First World War.com - Primary Documents - British Prime Minister's Address to Parliament, 6 August 1914 What's New Primary Documents - British Prime Minister's Address to Parliament, 6 August 1914 Reproduced below is the text of the speech given to the British Parliament by Prime Minister Herbert Asquith . Sponsored Links Given on 6 August 1914 - two days after Britain entered the war against Germany in defence of Belgium - Asquith recounted the background to the outbreak of general war in Europe in July/August 1914, placing great emphasis on the efforts of the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey , to secure continued peace in the face of German aggression. Asquith finished his speech by stating that Britain would throw her entire Empire's resources into the struggle against Germany in order to ensure victory. British Prime Minister Herbert Asquith's Address to Parliament, 6 August 1914 With the utmost reluctance and with infinite regret, His Majesty's Government have been compelled to put this country in a state of war with what for many years and indeed generations past has been a friendly Power.

The Papers which have since been presented to Parliament will, I think, show how strenuous, how unremitting, how persistent, even when the last glimmer of hope seemed to have faded away, were the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary (note: Sir Edward Grey) to secure for Europe an honourable and a lasting peace. Every one knows in the great crisis which occurred last year in the East of Europe, it was largely, if not mainly, by the acknowledgment of all Europe, due to the steps taken by my right hon. Friend that the area of the conflict was limited, and that so far as the great Powers are concerned, peace was maintained. If his efforts upon this occasion have, unhappily, been less successful, I am certain that this House and the country - and I will add posterity and history - will accord to him what is, after all, the best tribute that can be paid to any statesman: that, never derogating for an instant or by an inch from the honour and interests of his own country, he has striven, as few men have striven, to maintain and preserve the greatest interest of all countries - universal peace. The Papers, which are now in the hands of hon.

Members, show something more than that. They show what were the terms which were offered to us in exchange for our neutrality. I trust that not only the Members of this House, but all our fellow-subjects everywhere will read the communications - will read, learn and mark the communications which passed only a week ago to-day between Berlin and London in this matter. The terms by which it was sought to buy our neutrality are contained in the communication made by the German Chancellor to Sir Edward Goschen on the 29th July. I think I must refer to them for a moment. After alluding to the state of things as between Austria and Russia, Sir Edward Goschen goes on: "He [the German Chancellor] then proceeded to make the following strong bid for British neutrality. He said that it was clear, so far as he was able to judge the main principle which governed British policy, that Great Britain would never stand by and allow France to be crushed in any conflict there might be. That, however, was not the object at which Germany aimed.

Provided that neutrality of Great Britain were certain, every assurance would be given to the British Government that the Imperial Government" Let the Committee observe these words: "aimed at no territorial acquisition at the expense of France should they prove victorious in any war that might ensue." Sir Edward Goschen proceeded to put a very pertinent question:- "I questioned His Excellency about the French colonies". What are the French colonies? They mean every part of the dominions and possessions of France outside the geographical area of Europe - "and he said that he was unable to give a similar undertaking in that respect." Let me cone to what, in my mind, personally has always been the crucial and almost the governing consideration, namely, the position of the small States: "As regards Holland, however, His Excellency said that so long as Germany's adversaries respected the integrity and neutrality of the Netherlands, Germany was ready to give His Majesty's Government an assurance that she would do likewise." Then we come to Belgium:- "It depended upon the action of France what operations Germany might he forced to enter upon in Belgium, but, when the war was over, Belgian integrity would be respected if she had not sided against Germany." Let the Committee observe the distinction between those two cases.

In regard to Holland it was not only independence and integrity, but also neutrality; but in regard to Belgium, there was no mention of neutrality at all, nothing but an assurance that after the war came to an end the integrity of Belgium would be respected. Then His Excellency added: "Ever since he had been Chancellor the object of his policy had been to bring about an understanding with England. He trusted that these assurances" - the assurances I have read out to the House - "might form the basis of that understanding which he so much desired." What does that amount to? Let me just ask the Committee. I do so, not with the object of inflaming passion, certainly not with the object of exciting feeling against Germany, but I do so to vindicate and make clear the position of the British Government in this matter. What did that proposal amount to? In the first place, it meant this: That behind the back of France - they were not made a party to these communications - we should have given, if we had assented to that, a free license to Germany to annex, in the event of a successful war, the whole of the extra European dominions and possessions of France. What did it mean as regards Belgium?

When she addressed, as she has addressed in these last few days, her moving appeal to us to fulfil our solemn guarantee of her neutrality, what reply should we have given? What reply should we have given to that Belgian appeal? We should have been obliged to say that, without her knowledge, we had bartered away to the Power threatening her our obligation to keep our plighted word. The House has read, and the country has read, of course, in the last few hours, the most pathetic appeal addressed by the King of Belgium, and I do not envy the man who can read that appeal with an unmoved heart. Belgians are fighting and losing their lives. What would have been the position of Great Britain to-day, in the face of that spectacle, if we had assented to this infamous proposal? Yes, and what are we to get in return for the betrayal of our friends and the dishonour of our obligations? What are we to get in return?

A promise - nothing more; a promise as to what Germany would do in certain eventualities; a promise, be it observed - I am sorry to have to say it, but it must be put upon record - given by a Power which was at that very moment announcing its intention to violate its own treaty and inviting us to do the same. I can only say, if we had dallied or temporized, we, as a Government, should have covered ourselves with dishonour, and we should have betrayed the interests of this country, of which we are trustees. I am glad, and I think the country will be glad, to turn to the reply which my right hon. Friend made, and of which I will read to the Committee two of the more salient passages. This document, No. 101 of the Papers, puts on record a week ago the attitude of the British Government, and, as I believe, of the British people. My right hon. Friend says: "His Majesty's Government cannot for a moment entertain the Chancellor's proposal that they should bind themselves to neutrality on such terms.

