New-York tribune., 1914-12-21

More Casuistry About Germany S
Violation of Belgian Neutrality.

Gently discovered in the archives at Brussels and
which are held by Mr.. Won Bethmann-Hollweg,
DR.. Dernburg and others to Justify Germanys
violation Of Bclgium's neutrality. We printed
these documents and a commentary on them by
DR.. Dcrnburg because OF their news value. But
we fEl TO find in them anything which relieves
Germany from the opprobrium Of having broken
the international treaty under which Belgiums
security was guaranteed perpetually neutral
state.
These documents the substance Of which was
cabled 10 this country couple Of months ago,
show that British military attaches at Brus-
sells had discussed with the Belgian military
authorities plans for giving support TO Belgium
in case the latter country should be attacked by
Germany There was no impropriety IN such dis
cussion. since both Great Britain and Germany
were bound by their pledges to help Belgium
maintain her territorial integrity and indepen-
dencc. 10 is TO Great Britans credit that she
did offer 10 back up her promises by military
force Through the exchanges at Brusses-in-
formal as they were-shc manifested an honor
able disposition TO live up 20 her word-even at
the cost OF blood and treasure II would help
Germany materially 90 sustain her claim that she
did not make her guarantee 20 Belgium scrap
of paper" out of cod-blooded considerations Of
policy bat was driven to that crime by sudden,
ovcrmastcring impulse Of sef-preservation, If
similar assurances Of German aid TO Belgium m
case of an attack boy France Great Britain.
given when reason still prevailed, could be un-
earthcd in the captured archives at Brussels.
Or. Dcrnburg tries TO prove that by consider
ing British offers of aid in case Of German
invasion Belgium forfeited her neutral status.
Yet according to the principal memorandum
Of the conversation between Major General Du-
carme and Lieutenant Colonel Bernardiston on
April 10. l9O6-the latter representing Great
Britain. said expressly that "the entry o. the
English Boz Belgium would only take place after
the violation of our lBcIgianl neutrality by Ger
many" Help given IN that contingency could
not be a violation Of the neutralzing convention;
IL would have been am exact and honorable com
pliance with ITS provisions.
The only passage in the documents which can
be tortured into am infringement of the spirit and
letter of the treaty occurs n a copy Of a report
summarizing "a conversation between General
JurrbIuth. chief of the Belgian General staff, and
Lieutenant Colonel Bridges in April 1912. I'm
this the British military attachc is represented
as saying chat Great Britain might in recent
crisis have landed troops in Belgium even with
out a request from Belgium for aid. The whole
paragraph s obscure, but the context shows that
the landing would have been made only on the
theory that Bccium's neutrality had been vio-
lated and that she was not IN a condition 10 pre-
vent the passage Of German troops through her
territory
So long as Germany refrained from crossing
che Belgian frontier there could have been no oc-
casion for a British landing. Every military man
knew that IN case Germany were involved in war
with France and Great Britain the latter two
powers would have to stand at the beginning on
the defensive The last thing in the world they
would want % do would be TO make Belgium a
battle-ground Il was to their advantage to keep
the German attack confined to the Alsace-L Lorraine
frontier. Bernhard proclaimed all these facts,
which were, indeed, common property.
Neither France nor Great Britain had the
least interest in dragging Belgium into the war
n by invading her territory. Germany's interest
wa exactly the reverse, and the German govern
ment accordingly was tempted TO put military
advantage above international good faith. II is
absurd 20 try 70 indict Great Britain and France
Of plotting 20 break down Belgian neutrality
when that neutraIity-the question Of honor and
morals entirely apart-vas Of enormous military
value 20 both Of them. Nations never commit
crimes without some hope of selfish advantage.
Neither Great Britain nor France had such a
hope. 80 far as invading Belgium was concerned,
whereas Germany had based her whole western
campaign on the seizure Of Belgium.
Why not be honest about it, then, as Bernhard
wa and Won Bethmann-Iiollweg was in his first
speech in the Reichstag? No casuistry can ex-
plain away the fact that Germany was the only
country which violated Belgium's neutrality and
was also the only country which had anything to
gain by violating IT,