The Great War and How It Arose Part 12

"If the German Chancellor wishes to know why there were conversations on military subjects between British and Belgian officers, he may find one reason in a fact well known to him, namely, that Germany was establishing an elaborate network of strategical railways, leading from the Rhine to the Belgian frontier, through a barren, thinly-populated tract--railways deliberately constructed to permit of a sudden attack upon Belgium, such as was carried out in August last. This fact alone was enough to justify any communications between Belgium and other Powers on the footing that there would be no violation of Belgian neutrality unless it were previously violated by another Power...."

FOOTNOTES:

[114] Interview with Herr von Jagow, by the _New York World_, March 28, 1915; interview with Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg, by the a.s.sociated Press, in New York papers, January 25, 1915.

[115] No such "conversations" took place in 1911. A pa.s.sing reference only to the Morocco situation of 1911 was made in the 1912 "conversations." This appears to be the German Chancellor's sole foundation for his a.s.sertion. Cd. 7860, p. 360.

[116] In a letter to the _Morning Post_ of February 8, 1915, Mr. A.

Hamon, Professor de l'Universite, Nouville de Bruxelles, writes:--

"In October and November last (13th and 24th) the _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_ published the doc.u.ments seized by the Germans in the Belgian archives. The German Government then published a Dutch edition of these doc.u.ments, accompanied by a photographic reproduction of the said doc.u.ments. The pamphlet bears the name of R. W. E. Wijnmalen as publisher, in the town of Den Haag (The Hague). On the photographic doc.u.ment we read in the margin: 'The entry of the English into Belgium would only take place after the violation of our neutrality by Germany.' Now, this extremely important note is omitted in the Dutch translation. It was also omitted in the German translation. This is a falsification through omission, a very serious falsification, as it modified the meaning of the doc.u.ment.

"But we have worse still. On the top of page 2 of General Ducarne's letter to the Minister, he says: 'My interlocutor insisted on this fact that "our conversation was quite confidential...."' In the Dutch translation, instead of 'conversation,' there is 'convention'

(overeenkomst)! The mistake is great and cannot be but purposely made. The German Government thus changes into a convention, that is to say, an agreement, what is but a simple conversation."