Prev | Current Page 306 | Next

Various

"The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915 What Americans Say to Europe"


From all these considerations, I think it extremely doubtful whether, on
the first day of August, 1914, Belgium should have been considered as
possessing any other kind of neutrality than the ordinary neutrality
enjoyed by all States not at war, when some States are at war. In fact,
it remains to be seen whether Belgium itself had not forfeited the
privilege of this ordinary neutrality before a single German soldier had
placed foot on Belgian soil. A few days ago I received a letter from one
of the most prominent professors in the University of Berlin, who is
also in close contact with the Prussian Ministry of Education, a man in
whose veracity I place perfect confidence, having known him well for ten
years. He writes: "Our violation of the neutrality of Belgium was
prompted in part by the fact that we had convincing proof that there
were French soldiers already in Belgium and that Belgium had agreed to
allow the French Army to pass over its soil in case of a war between
France and us." Moreover, in the British "White Paper" itself, No. 122,
is to be found a dispatch from the British Ambassador in Berlin, Sir E.


Pages:
294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318