What he asks us in effect is to engage to stand by while French Colonies are taken if France is beaten, so long as Germany does not take French territory as distinct from the Colonies. From the material point of view -" My right lion. Friend, as he always does, used very temperate language: "- Such a proposal is unacceptable, for France, without further territory in Europe being taken from her, could be so crushed as to lose her position as a Great Power, and become subordinate to German policy." That is the material aspect. But he proceeded:- "Altogether, apart from that, it would be a disgrace for us to make this bargain with Germany at the expense of France, a disgrace from which the good name of this country would never recover. The Chancellor also in effect asks us to bargain away whatever obligation or interest we have as regards the neutrality of Belgium. We could not entertain that bargain either." He then says:- "We must preserve our full freedom to act, as circumstances may seem to us to require." And he added, I think in sentences which the Committee must appreciate:- "You should...

add most earnestly that the one way of maintaining the good relations between England and Germany is that they should continue to work together to preserve the peace of Europe... For that object this Government will work in that way with all sincerity and goodwill. "If the peace of Europe can be preserved and the present crisis safely passed, my own endeavour will be to promote some arrangement to which Germany could be a party, by which she could be assured that no aggressive or hostile policy would be pursued against her or her allies by France, Russia, and ourselves, jointly or separately. "I have desired this and worked for it" - the statement was never more true - "as far as I could, through the last Balkan crisis, and Germany having a corresponding object, our relations sensibly improved. "The idea has hitherto been too Utopian to form the subject of definite proposals, but if this present crisis, so much more acute than any that Europe has gone through for generations, be safely passed, I am hopeful that the relief and reaction which will follow may make possible some more definite rapprochement between the Powers than has been possible hitherto." That document, in my opinion, states clearly, in temperate and convincing language, the attitude of this Government.

Can any one who reads it fail to appreciate the tone of obvious sincerity and earnestness which underlies it; can any one honestly doubt that the Government of this country in spite of great provocation - and I regard the proposals made to us as proposals which we might have thrown aside without consideration and almost without answer can any one doubt that in spite of great provocation the right hon. Gentleman, who had already earned the title and no one ever more deserved it - of "Peace Maker of Europe," persisted to the very last moment of the last hour in that beneficent but unhappily frustrated purpose? I am entitled to say, and I do so on behalf of this country - I speak not for a party, I speak for the country as a whole - that we made every effort any Government could possibly make for peace. But this war has been forced upon us. What is it we are fighting for? Every one knows, and no one knows better than the Government, the terrible, incalculable suffering, economic, social, personal and political, which war, and especially a war between the Great Powers of the world, must entail.

There is no man amongst us sitting upon this bench in these trying days - more trying perhaps than any body of statesmen for a hundred years have had to pass through - there is not a man amongst us who has not, during the whole of that time, had clearly before his vision the almost unequalled suffering which war, even in a just cause, must bring about, not only to the people who are for the moment living in this country and in the other countries of the world, but to posterity and to the whole prospects of European civilization. Every step we took we took with that vision before our eyes, and with a sense of responsibility which it is impossible to describe. Unhappily, if in spite of all our efforts to keep the peace, and with that full and overpowering consciousness of the result, if the issue be decided in favour of war, we have, nevertheless, thought it to be the duty as well as the interest of this country to go to war, the House may be well assured it was because we believe, and I am certain the country will believe, that we are unsheathing our sword in a just cause.

If I am asked what we are fighting for I reply in two sentences: In the first place, to fulfil a solemn international obligation, an obligation which, if it had been entered into between private persons in the ordinary concerns of life, would have been regarded as an obligation not only of law but of honour, which no self-respecting man could possibly have repudiated. I say, secondly, we are fighting to vindicate the principle which, in these days when force, material force, sometimes seems to be the dominant influence and factor in the development of mankind, we are fighting to vindicate the principle that small nationalities are not to be crushed, in defiance of international good faith, by the arbitrary will of a strong and overmastering Power. I do not believe any nation ever entered into a great controversy - and this is one of the greatest history will ever know - with a clearer conscience and a stronger conviction that it is fighting, not for aggression, not for the maintenance even of its own selfish interest, but that it is fighting in defence of principles the maintenance of which is vital to the civilization of the world.

With a full conviction, not only of the wisdom and justice, but of the obligations which lay upon us to challenge this great issue, we are entering into the struggle. Let us now make sure that all the resources, not only of this United Kingdom, but of the vast Empire of which it is the centre, shall be thrown into the scale. Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. I, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923 Sponsored Links Saturday, 22 August, 2009 Michael Duffy A "Dixie" (from the Hindi degci) was an army cooking pot. - Did you know? Prime Minister Herbert Asquith: The human stories behind the outbreak of First World War | Daily Mail Online comments In the first extract on Saturday from his masterly new book marking the centenary of World War I, Max Hastings told how an unpopular Austrian aristocrat blundered into the path of an assassin’s bullet in Serbia — and how his death was the trigger for the horrific conflagration that would follow. Here, he tells how a largely doubting Britain was finally persuaded to enter a war which would cost it a million lives . . .

