The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915 | Page 2

31, 1914, Herr von Below, the German Minister at
Brussels, assured the Belgian Department of State that he knew of a
declaration which the German Chancellor had made in 1911, to the

effect "that Germany had no intention of violating our neutrality," and
"that he was certain that the sentiments to which expression was given
at that time had not changed." (See Belgian "Gray Book," Nos. 11 and
12.)
Apart from these treaty stipulations, which are only declaration of
Belgium's rights as sovereign nations, The Hague Conference, in which
forty-four nations (including Germany) participated, reaffirmed as an
axiom of international law the inherent right of a nation to the sanctity
of its territory.
It seems unnecessary to discuss the wanton disregard of these solemn
obligations and protestations, when the present Chancellor of the
German Empire, in his speech to the Reichstag and to the world on Aug.
4, 1914, frankly admitted that the action of the German military
machine in invading Belgium was a wrong. He said:
"We are now in a state of necessity, and necessity knows no law. Our
troops have occupied Luxemburg and perhaps are already on Belgian
soil. _Gentlemen, that is contrary to the dictates of international law._
It is true that the French Government has declared at Brussels that
France is willing to respect the neutrality of Belgium, so long as her
opponent respects it. We knew, however, that France stood ready for
invasion. France could wait, but we could not wait. A French
movement upon our flank upon the lower Rhine might have been
disastrous. So we were compelled to override the just protest of the
Luxemburg and Belgian Governments. _The wrong--I speak
openly--that we are committing_ we will endeavor to make good as
soon as our military goal has been reached. Anybody who is threatened
as we are threatened, and is fighting for his highest possessions, can
only have one thought--how he is to hack his way through."
This defense is not even a plea of confession and avoidance. It is a plea
of "Guilty" at the bar of the world. It has one merit, that it does not add
to the crime the aggravation of hypocrisy. It virtually rests the case of
Germany upon the gospel of Treitschke and Bernhardi, that each nation
is justified in exerting its physical power to the utmost in defense of its
selfish interests and without any regard to considerations of

conventional morality. Might as between nations is the sole criterion of
right. There is no novelty in this gospel. Its only surprising feature is its
revival in the twentieth century. It was taught far more effectively by
Machiavelli in his treatise, "The Prince," wherein he glorified the
policy of Cesare Borgia in trampling the weaker States of Italy under
foot by ruthless terrorism, unbridled ferocity, and the basest deception.
Indeed, the wanton destruction of Belgium is simply Borgiaism
amplified ten-thousandfold by the mechanical resources of modern war.
This Answer Cannot Satisfy.
Unless our boasted civilization is the thinnest veneering of barbarism;
unless the law of the world is in fact only the ethics of the rifle and the
conscience of the cannon; unless mankind after uncounted centuries has
made no real advance in political morality beyond that of the cave
dweller, then this answer of Germany cannot satisfy the "decent respect
to the opinions of mankind." Germany's contention that a treaty of
peace is "a scrap of paper," to be disregarded at will when required by
the selfish interests of one contracting party, is the negation of all that
civilization stands for.
Belgium has been crucified in the face of the world. Its innocence of
any offense, until it was attacked, is too clear for argument. Its
voluntary immolation to preserve its solemn guarantee of neutrality
will "plead like angels, trumpet-tongued, against the deep damnation of
its taking off." On that issue the Supreme Court could have no ground
for doubt or hesitation. Its judgment would be speedy and inexorable.
The remaining two issues, above referred to, are not so simple.
Primarily and perhaps exclusively, the ethical question turns upon the
issues raised by the communications which passed between the various
Chancelleries of Europe in the last week of July, for it is the amazing
feature of this greatest of all wars that it was precipitated by diplomats
and rulers, and, assuming that all these statesmen sincerely desired a
peaceful solution of the questions raised by the Austrian ultimatum,
(which is by no means clear,) it was the result of ineffective diplomacy
and clumsy diplomacy at that.

I quite appreciate the distinction between the immediate causes of a war
and the anterior and more fundamental causes; nevertheless, with the
world in a state of Summer peace on July 23, 1914, an issue, gravely
affecting the integrity of nations and