New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-27
BETHMANN-HOLL VEG LIED
SAYS SIR EDWARD GREY
British Foreign Secretary Replies to German Chancel-
Ior's Explanation of What he Meant by scrap
Of Paper"-Gives History OF Case

Va - fSCA
London. Jan. 26. Sir Edward Grey
the British Secretary Of State for For
eirn Affairs. authorized the following
statement to-day in reply TO an inter
view with DR.. Won Bethmann-Hollweg
the German Imperial Chancellor and
published In London on January 20 ana
in the United States on January 20:
"Tbe Secretary Of State for Foreign
Affairs authorizes the publication OF
tho following observations upon inc
raDort of an interview recently granted
bv the German Chancellor TO an
American correspondent. 1t Us not sur
prising that the German Chancellor
should show anxiety 90 explain away
his now historic phrase about q treaty
being n mere scrap of paper ne
pbrgse has made a deep impression pc
cause the progress OF the world large
lv dcpcuds unon the sauctlty of agree
merts between individuals and between
nations. and the policy disclosed DID
Herr Won Bcthmann-liOll~cgS phrase
tends 10 dobasc the lCga. and moral
currency Of civilization.
"Nhat the German Chancellor SAID
was that Great Britain, IN requiring
Germany 10 respect the neutrality OF
belgium. was going TO make war Jusl
for 81 word. Just for a scrap OF paper
that is that Great Britain was making
q mountain out Of a mOlchlll. lie now
asks the American public 20 believe
that he meant the exact opposite OF
what he said that IL was Great BRIT
ain who really regarded the neutrality
of Belgium AS a mere tribe. ana mat
IL was Germany who took her respon-
sibilitics toward the neutral states so
seriously
Passes Lie to Chancellor.
"Thc arguments by which Herr Won
Bctbmann- Hollwcg seeks TO estaolIs
the two sides Of this case are IN HAT
contradiction Of the plain facts. tlrat,
tbo German Chancellor alleges that
England I'm 1911 was determined 10
throw troops into Belgium without the
assent of the Belgium government.
This alteration is absolutely false. ~
is based upon certain documents iouhd
i'm Prueecls. which record CONVERSE
t,ons between British and Belgian Of
fccrs I'm 1906 and again ~ 1911.
"The fact that there is no note OF
these conversations at the brltlsh
War Office or the Foreign Office shows
that they were of purely lnloimai
character. and that no military agree
mcnt Of any sort was az elther uihe
made between the two governme nus
Before any conversations tooh pIdce
between the British and Belgium OIL
fccrs DO was expressly iaid down on
the British side that discussion OF the
military possibilities was TO be ad-
dressed TO the manner in which, IN
case of need British assistance
could be most efcctually anorded 10
BELGIUM for the defence Of her neu-
tralitv. and on the Belgian side mar
ginal note upon the record explains
that the entry of the English INTO BEL
eium would only take place after the
violation Of our Belgium SD neutrality
by Germany. f,o,,
the Belgian officer SAID TO the brilish
officer: You could only land ln our
country with our consent and ODD IJl"
Sir Edward Grey gave the Belgian gov
eminent categorical assurance lh@I
no british Government would violate
the neutrality Of Belgium. and that
so long as il was not violated by any
other power we should certainly not
send troops ourselves into their terri
tory
What Sir Edward Did Say.
"Tbe Chancellors method Of mis-
using documents may be illustrated IN
This connection lie repre- ents Sir Ed
ward GRAY as saying be did not believe
England would sake such step, be-
cause he did not think English pubhc
opinior would justify such action.
What Sir Edward Grey actually wrote
was: ,..
~ said that ] was sure that this
government would not be the hrst 10
violate the neutrality Of Belgium, and
did not believe that any British gov
eminent would be the first 20 do So
nor would public opinion here ever APP
prove of it,
eff the German Chancellor wishes 90
know why there were conversations ON
military subjects between British and
Belgian officers he may End one reason
m "a fact well known 10 him, namely
that Germany was establishing an elaO-
crate network Of strategical railways
load.n~ from the Rhine TO the Belgian
frontier through a barren, thinly popu-
lated tract. The railways were deitb-
tlNLtlA cons flEAfA f' lN.lAA va "a nNN
den attack upon Belgium. such as was
carried out in August last
"Tnis fact alone was enough 20 JUS
tify any communications between Bel
GUM end the other powers on the foot
.nr that there would be no violation of
Belgian neutrality unless 10 was pre-
.iously violated by another power. On
no other footing did Belgium ever have
any such commun cations.
"In spite Of these facts the German
Chancellor speaks Of Belgium as hay
ing thereby abandoned and forfeited
/ her neutrality. and he implies that be
would not have spoken Of the German
/ invasion a. wrong had he then
known Of the conversations Of 1906
and 1911.
Cardinal Mcrcier Quoted.
"It would seem to follow that. ac.
cording % Herr Won Bethmann-Iloll-
weg's code. wrong becomes right If th,
party which is 20 be the subject Of che
wrong foresecs the possibility and
makes preparations 10 resist u. Those
Who are content with the older and
moro generally accepted standards are