Newly-arrived in France to fight the Hun, the cocky soldiers of the British Expeditionary Force were greeted like heroes. ‘We were seized by the local inhabitants and dosed with cider,’ recalled Lt Guy Harcourt-Vernon. That first night in August 1914, the cafés in the town square of Amiens rang with toasts and rousing choruses of God Save The King. Only the old women who supervised the local public baths shook their heads and mopped their eyes as they muttered to themselves: ‘Pauvres petits anglais, ils vont bientôt être tués’ — ‘poor English boys, soon they will be dead.’ War opinions: Prime Minister Herbert Asquith told his mistress Venetia Stanley that the Austrian people were' the stupidest' in Europe It was a terrible — and true — prediction. Close to a million British fighting men would lose their lives in the four years of World War I, the centenary of whose outbreak takes place next year. The first deaths came soon enough — though to begin with they were mainly German.

Deployed to positions just outside the Belgian town of Mons, the British soldiers peppered the Kaiser’s oncoming army with state-of-the-art Lee-Enfield rifles and Vickers machine guns. RELATED ARTICLES Share this article Share ‘They came at us in solid, square blocks,’ a British NCO recalled, ‘and you couldn’t help hitting them.’ ‘We steadied our rifles and took aim,’ said another, ‘and they were simply blasted away to Heaven by a volley at 700 yards.’ But the Germans took their casualties and kept coming in overwhelming numbers, supported by cannons and howitzers. ‘God! How their artillery do fire!’ exclaimed a frightened British soldier at what was a new and unwelcome experience for almost every member of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF). Confidante: Prime Minister Asquith told the truth to Venetia Stanley ‘There were four of us in a rifle-pit,’ recalled a private, ‘and our officer walked over to us and I remember thinking: “Get down, you silly bugger.” ‘The poor man was killed. Then the man next to me was hit. He was firing away and suddenly he gave a grunt and lay still.

I’d never seen a dead man before.’ Harcourt-Vernon wrote: ‘Funny how everyone ducks at the sound of a bullet. It is past you by then, but down goes your head every time.’ Soon, too many bullets and shells were passing for any man to have time to duck as they rammed clip after five-round clip into their hot weapons. The British fell back until, by nightfall, the Germans — though they had taken colossal casualties — had captured Mons. In that first encounter, the BEF lost an estimated 1,600 men, many of them taken prisoner, and was now on the run. The next day there were brave rallies. The 9th Lancers and Dragoon Guards charged German guns across a mile of open ground, an extraordinary piece of folly even by the standards of British cavalry. They were led by a colonel who had once won a Grand National steeplechase. But nothing could stop the rout as the BEF was systematically bested by the German forces. As they retreated from an enemy they had been convinced they would trounce, a major in the Grenadiers described ‘a long and trying march in great heat and over very bad and dusty roads.

'The men very tired and rather puzzled as to what we are at’. Many must have wondered what they were doing there in the first place. It was a good question. How and why Britain had joined in what was essentially a solely European war was largely down to one man — Sir Edward Grey, Britain’s Foreign Secretary. In many ways he was a strange choice for that important position. He disliked ‘Abroad’ and spoke no foreign languages — indeed he was so taciturn generally that he rarely spoke at all. An official who worked closely with him thought him ‘a futile, useless fool’. A leading general dismissed him as ‘ignorant, vain and weak’. Yet this was the man who found himself conducting Britain’s response to the outbreak of international posturing, sabre-rattling and mobilising of armies that in the summer of 1914 threatening to escalate into world war. Outbreak: British troops marching through the streets of London after war is declared in 1914 He is usually depicted as a gentle, civilised figure who lamented the coming of war — as exemplified in his famously nostalgic line that ‘the lamps are going out all over Europe [and] we shall not see them lit again in our life-time’.

Yet he more than any other single person — including the always belligerent Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty — was the one who insisted that Britain fulfil its international obligations and stand up against the German bully. As Austria launched its invasion of Serbia, the Russian Tsar ordered the mobilisation of his vast conscript armies and the German Kaiser cast covetous eyes on France, opinion in Britain to these continental shenanigans was mixed. There was little enthusiasm for the autocratic Tsar. ‘Don’t trust the Russians!’ whispered one ambassador. TIPPERARY: THE HIT THE MAIL MADE As they first disembarked in France, the Irish soldiers of the Connaught Rangers burst into ‘It’s A Long Way To Tipperary’. George Curnock, Daily Mail star reporter, heard the song and mentioned it in a dispatch. The paper’s news editor wrote in his diary: ‘The chief [Lord Northcliffe] has given us orders to boom it, to print the music so that everybody shall know it. 'He says, thanks to Curnock’s genius, we shall soon have everybody singing it.’ And so they did.

Prime Minister Herbert Asquith confided to the Archbishop of Canterbury that the Serbs deserved ‘a through thrashing’, but to his 26-year-old girlfriend he was less diplomatic. Although married to his second wife, a baronet’s daughter, after his first died of typhoid, he told young Venetia Stanley: ‘The Austrians are quite the stupidest people in Europe’. But the idea of backing the French against the Germans had many hands wringing in horror. With history on her side, one ancient lady, the great-niece of the Duke of Wellington, declared: ‘It’s not the Germans but the French I’m frightened of.’ Many of the population endorsed the idea of neutrality, feeling that what was happening in Europe was a sideshow best not to be drawn into. The Cabinet was split. Asquith, Grey and the ‘war-painted’ Churchill (as the prime minister called him) wanted to stand foursquare with the French, but David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, stubbornly dug his heels in for staying out of a continental conflict. The prime minister, meanwhile, was furious that the crisis meant the ‘bitter disappointment’ of cancelling a country weekend flirting with the alluring Miss Stanley.

