Norwich bulletin., 1915-08-26

Of Il the first time when Germany pub
Hshed the Belgian record
But IL bears on the face of IL thai
u referred only 20 the contingency 81
Belgium being attacked, that the en-
try Of the British into Belgium would
take place after violation Of Belgian
territory BY Germany, and that II ala
not commit The British government.
No COM eptlon or agreement existed
between tho British and Belgian gov
eminent.
why Joes the German chancellor
mention these iBforTna. conversations
OF 1905 and ignore entirely that OF
April 1913 told the Belgian minis
ter mast emphatlcaiiy that what we
desired IN the case Of Belgium, -
with other neutral countries, Was that
their neutrality should be respected
and that 80 long a. IL was not viOiat-
ed BY any other power we should csr-
tainiy not send troops Ourselves into
their territory.
Let it De remembered that the arst
use made by Germany Of the Belgian
document YVES 20 charge Belgium with
bad faith % Germany. What II the
true story? on the z9th Of July, 1914,
the German chancellor tried 20 bride
as BY = promise Of future Belgian In
violation OF Belgian neutrality By Ger
dependence 70 become q party 20 the
many. On the outbreak OF the war
he described the Belgian treaty as Q
scrap Of paper, and the German
foreign secretary explained that Ger
many must 60 through Belgium 70 at
tack France because she could not af-
ford the time to do otherwise. Tho
statement % Her Won Jagow IL worth
quoting again:
The imperial government had TO
advance into France by the quickest
and easiest way 80 as 70 be able 20
get well ahead with the operations and
endeavor TO strike some decisive blow
as early as possible. II was a mat
ter OF life and death with them, as
ern route they could not have hoped,
in view Of the paucity Of roads and
the strength Of the fortresSes, TO have
got through without formidable oppo-
sition. entailing great loss Of time.
This loss of time would have meant
time gained by the Russians for bring
ing up their troops to the German
frontier. Rapidly Of action was the
great German asset while that Of Rus
STA was an inexhaustible supply Of
troops
I'm the reichstag, too. on the lfh
Of August, 1914, the German chan
cellor stated in referring TO the vfo-
lation Of the neutrality Of Belgium
aond Luxembourg:
The wrong, I speak openly, The
wrong we thereby commit we viii
try to make good as soon as our mill
itary aims have been attained
The violation Of Belgian neutrality,
therefore, was deliberate although
Germany had actually guaranteed that
neutrality; and surely there has been
nothing more despicably mean than
to attempt to Justify it ex-post facto
by bringing against the innocent, in
nocent Belgian government and peo-
pie the totally false charge Of having
plotted against Germany.
The German chancellor does not
am ba 81 m
charge, which has been spread broad
drawn? And if so, will Germany make
reparation for the cruel wrong done
to Belgium?
THE two negotiations for an Angio-
German agreement in 1912 referred to
by the German chancellor. were
brought to a point at which it was
clear it could have no success unless
We, in effect, gave a promise Of alb
solute neutrality while Germany re-
manned free under her alliances to take
part in a European war This can
and shall be explained by publishing
an account OF the negotiations taken
from the records in the foreign ONCE
The chancellor quotes an isolated
sentence Of my speech Of the 3rd OF
August, 1914, to prove that we were
ready for war. In the very next sem
tence, which he might have quoted,
but does not quote, / said:
We are going to suffer I am afraid
terribly. in this war, whether we are
in it or whether We stand aside