A DESPERATE "EXPLANATION."

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16293, 28 January 1915, Page 4

A DESPERATE "EXPLANATION."

The German Imperial Chancellor has been endeavouring, in the course of an interview, to explain some of those utterances of -his, made in the hour of the bursting of the war-cloud, which opened the eyes of the world to the German idea of honour in international relationships. Under the stress of a moment of unprecedented tension Dr von Bethmann Holhveg expressed on behalf of his country sentiments which the Germans were prepared to stand by and applaud in the first flush of their confidence of a speedy victory, but which they have since, in a more chastened mood, realised to be fraught with awkward and embarrassing consequences for themselves. Consequently the Imperial Chancellor is now trying to create the impression that he has been misunderstood. He is giving particular attention to the famous or notorious "scrap of paper" incident. It will be remembered how the phra-se, which is already historic, was born. Sir Edward Goschen, British Ambassador at Berlin, describing his final interview with the German Chancellor on August 4, wrote: " I found the Chancellor very agitated. His Excellency at once began a 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 which in war time had so often been disregarded—just for a scrap of paper Great Britain was going to make war on a kindred' nation who desired nothing better than to be friends with her." The German Chancellor is now offering bland assurances that his reference to a " scrap of paper" simply meant that the treaty —the treaty under which Germany had promised, like Great Britain, to safeguard Belgian neutrality—had lapsed owing to the forfeiture by Belgium of her neutrality. Despite its clumsiness, so desperate an attempt to place the situation in a new light ,'s almost amusing. The refutation of Dr von Bethmann Hollweg's " explanation " is supplied in an abundance of documentary evidence. Belgium had in no way " forfeited her neutrality " when the treaty under which it was guaranteed to her was described so contemptuously by the German Chancellor.

One of the last documents of the British Whit-c Paper refers to the supreme appeal " of the King of the Belgians to the diplomatic intervention of Great Britain to safeguard the integrity of Belgium, when that country had received from German a Note offering her the alternative of sanctioning the passage of

Gorman troops through her territory or of bring treated by Germany as an enemy. The reply of Great Britain to the appeal was to give Germany to understand that it was a matter of life and death for the honour of England thai who should keep her solemn engagement to do her utmost to defend the neutrality of Belgium in the event of an attack on that country. 'J he German Chancellor's answer to the, representations that wero then made by the British Ambassador included tin; impatient re,fe,renco to the " scrap of paper" which was followed by the question, " But at what price will that compact be kept? Has the British Government thought of that?" Sir Edward Goschen's answer was- that fear of consequences could hardly be regarded as an oxcufie for breaking solemn engagements. The Belgian Grey Book itself contains all tho documentary evidence necessary to disclose the absurdity of the German Chancellor's pretence that Belgium had forfeited her neutrality. Early in August Belgium, having the assurance of France that her neutrality would be respected, sought, in view of tho news of tho violation of Luxemburg, for a similar assurance from Germany. This was of course not forthcoming. The German Government represented that it had information to the effect that the French intended to march through Belgian territory against Getmany, and that it feared that Belgium could not without assistance repel such an invasion with a sufficient prospect of guaranteeing Genmany against danger. Germany, it was pretended, had in selfdefence to anticipate any such hostile attack.

The sequel is only too familiar. Belgium was still resisting German attempts at coercion when the expected German violation of Belgian territory took place. If anything additional were needed to expose the hollowness of the German Chancellor's 'explanation" it is surely supplied in /lis own words addressed to the Reichstag on August 4. These read thus : "We are in a state of legitimate defence, and necessity knows 110 law. Our troops have occupied Luxemburg, and have perhaps already entered Belgium. This is contrary to the dictates of international law. France has, it is true, declared at Brussels that she was prepared to respect the neutrality of Belgium so long as it was respected by her adversary. But we knew that France was ready to invade Belgium. France could wait: we could not. A French attack on our flank in the region of the Lower Rhine might have been fatal. We were, therefore compelled to ride roughshod over the legitimate protests of the Governments of Luxemburg and Belgium. For the wrong we are thus doing we will make reparation as soon as our military object is attained." The German Imperial Chancellor has said in truth very much more than he can take back, and his attempts to minimise the significance of his previous admissions are foredoomed to failure. (