But he was sufficiently on the ball that Sunday — August 2 — to warn the German ambassador over breakfast that there would be dire consequences if German carried out its threat to march on France via neutral Belgium. Britain, he pointed out in no uncertain terms, was a guarantor of Belgian neutrality under a 75-year-old international treaty and would not flinch from its obligations. By now the countdown to war was accelerating fast. Prepare for battle: 'The Daily Mail War Map - 1914', which showed the war strength of the Great Powers, was sold via the newspaper for 2 shillings In Germany, trains crammed with troops were leaving Cologne every three or four minutes heading for the Belgian border, while a message received by the Belgian king demanded passage for the German army through his country. He refused point blank, and the people of Brussels erupted with pride, filling the streets with flags. ‘Oh, the poor fools,’ a German envoy declared as he watched this patriotic display. ‘Why don’t they get out of the way of the steamroller?

We don’t want to hurt them, but if they stand in our way they will be ground into the dirt.’ That evening, the Germans notified the British government of their intention to march through King Albert’s country, with or without his consent. It has sometimes been suggested that the Belgians would have been better off bowing to the inevitable, and granting the German troops free passage. But why should any sovereign nation have done so? Germany’s invasion of Belgium constituted an affront to morality as well as to the European order — the view now adopted by most of the British people, as well as by their government. Early days of power: Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, was urging the Cabinet to take action on Europe This was the tipping point. The moment the Kaiser’s armies crossed into Belgium, any pretence of German innocence ended. The perceived martyrdom of King Albert and his people rallied to the cause of war millions of British people who had hitherto opposed it. Some maintain this was a mere pretext — a fig leaf — since Foreign Secretary Grey and his colleagues were bent upon belligerence even before the issue of Belgium emerged. But I doubt they could have carried their point but for Germany’s violation of Belgian neutrality.

Whereas they recoiled from going to war to support Serbia, the British people seized upon this as a just casus belli. At last they identified moral certainty amid a sea of Balkan and European confusions — the doubter-in-chief, Lloyd George, among them. He eventually fell into line as Asquith gave the order to mobilise the Army. Captain Maurice Festing, of the Royal Marines, got the call while playing in a cricket match. He was 66 not out and had just smashed a ball through the window of the sergeants’ mess. On the afternoon of August 3, Grey rose in the Commons to invite the House to back Britain going to war. ‘British interests, British honour and British obligation’ were at stake, he told them with a passion this mild-mannered politician had never displayed before in his 29 years as an MP. ‘Could this country stand by and watch the direst crime that ever stained the face of history, and thus become participators in the sin?’ he demanded. ‘We would sacrifice our respect and good name and reputation’ if we did not take a stand ‘against the unmeasured aggrandisement’ of the Kaiser’s Germany.

The stunned Commons received his eloquence with overwhelming acclaim. Opposition to war melted away. Just after 8 o’clock the next morning, August 4, German troops duly crossed the Belgian border, and London sent an ultimatum to Berlin demanding they withdraw by midnight — 11pm in London. War supporter: Sir Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was the person most keen to take up arms against Germany As darkness fell in Downing Street that night, the Cabinet sat together until Big Ben struck the first note of eleven. Twenty minutes later, a War Telegram was dispatched in plain language to the British Army. In the Royal Marines mess at Chatham, a waiter handed a telegram to the corps commandant, who read it aloud: ‘Commence hostilities against Germany at once.’ This was received with applause by the assembled officers, many of whom would be dead within a year. The civilian population rallied to the cause, too. Diarist and civil servant Norman Macleod was astonished by the ‘extraordinary change in public feeling’. Twenty-four hours previously there had been a strong anti-war sentiment, he wrote, ‘but German refusal to respect neutrality of Belgium absolutely destroyed it’.

There was now ‘a feeling of complete confidence in the government’. WITHIN HOURS, MI5 SMASHES A SPY RING As the last hours of peace ticked away, Walter Rimann, a German spy who had been masquerading as a language teacher in Hull, hurriedly caught the Zeebrugge ferry. He fled just in time to avoid arrest. For days, Vernon Kell, director of MI5, had been at his desk around the clock, organising the round-up of known German intelligence agents. Although his infant organisation had a staff of only 17, he had forged effective links with county chief constables. Now they pounced and 22 arrests were swiftly made. Among them was Karl Ernst, a barber in Pentonville, North London, whose spy-craft consisted of approaching customers who were seamen for information. He also acted as the spy ring’s ‘postman’, receiving letters with instructions from Germany and passing them (and payment) to other agents in Britain. Like most of those caught, he had been identified through the interception of his correspondence, under Home Office warrant.

A few, like Rimann, got away and others may have remained undetected, but German wartime intelligence in Britain never recovered from the initial round-up. Its performance was so poor that Berlin was unaware that the British Expeditionary Force had been dispatched to France until it actually got there. At an English country tennis party, the writer Jerome K. Jerome expressed ‘relief and thankfulness. 'I was so afraid Grey would climb down at the last moment. It was Asquith I was doubtful of. I didn’t think the old man had the grit. 'Thank God, we shan’t read “Made in Germany” for some little time to come’. Some opposition remained. The writer Bernard Shaw wired his German translator: ‘You and I are at war. Absurdity can go no further. 'My friendliest wishes go with you under all circumstances.’ Even after war was declared, impassioned dissenters remained. On August 5, C. P. Scott argued in the Manchester Guardian he both owned and edited: ‘By some hidden contract England has been technically committed behind her back to the ruinous madness of a share in the violent gamble of a war between two militarist leagues.

