be acceptable to set down here the results of a brief research into the official records, which clearly indicate how the Great War came about. “Great events,” says John Buchan in his history of the war, "spring only from great causes, but the immediate occasion may be small.” Serajevo, the capital of Bosnia was (officially) the scene of the outbreak of the world conflagration, when the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria, was assassinated at ten minutes to eleven on Sunday, June 28th., 1914, by the second bomb that had been thrown at him that day. The incident, small in itself so far as world politics ought to be concerned, brought to a head the long-smoul-ilering antagonism between Slav and Teuton, and by its imjiications dragged in the chief powers of Europe.

Witnessing that Incident In common with other nations, was Germany, a Germany that believed the utterance of Bismarck In the Prussian Diet of 1862: “Great questions are to be settled, not by speeches and majority resolutions, but by blood and iron”; a Germany with a war-mind, which had absorbed the teachings of Bernhard! and Nietzche.

“Nietzche’s magnificent blonde beast,” says the historian, “avidly rampant for spoil and victory, had become the avowed national ideal.” And what was that? Let Neitzche himself speak. It is an almost blasphemous utterance. “Ye have heard how it was said in old times, Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth; but I say unto you Blessed are the valiant, for they shall make the earth their throne. And ye have heard men say, Blessed are the poor in spirit; but I say unto you, Blessed are the great in soul and the free in spirit, for they shall enter into Valhalla. And ye have heard men say, Blessed are the peacemakers; but I say unto you, blessed are the war-makers, for they shall be called, if not the children of Jahve, the children of Odin, who is greater than Jahve.” Neitzche died In a madhouse, but there was no such possibility of Incarceration for the nation which had inbibed his diabolic doctrine. THE SPREADING FLAME The flash of the Serajevo bomb ignited what was 'to become an almost world-consuming fire. A month later, on July 23rd., the Austro-Hungarian Government presented its stiff demands for all kinds of reparations and guarantees of future security, from Serbia, the message having the almost certain connivance of the German Ambassador. Serbia, faced with an ultimatum (she was given 48 hours to reply to the note) approached Russia, and taking Russia’s advice, accepted all the Austrian demands with the exception of two: (1) That Serbia should “accept the collaboration in Serbia of representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government in the suppression of the subversive movement directed against the territorial integrity of the Monarchy”—to which Serbia replied that she did not understand, and (2) that judicial proceedings should be taken against the accessories to the Serajevo plot, in which proceedings delegates of the AustroHungarian Government would take part—to which Serbia replied that such a method of precedure would be a violation of her own constitution.

With reference to both points in dispute, Serbia asked for the opportunity to lay the matters before the Hague tribunal. Nothing short of complete acceptance would be considered, however, and the Austro-Hungarian minister packed up and left Belgrade. A FEVERISH WEEK. Thereafter, as history completely records in various British White Papers, began the “feverish week of diplomatic effort” in which the chief part was played by Sir Edward Grey, whose worst enemies could never call anything but a white man. He first tried to arrange a conference between Britain, France, Italy and Germany to mediate in the European quarrel. France and Italy were willing, but Germany refused. Austria declared war on Serbia, Belgium mobilised in self-defence. Russia for a similar reason mobilised in the south. Germany, through Herr Von Bethmann Hollweg, sent a message to Britain of which these are actual words: “Provided that the neutrality of Great Britain were certain, every assurance would be given to the British Government that the Imperial Government aimed at no territorial acquisitions at the expense of France should they prove victorious in any war that might ensue ... It depended upon the actions of France what operations Germany might be forced to enter upon in Belgium, but when the war was over, Belgian integrity would be respected if she had not sided against Germany.” A BASE PROPOSAL In other words, as Buchan comments:— “We were offered complicity on the most Insulting terms —that we should suffer our ally, France, to be stripped of her colonies without protest, and that the neutrality of Belgium, guaranteed by Germany and Britain, should be respected only when the war was over.” That suggestion was refused by Britain. Will anyone say she should have accepted it? Even Austria showed certain signs of fear at the extent of the conflagration, by modifying her demands. But it is not easy to stamp out fire when it has taken a proper hold. In Britain, the populace waited with strange calmness. In Germany, the people went mad with war fever. ON THE WAR PATH Germany’s ultimatum went to Russia, demanding immediate demobilisation. That was on July 31st. On August Ist., Germany declared war on Russia, and asked two days later for a free passage through Belgium, which was refused. Britain sent her warning ultimatum to Germany. It reached Berlin at 7 p.m. on August 4th. “That very night,” says Buchan, “the German mine-layer was busy off the British Coast.” War had begun.

