New Britain herald., 1915-09-01
BRITISH CRITiCISE
 GERMAN ACCOUNT
Hold Statement Of Anglo-Gernan Negotiations in 1912 Misleading

London, Sept. 1.-The British for eign office last night issued lengthy statement concerning the negotiations between Great Britain and Germany in 1912, compiled from the official rec ords in the foreign office.
 "An account of the 1912 Anglo German negotiations was published in the seui-off1cial Nord Deutsche Allge meine Zeitung last month"; the state ment says "This account was mis- leading and no doubt was intended to mislead It made it appear that the British government had at that time reflected what would be regarded in many quarters as a reasonable offer of friendship from Germany. In these circumstances 1t may be as well to publish a statement of facts com piled from the official records here.
 Chancellor sketched Formula.
 "Early In 1912 the German chan cellor sketched to Lord Haldane, then British lord high chancellor. the fol- lowing formula as one which would meet the views of the imperial gov ernment:
 First The high contracting par ties 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 purpose of aggression; or become party to any plan of naval military enterprise, alone or in combination with any other power, directed to such an end, and declare themselves not to be bound by any such engagement.
 Exchange of Views.
 Third If either of the high con- tracting 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 conserve toward the power so entangled benevolent neutrality, and vii use it's utmost endeavor for the 1oca1ization of the conflict. If either of the high contracting parties are forced to go to war by obvious pro- vocation by third party they bind themselves to enter into an exchange of views concerning their attitude on such 8 conflict.
 Fourth. The duty of neutrality which arises out of the preceding existing agreements which the high contracting parties already have l made.
 Making New Agreements.
 Fifth. The making of new agree ments which render it impossible for l either of the parties to observe neu- trality towards the other, beyond | what is provided by the preceding Is excluded in conformity | with the provisions of article 2.
 Sixth. The high contracting par ties declare they will do all in their power to prevent differences and misunderstanding 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 united powers and the treaty engagements by which they were bound, the re- suit of articles and 5 would have been that while Germany, in case of a European conflict, would have re- mained free to support her friends, this country would have been for bidden to raise finger in defense of hers.
 Rest With Austria.
 "Germany could arrange without difficulty that the formal inception of hostilities should rest with Austria. If Austria and Russia were at war Ger many 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 neutrality offered by Germany would have been absolutely valueless because she could always plead the i necessity of fulfilling her existing ob- legations under the triple alliance as an excuse for departing from neu- trality.
 "On hte other hand, no such de- parture, however serious the provo | cation, would have been possible for this country, which was bound by no | alliance. with the exception of those of Japan and Portugal, while the | making of fresh alliances was pro- | hibited by article 5. In a word, as | appeared still more evident later, | there was to be a guarantee of abso- ! lute neutrality on one side, but not on ] the other. It was impossible for us l to enter into contract so obviously l