‘It will be a war in which we risk everything of which we are proud, and in which we stand to gain nothing. Some day we will regret it.’ Many British people in the 21st century believe that Scott was right, chiefly in the light of the horrors that followed. They are un-persuaded that it was necessary to resist the Kaiser’s Germany at such cost. Many have argued in the century since 1914 that the price of participation in the war was so appalling that no purpose could conceivably justify it. More than a few blame Grey for willing Britain’s involvement. But, granted Germany’s determination to dominate Europe and what that would have meant for Britain, would any foreign secretary have acted responsibly if he had taken no steps designed to avert such an outcome? Dominance was the purpose of the Kaiser’s Germany, achieved by peaceful means if possible, but by war if necessary. And though its policies cannot be equated with that of the Nazis a generation later, they could scarcely be described as enlightened. German behaviour during the invasion of Belgium and France included massacres of civilians endorsed at the highest level.

Though these pale against what took place in World War II, they nonetheless convey a profoundly disturbing image of the regime that aspired to rule Europe in 1914. A few modern sensationalists suggest that a German victory would merely have created an entity resembling the European Union half a century before it was created, but this seems to me frivolous nonsense. Nor would there have been a happy outcome for Britain if we had stayed out of the war. It is implausible that a victorious Germany would have been content to make a generous accommodation with a neutral Britain. The resulting war: British infantrymen occupying a rudimentary shallow trench in a devastated landscape in France before an advance in 1916 I think it unlikely that any course of action adopted by Asquith’s government could have averted war in 1914. I cannot conceive of any alternative British diplomatic path which would have persuaded Germany that the risk of war was unacceptable. The Germans — contemptuous of Britain’s military prowess — had already discounted British intervention. They were also undeterred by the economic perils posed by the Royal Navy’s ability to impose a blockade, because they intended to win the war in six weeks, before economic sanctions mattered.

Only by allowing the Germans to have their way at gunpoint in Belgium and indeed across Europe could a general conflict have been avoided — and Britain, rightly, was not prepared to do that. There was, however, one grievous British error at this time — one which those poor British soldiers fleeing for their lives from Mons were now suffering from. The government’s mistake in the summer of 1914 was to suppose the nation could maintain its cherished balance of power on the continent without a credible mass of soldiers to support its diplomacy. ‘What happens now?’ Churchill had demanded as he and Grey left the House of Commons after winning the vote for war. It was a good question. The decision had been taken to fight, but what sort of war we were going into and how precisely we would engage the enemy was left up in the air. The initial moves were tentative. There was no full-scale mobilisation and no enlistment of volunteers, as in other countries. Instead, the small BEF consisting of just six divisions of regular soldiers was assembled — ‘our funny little army’ in the words of General Sir Henry Wilson, director of military operations.

The BEF trundled around France in the weeks ahead, uncertain of its role, before meeting its match at Mons. Here was a manifestation of a huge, historic British folly, repeated over many centuries including today — the adoption of gesture strategy, committing small forces as an earnest of good intentions, heedless of their gross inadequacy for the military purpose at hand. The size and nature of Britain’s military commitment would have to change drastically, and it did as more troops poured across the Channel in the years ahead. But almost a century on, it seems there are still lessons to be learned from 1914. EXTRACTED from Catastrophe: Europe Goes To War 1914 by Max Hastings, to be published by William Collins on Thursday at £30. © 2013 Max Hastings. To order a copy for £23 (including P&P), call 0844 472 4157 World War One: how the events of August 4 1914 unfolded - Telegraph World War One World War One: how the events of August 4 1914 unfolded Britain went to war on August 4 1914.

We document the dramatic events leading up to the declaration of war as they happened, hour-by-hour By Richard Preston 11:10PM BST 04 Aug 2014 The outbreak of war in 1914 is not an Agatha Christie drama at the end of which we will discover the culprit standing over a corpse in the conservatory with a smoking pistol. There is no smoking gun in this story; or rather there is one in the hands of every major character. Christopher Clark, The Sleepwalkers All times are London time unless marked CET – Central European Related Articles Queen visits Tower of London's sea of poppies 16 Oct 2014 I held a Council at 10.45 to declare war with Germany. It is a terrible catastrophe but it is not our fault. An enormous crowd collected outside the Palace; we went on to the balcony both before and after dinner. When they heard that war had been declared, the excitement increased and May and I with David [the Prince of Wales], went on to the balcony; the cheering was terrific. Please God it may soon be over and that he will protect dear Bertie’s life [George VI, serving with the Royal Navy].

Bed at 12.00’ George V, diary, August 4 1914 23.10 The King and Queen appear on the balcony of Buckingham Palace to wave to the cheering crowds. 23.02 Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, sends a telegram to the Fleet: ‘COMMENCE HOSTILITIES AGAINST GERMANY’ 23.00 As Big Ben strikes 11 in London, no reply has been received to the British ultimatum. BRITAIN IS AT WAR WITH GERMANY 22.50 Young Harold Nicolson is told by Lichnowsky's footman that the ambassador has gone to bed. Nicolson is insistent he must see him and the butler allows him up to his bedroom. The original envelope is half-open on a table; Lichnowsky, who is in bed, does not appear to have read it. Nicolson explains that an incorrect document was sent and that he is the bearer of the correct version, a declaration of war for which Lichnowsky must sign. Give my best regards to your father.

