Manawatu Evening Standard. MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 1926. WAS IT A WAR TO END WAR?

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVI, Issue 29, 4 January 1926, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 1926. WAS IT A WAR TO END WAR?

The statement lias been again and again made—so often indeed that it lias come to be accepted almost Implicitly as fact—tliat the Great War of 1914-18 was entered upon as “a war to end war.” The latest statement of this character is made by an Australian journalist, who, in the course of an interesting article entitled “Preparing for the Next War,” says : “When the war drums first sounded in 1914, we were told, on the very highest possible authority, that this war was being entered upon by the allied nations from the very best of motives. It was, we were told, to be a war which would end Avar and usher in an era of universal peace and righteousness.” The name, or names, of the authority, or authorities, responsible for that statement are not given by the writer, who clearly overlooks the fact that, for the Allied nations, there was no alternative and that the whole course of pre-war history in Europe shows that Germany was merely aAvaiting a pretext to let. the war dogs loose in pursuit of her predatory designs. The crisis was precipitated by the Austrian declaration of war upon Serbia, folloAving the murder of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian throne, and the abrupt and humiliating ultimatum presented by Austria to the Serbian Government, with the connivance and assent of the then Kaiser. That declaration of Avar preceded the German declaration of war on Russia by three days only. In the meantime. German troops had violated French territory and, on August Ist, had entered aud occupied the neutral State of Luxemburg, in spite of the protests of the Grand Duchess. German troops were actually in occupation of French territory before the Kaiser declared war on France and Belgium on August 3rd. The Avar on Belgium was preceded by the den. and, made in the Kaiser’s name, that German troops should be allowed to advance upon France through Belgium. The perpetual neutrality of that cm try had been guaranteed by Germany, in common with Great Britain, France, Austria and Russia, and each of these Powers was solemnly pledged to resist any violation of that neutrality. Bethmann-Holl-weg justified the violation of Belgian neutrality by saying that they were “forced to disregard the protests of the Luxemburg and Belgian Governments,” because “as we are fighting for the high-

est” we “must only consider lioav victory can be gained.” King Albert’s appeal to King George v . for the help necessary to enable him to defend the neutrality of his country, to which she was pledged, left the British Government no option but to enter the war against Germany. She did so, just as she entered upon the war against France under Napoleon Bonaparte, in 1803, to, if possible, ensure the peace of Europe and her own integrity. The Napoleonic wars did not finally close until 1815. In those wars France was the aggressor; a hundred years later Germany had assumed the aggressive, and, as BethmannHollweg practically admitted in his correspondence with Sir Edward Grey, one of the objects of the war against France was the handing over of the French colonial possessions to Germany. “Provided,” he told the British Ambassador, “that the neutrality of Great Britain was certain, every assurance Avould 'be given that the Imperial Government aimed at no territorial acquisition at the expense of France, should they prove victorious in any war that might ensue. He was unable to give a similar undertaking in regard to the French colonies.”