“NECESSITY KNOWS NO LAW." Then came the two famous, or infamous expressions of German sentiment, both from Bethmann Hollweg. Speaking in the Reichstag, he said:— “We are now in a state of necessity, and necessity knows no law. We are compelled to override the just pro* test of the Luxenburg and Belgian Governments. The wrong —I speak openly—that we are committing we will endeavour to make good as soon as our military goal Is reached. Any* body who is threatened as we are threatened, and Is fighting for his highest possessions, can have only one thought—how to hack his way through." And later, speaking to Sir Edward Goschen, the same authority asked with scorn: “Do you mean to say that you are going to make war for a scrap of paper?’’ The British Ambassador replied: “Unfortunately, sir, that scrap of paper contains our signature as well as yours.” Could Britain have stayed out? ALL PARTIES AT ONE. Turning over the official records of those fateful early days, one finds the most remarkable unanimity of opinion on the part of the leading statesmen of all parties, some of whose utterances may be recalled with benefit on such an anniversary as happens to-day. LORD CURZON. Lord Curzon, whose initiative inaugurated the publicity programme designed to explain the reasons for war the general public, wrote as follows on August 27, 1914: “I have told the Prime Minister that I would be pfoud to appear on a public platform with any member of the Government to state or defend -a case m which party is dead and we are all united.” THE PRIME MINISTER. Mr. Asquith, as he was then, speaking in the Guildhall on September 5, said: “The issue has passed out of the domain of argument into another field, but let me ask you, and through you the world outside, what would have been our condition as a nation to-day if we had been base enough through perverted calculation of self-interest, or through a paralysis of the sense of honour and duty, if we had been base enough to be false to our word and faithless to our friends?” And again, at Edinburgh on September 18, he further said:—

“We are at war for three reasons—ln the first place, to vindicate the sanctity of treaty obligations and of what Is properly called the public law of Europe; In the second plaoe, to assert and to enforce the Independence of free States, re* latively small and weak, against the encroachments and the violence of the strong; and In the third plaoe, to withstand, as we believe In the Interests not only of our own Empire but of civilization at large, the arrogant claim of a single power to dominate the development of the destinies of Europe. MR. LLOYD CEORCE. Mr. Lloyd George in London on September ig said: “That is what we are fighting—that claim to predominancy of a material, hard civilization, a civilization which if it once rules and sways the world, liberty goes, democracy vanishes. And unless Britain and her sons come to the rescue it will be a dark day for humanity.” Confuting those who regard all wars as being undertaken equally by all participants from purely selfish motives, the same statesman declared: “I am fully alive to the fact that every nation which has ever engaged in any war has always invoked the name of honour. Many a crime has been committed in its name; there are some being committed now. AH the same, national honour is a reality , and any nation that disregards it Is doomed." THE FUTURE. What is to be said, then, of the current or any other proposals, whether by multilateral pacts or otherwise, to prevent the recurrence of future wars? One of the most trenchant things ever said on the subject came from Viscount Bryce on October 3, 1914: “We are told that armaments must be reduced; that the baleful spirit of militarism must be quenched; that peoples must everywhere be admitted to a fuller share in the control of foreign policy; that efforts must be made to establish a'sort of league of concord—some system of international relations and reciprocal peace alliances bv which weaker nations may be protected and under which differences between nations may be adjusted by courts of arbitration and conciliation, of wider scope than those that now exist. “All these things are desirable, but no scheme for preventing future wars will have any chance of success unless It rests upon the assurance that the States which enter Into It will loyally and steadfastly abide by It, and that each and all of them will join in coercing by their overwhelming united strength any State which may disregard obligations it has undertaken. The faith of treaties Is the only solid foundation on which the temple of peace can be built up."