I shall not in all probability see him before my departure’ Lichnowsky to Nicolson, before he returned to his bed 22.45 King George V and the Privy Council meet at Buckingham Palace to authorise a declaration of war. 22.25 The Admiralty's mistake now having been made clear, the documents sent to Lichnowsky must be retrieved. Young Harold Nicolson, son of Sir Arthur Nicolson, permanent under-secretary of state at the Foreign Office (and later the husband of Vita Sackville-West and a notable diplomat and diarist in his own right), is sent to Lichnowsky's residence. 22.15 Now a telegram arrives from ambassador Goschen in Berlin saying that the Germany premier has telephoned to say he will not be responding to the ultimatum. The wireless message intercepted by the Admiralty had been intended simply to warn German shipping that war was likely to be declared. Bethmann-Hollweg’s response means, after all, that war will be declared when the British deadline elapses, at midnight European time, 11pm in London.

22.00 Rumours are flying and the next day's Daily Telegraph is prey to some of them: 21.45 A messenger brings news from the Admiralty, where a German wireless message has been intercepted suggesting that Germany has declared war. A young Foreign Office staffer, Lancelot Oliphant, is hastily dispatched to the residence of Prince Lichnowsky, the German ambassador, carrying his passports and an acknowledgement of the declaration of war. 21.30 Almost simultaneously, the British embassy in Berlin and the German embassy in London are attacked. In Berlin, the embassy has its windows broken by a mob that has gathered outside and is throwing stones. Mounted police clear them away. In London, there is 'groaning and hissing', as well as stone-throwing. 21.05 A telegram sent from Berlin to the German embassy in London has been intercepted. It relays the news that Goschen, the British ambassador, has asked for his passports. PM Asquith is in the Cabinet Room at 10 Downing Street with a small group of senior ministers, including his foreign secretary Grey and Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty. They are passed the telegram.

Does this mean that Germany is settling for war? 20.40 It is a warm evening and Margot Asquith, sitting in 10 Downing Street with her husband, has the windows open wide. Drifting across St James's Park come the sounds of thousands of people who have gathered outside Buckingham Palace. ‘”So is it all up?” “Yes, it is all up” - he had tears in his eyes’ Margot Asquith’s exchange with her husband in 10 Downing Street, from her diary Prime Minister Herbert Asquith 20.10 German troops have been advancing towards Liège throughout the day. By nightfall, General von Emmich’s forces have reached the Meuse at Visé. Accounts of the fighting reach The Daily Telegraph offices in fits and starts. The Telegraph reports on German advance into Belgium: 'the first blood is now being spilt'. The Germans could not get over the perfidy of it.

It was unbelievable that the English, having degenerated to the stage where suffragettes heckled the Prime Minister and defied the police, were going to fight.’ Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August 19.35 (CET) The Chancellor’s rant at Britain's man in Berlin lasts 20 minutes. He was ‘so excited, so evidently overcome by the news of our action, and so little disposed to hear reason that I refrained from adding fuel to the flame by further argument’, says Goschen. Emotions are running high on both sides; Goschen has to compose himself in an ante-room before others see him. Goschen's account continues: As I was leaving, he [Bethmann-Hollweg] said that the blow of Great Britain joining Germany’s enemies was all the greater [because] almost up to the last moment he and his Government had been working with us and supporting our efforts to maintain peace between Austria and Russia. I said that this was part of the tragedy which saw the two nations fall apart just at the moment when the relations between them had been more friendly and cordial than they had been for years.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding our efforts to maintain peace between Russia and Austria, the war had spread and had brought us face to face with a situation which, if we held to our engagements, we could not possibly avoid, and which unfortunately entailed our separation from our late fellow workers. He would readily understand that no one regretted this more than I. Sir Edward Goschen, British ambassador in Berlin Bethmann-Hollweg recalls the same conversation: The day before my conversation with the British Ambassador, Sir Edward Grey had delivered his well-known speech in Parliament, wherein, while he did not state expressly that England would take part in the war, he left the matter in little doubt. One needs only to read this speech through carefully to learn the reason of England’s intervention in the war. Amid all his beautiful phrases about England’s honour and England’s obligations we find it over and over again expressed that England’s interests - its own interests - called for participation in war, for it was not in England’s interests that a victorious, and therefore stronger, Germany should emerge from the war.

Bethmann-Hollweg recalls his conversation with Goschen 19.10 Goschen’s dealings with von Jagow done, he asks to see Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg, and is taken to the chancellery building next door to the foreign ministry. Bethmann-Hollweg vents his rage at Goschen. Why, he asks, is Britain going to war against a ‘kindred nation’? It is like ‘striking a man from behind while he is fighting for his life against two assailants ... and all for just a word – neutrality – just for a scrap of paper’. 19.00 (CET) Sir Edward Goschen, British ambassador in Berlin, visits Gottlieb von Jagow, German foreign minister, and repeats his earlier request, that Germany ‘refrain from violating Belgian neutrality’. 'Herr von Jagow replied that to his great regret he could give no other answer than that which he had given me earlier in the day, namely, that the safety of the Empire rendered it absolutely necessary that the Imperial troops should advance through Belgium ... I asked him whether, in view of the terrible consequences which would necessarily ensue, it were not possible even at the last moment that their answer should be reconsidered.

