HOW BELGIUM WAS DOUBLY WRONGED BY GERMANY

Southland Times, Issue 17453, 21 June 1915, Page 3

HOW BELGIUM WAS DOUBLY WRONGED BY GERMANY

HER PEOPLE MURDERED AND THE NATION SLANDERED. OFFICIAL REPLY TO NEUTRALITY FALSEHOOD. Germany’s allegation that Belgium forfeited her neutrality before the, outbreak of the war has brought a spirited and convincing protest from tho Belgian Government. "Belgium’s honour,’’ we are reminded, "defies the assaults of falsehood. She lias faith in the justice of the world." The following communication Is published by the Press Bureau at the desjre of the Belgian Minister in London:— “On 2nd December, 1914, the Chancellor of the German Empire declared before the Reichstag that 'on 4th August we had already certain indications of tho fault committed by the Belgian Government, but I had not yet at my disposition any formal proofs in writing, though the British Government was aware that sucli proofs existed. Now, by means of certain, documents discovered at Brussels, which I have caused to be published, it has become clear how, and in what measure, Belgium had abandoned her neutrality in favour of England. The whole world now realises that when our troops on the night of 3rd4th August moved into Belgian territory, they were setting foot on the soil of a State which had long ago abandoned its neutrality.’ HONOUR NOT FOR SALE. “At the outbreak of the war, the crime perpetrated against Belgium was obvious, and the interest of Germany in avowing it seemed evident. She was trying to exercise a sort of moral pressure on her victim. Tho violation of international law was avowed by the Imperial Chancellor from the very tribune of the Reichstag. "At that moment things went so far that money was offered In compensation for lost honour to the nation that Germany was trying to fascinate! As if honour could be bought back by gold! "But ‘necessity knows no law’—not kennt kein gebot. It was said that every act was permissible—even the act of beating down by a lightning stroke a, nation that it was necessary to crush. Once more the course of war has demonstrated that one initial crime infallibly brings about a series of subsequent crimes. "No sooner had our soil—that soil whose inviolability had been guaranteed by Germany—suffered invasion, than part of the invading army began to disgrace itself by the systematic perpetration of arson, rape and murder on a harmless people, with incredible details of cruelty, theft and pillage. While this flood of unparalleled barbarism was being let loose on Belgium, no act of Belgium could be found to justify the invasion; tho spoiler himself confessed it. “A month after the declaration of war the German Chancellery discovered at Brussels the reports of certain conversations which had taken place in 1906 and in 1912 between two British Military Attaches and two Chiefs of the Staff of the Belgian Army. "To produce an impression on those ignorant of the facts, ‘German honesty’ suppressed, when the precis of the abovenamed conversations was published. the clause in which it was set forth that the exchange of opinion therein recorded had reference only to the situation tliat would be created if Belgian neutrality had already been violated. "The Belgian Government gives to the allegations of the German Chancellory the only answer that they deserve: They are a tissue of lies, all the more - shameless because they are set forth by persons who claim to have studied the original documents.

THE TWO DOCUMENTS. “What are the documents which Germany produces in order to prove Belgium guilty They are two in number: "I. The narrative of certain interviews which took place between Lieu-tenant-General Ducarne and Colonel Earnardston in 1906. In those Interviews the British officer set forth his views as to the way in which England could help Belgium in case the latter were attacked by Germany, One phrase in the document clearly proves that Colonel Barnardiston is dealing with a hypothetical case.—‘the entry of English troops into Belgium would only take place after the violation of Belgian neutrality by Germany.’ “The translation in the Norddeutsche Zeitung of 25th November omits this clause, the phrase which gives its exact •scope and significance to the document. Moreover, the photograph of General Ducame's report contains the words, "The officer with whom I spoke insists that our conversation has been absolutely confidential.’ For the word conversation the Norddeutsche Zeitung substitutes the word ‘convention.’ Colonel Barnardiston is made to say that ‘our convention’ -has been absolutely confidential! “Such proceedings need no comment. “2. The second document is the report of a conversation in April, 1912, between Lieutenant-General Jungbluth and Lieutenant - Colonel Bridges. The former observed that ‘any English intervention in favour of Belgium, if she were the victim of German aggression, could only take place with our consent.’ The British military attache raised the point that England might perhaps exercise her rights and duties, as one of the Powers guaranteeing Belgium, without waiting for the appeal to be madeto her. This was Colonel Bridges’s personal opinion only. The British Government has always held, as did the Belgian Government, that the consent of the latter was a necessary preliminary. NO CONVENTION. “The Belgian Government declares on its honour that not only was no ‘convention* ever made, but also that neither of the two Governments ever made any advances or propositions concerning the conclusion of any such convention. “Moreover, the Minister of Great Britain at Brussels, who alone could contract engagements in her behalf, never intervened in these conversations. The whole Belgian Ministry are ready to pledge themselves on oath that no conclusions arising from these conversations was ever brought before the Cabinet, or even laid before one single member of It. “The Belgian Government takes the opportunity of declaring, in answer to allegations whose malevolence is obvious that; — “1. Before the declaration of war no French force, even of the smallest size, had entered Belgium. No trustworthy

evidence can bo produced to contradict this affirmation. “2. Not only did Belgium never refuse an offer of military help offered by one of tlie guaranteeing Powers, but after the declaration of war she earnestly solicited the protection of*her guarantors. “3. When undertaking, as was her duty, the vigorous defence of her fortresses, Belgium asked for, and received with gratitude, such help as her guarantors were able to place at her disposition for that defence. “Belgium, the victim of her own loyalty, will not bow her head before any Power. Her honour defies the assaults of falsehood. She has faith in the justice of the world. On the day of judgment the triumph belongs to the people who have sacrificed everything to serve conscientiously the cause of Truth, Right and Honour.”