Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1915-09-01
London Foreign Office Gives
British Version of German
Negotiations.
CLAIMS BERLIN SOUGHT
AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE
Great Britain Not Willing to Give
an Absolute Pledge of
Neutrality.

LONDON, September 1.-The British
foreign office has issued Il lengthy state
ment concerning the negotiations be-
tween Great Britain and Germany in
1912, compiled from the official records
in the foreign office. The statement
follows:
AN account of the 1919 Anglo-Ger-
man negotiations was published in the
semi-official Norddeutsche Allgemeine
Zeitung last month, This account was
misleading, and no doubt was intended
to mislead. 1t made 1t appear that the
British government had at that time
rejected what would be regarded in
many quarters as reasonable offer OF
friendship from Germany. In these
circumstances it may be as well to pub
lish a statement of facts complied from
the official records here
Early in 1912 the German chancellor
sketched to Lord Haldane Cthen British
lord high chancellor) the following for
mula as one which would meet the
views of the imperial government:
Proposed German Formula.
First: The high contracting parties
assure each other mutually of their
desire for peace and friendship
Second They will not, either of
them, make, or prepare to make, any
unprovoked attack upon the other, or
join in any combination or design
against the other for the purposes of
aggression, or become party to any
plan of naval or military enterprise,
alone or in combination with any other
power. directed to such an end, and de-
clare themselves not to be bound by
any such enga cement
Third. IF either of the high contract
ing parties becomes entangled in war
with one or more powers, in which it
cannot be said to be the aggressor. the
other party will at least observe to-
ward the power SO entangled benevo-
lent neutrality, and will use its utmost
endeavor for the localization of the
conflict. If either of the high contrac ct
ing parties is forced to go to war by
obvious provocation by a third party,
they bind themselves to enter into an
exchange of views concerning their at
titude on such conflict.
Fourth. The duty of neutrality
which arises out of the preceding arti-
Giles has no application in so far as it
may not be reconcilable with existing
agreements which the high contracting
parties already have made.
New Agreements Barred.
Filth. The making of new agree
ments which render it impossible for
either of the parties to observe neu-
trality toward the other beyond what
Is provided. by the preceding limita-
tion is excluded in conformity with
the provisions Of article .
Sixth. The high contra citing parties
declare they will do all in their power
to prevent differences and misunder-
standings arising between them and
other powers.
These conditions, although in ap-
pearance fair as between the parties,
would have been grossly unfair and
one-sided in their operation. Owing
to the general position of the European
powers and the treaty engagements by
which they were bound, the result of
articles 4 and 5 would have been that
while Germany, in case of European
conflict. would have remained free to
support her friends. this country would
have been forbidden to raise finger
in defense of hers.
difficulty that the formal inception of
hostilities should rest with Austria.
II Austria and Russia were at war
Germany would support Austria, as is
evident from what occurred at the end
of July. 1914, while as soon as Russia
was attacked by two powers France
was bound to come to her assistance.
In other words. the pledge of neu-
trality offered by Germany would have
been absolutely valueless because she
could always plead the necessity of
the triple alliance as an excuse for de-
ma rt from ueutra litN