He replied that if the time given were even 24 hours or more, his answer must be the same. I said that in that case I should have to demand my passports.’ German foreign minister Gottlieb von Jagow 18.50 Some Belgian troops take the opportunity to obscure road-signs in a bid to put the invading Germans off the scent 18.35 Uniformed men, including these fusiliers, are a visible presence at London's stations as Britain mobilises its army and reservists 18.15 Paul Cambon, the French ambassador in London, has been to see Sir Edward Grey, the foreign secretary. He now knows Britain will support France and asks Grey “How will you fight the war? Will you send your Expeditionary Force?” France's man in London, Paul Cambon Grey replies: “No ... We shall blockade the German ports. We have not yet considered sending a military force to the Continent”. Cambon says public opinion will force Britain to intervene on the Continent and to be effective intervention must be immediate. 17.50 The King has sent a telegram to Australia, Canada and the other dominions thanking them for their support in the past few days.

If Britain goes to war, they will be coming too. 17.25 Volunteers and reservists are already swarming to the Central London Recruiting Depot after Asquith's announcement 17.10 Crowds gather to hear the King's proclamation calling up the reserves outside the Royal Exchange in the City. 16.55 Telegrams warning embassies and consulates around the world that Britain is about to go to war have been ready for several years. Now, Foreign Office clerks begin filling the space reserved for the enemy's name with the word ‘Germany’. 16.45 Margot Asquith had sat 'breathless' while her husband told MPs of the ultimatum to Germany. I can truthfully say that this has been the greatest moment of my life, and the greatest moment in British politics since Waterloo. I was glad the Speaker’s gallery was dark, and that no one could hear my heart beat, or see the thousand hammers in my brain.' Margot Asquith, diary entry 16.25 Before the House adjourns, a payment of £105 million for national services out of the Consolidated Fund is approved.

16.20 Asquith has finished his speech. He hands the Speaker a message signed by the King, and it is read to the House. It is a proclamation announcing that all army reserves are being called out 'on permanent service'. 16.05 The Prime Minister now tells MPs about Grey's communications with Belgium and Germany earlier in the day, which have culminated in the handing over of an ultimatum, expiring at midnight tonight. 15.50 Asquith is telling the House about the Belgian King's request for assistance and the ultimatum received from the Germans. 15.45 Asquith begins his statement to the Commons, which is 'as still as the grave', according to The Daily Telegraph report. 'The only sounds heard were the calm, level voice of Mr Asquith and the rustle of the papers from which he read'. He is watched by his wife Margot, who is sitting in the Speaker's Gallery. Meanwhile, crowds are beginning to gather outside the House of Commons waiting for news of the declaration.

15.30 (CET) As he closes, the Chancellor repeats his assurance that if Britain remains neutral, Germany will not attack the northern coast of France nor French commercial shipping. After his speech, the Reichstag votes for a war credit of 5 billion marks. 15.20 (CET) The German Chancellor goes on to remind his audience that the situation escalated when Russia mobilised her forces directed against Austria, while Austria had only mobilised part of hers against Serbia. Germany had continued to attempt to mediate but Russia then mobilised all of her forces and France began making preparations to do the same. ‘Were we now to wait further in patience until the nations on either side of us chose the moment for their attack? It would have been a crime to expose Germany to such peril,' says Bethmann-Hollweg. 15.15 (CET) Bethmann-Hollweg continues his speech to the Reichstag: ‘The day has now come when we must draw [our sword], against our wish, and in spite of our sincere endeavours. Russia has set fire to the building.

We are at war with Russia and France – a war that has been forced upon us.’ 15.10 (CET) In Paris, Viviani is followed by Jean-Baptiste Bienvenu-Martin, the Minister of Justice, who reads a speech by President Raymond Poincaré, saying that France has been subject to ‘a violent and premeditated attack'. ‘[France] will be heroically defended by all her sons. Nothing will break their sacred union before the enemy. Today they are joined together as brothers in a common indignation against the aggressor and in a common patriotic faith.’ 15.00 (CET) Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg has not received the British ultimatum from Britain's man in Berlin when he rises to address the Reichstag. He begins with a step-by-step account of how he believes Germany has been forced into war against her will: ‘For 44 years, since the time we fought for and won the German empire and our position in the world, we have lived in peace and protected the peace of Europe.

During this time of peace, we have become strong and powerful, arousing the envy of others.’ German chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg 14.55 Grey meets the US ambassador in London, Walter Hines Page, who hears a ‘touch of finality in his voice’. Britain’s ultimatum has still not been presented but Grey believes that if Belgium is not defended then Holland will be next, then Denmark, because the ‘war party’ in Germany now has the upper hand. ‘I feel like a man who has wasted his life,’ Grey tells the ambassador. 14.50 (CET) In Paris, Viviani is speaking to a joint session of the Senate and Chamber. To cheers, he announces that Italy is remaining neutral, thus relieving pressure on France’s southern frontier. 14.45 Grey's statement the previous day had laid the ground for Asquith. MPs could be in no doubt that Britain's place in the world was at stake, whatever she decided to do. Whatever the outcome of the war, Britain’s position as a Great Power would be diminished and so would her ability to defend her interests.

If the conflict ended in a victory of the Central powers, there would be a reordering of the continent of Europe, and with the French fleet and colonies under German control, Germany would emerge as a formidable challenger to British interests. If, by contrast, the war ended in a Franco-Russian triumph, these erstwhile colonial competitors were not likely to show much respect to British interests in the Mediterranean and in the East. The inherent logic of Britain’s position meant that she had to enter the war and do so against Germany and Austria-Hungary. T.G. Otte, July Crisis, The World’s Descent into War, Summer 1914 14.30 MPs are gathering in the House of Commons. David Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, is to make a statement about the maintenance of trade and insurance against war risks, then it will be Asquith’s turn to take to the box. 14.00 Sir Edward Grey tells Goschen, Britain’s ambassador in Berlin, to repeat the request to Germany that Belgium’s neutrality be respected. A reply is required by midnight Central European time, 11pm in London.

Should no assurance be received, Goschen is to ask for his passports and tell Germany: ‘His Majesty’s Government feels bound to take all steps in their power to uphold the neutrality of Belgium and the observance of a Treaty to which Germany is as much a party as ourselves’. What was a request in the morning has now become an ultimatum. 13.50 The Daily Telegraph’s correspondent in Brussels reports that emotions are running high in Belgium. Men of all ages are ‘literally fighting to enlist and get rifles. There is wild patriotic enthusiasm and no sign of fear.' The King is said to be setting off for the front. 13.40 (CET) Von Jagow in Berlin receives a telegram from German ambassador Lichnowsky in London. Lichnowsky explains that he had misunderstood the tenor of Grey’s rousing speech to the House of Commons the day before. He now believes that Germany can no longer rely on Britain remaining neutral. 13.15 Matters must come to a head this afternoon. In Paris, French premier René Viviani is preparing to address a joint session of the Senate and Chamber. In Berlin, chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg will speak to the Reichstag.

And in London, MPs are eagerly anticipating the day’s sitting in the Commons, where Herbert Asquith, the Prime Minister, will make a statement. 12.45pm In Paris, mobilisation is in full swing. Reservists are swarming around the Gare du Nord and Gare de l'Est and the streets are full of regular soldiers, in their distinctive red trousers and 19th century pattern greatcoats over blue tunics. French soldiers gather on the streets of Paris Paris readies for war 12.20pm Foreign secretary Grey has received the German foreign minister von Jagow's assurance that Germany will not annex Belgian territory, which was sent to ambassador Lichnowsky in London at 10am. Grey now sends a second telegram to Britain's man in Brussels, altering the wording of his offer of 10.45am - the words ‘an alliance’ are replaced by ’common cause’. 12pm (CET) King Albert of Belgium calls on France and Britain to help his country. 11.45am Food prices are rising in London. At Covent Garden market, potatoes were £3-£4 a ton last week but are £4-£5 this week.

Dutch onions have risen from 5s-6s a hundredweight bag to 9s-10s. The Government assures the country that supplies of meat and wheat are sufficient for several months but fish supplies will inevitably tumble if there is a naval war - Billingsgate market normally takes 300 to 500 tons of fish daily. 11am In Britain, the Stock Exchange is closed as the country rapidly moves to a war footing. But a full programme of first-class cricket matches continues. Yorkshire are getting the upper hand over Lancashire in the Roses match at Old Trafford. At Lord's, the second day of a two-day match between Lord's Schools (public schools that played at the ground) and the Rest is beginning. At least five of the young men playing would be dead by the end of the war. Back in London, Jack Hobbs has scored 226 for Surrey at the Oval, with Nottinghamshire about to begin their reply. Jack Hobbs: a double century at the Oval 10.45 Grey sends a message to Sir Francis Villiers, Britain's minister in Brussels. Belgium must remain stout in defence of its neutrality.

Britain will support her and is prepared to join France and Russia in an alliance to resist German force. 10.25 The previous day, four members of the Cabinet had warned of their resignations over the possibility of war. Now, on hearing of the German invasion of Belgium, John Simon, the Attorney-General, and Earl Beauchamp, Commissioner of Works (later said to be the inspiration for Lord Marchmain in Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited) announce they will attend the morning Cabinet meeting. 10.00 (CET) Von Jagow, the German foreign minister, sends a telegram to Prince Lichnowsky, German ambassador in London, who is agonising over the prospect of going to war against his British friends. Lichnowsky is authorised to assure Britain that Germany will not annex Belgian territory. The reason for entering Belgium, it is claimed, is that Germany has reliable information that France is planning to attack Germany through Belgium. Germany's ambassador to Britain, Prince Lichnowsky 09.30 Sir Edward Grey sends a message to Sir Edward Goschen, Britain's ambassador in Berlin, where he has served for six years.

Britain asks Germany for ‘an assurance that the demand made upon Belgium will not be proceeded with, and that her neutrality will be respected by Germany’. Britain is 'bound to protest against this violation of a treaty [the Treaty of London of 1839] to which Germany is a party in common with themselves, and must request an assurance that the demand made upon Belgium will not be proceeded with, and that her neutrality will be respected by Germany'. At this stage it is a request rather than an ultimatum. 09.20 (CET) Gottlieb von Jagow, Germany's foreign minister, sends a telegram to von Below at the German legation in Brussels. He is still offering peace if Belgium allows German troops to pass through Liège and if the Belgians do not destroy their railway lines and bridges. 09.10 (CET) Belgian King Albert I rides on horseback to the parliament in Brussels, accompanied by his family in a horse-drawn carriage. Cheering crowds line the route. The monarch asks the deputies if they are resolved to defend Belgium: Are they ‘unalterably decided to maintain intact the sacred gift of our forefathers?’ 'Yes!' is the answer roared back at him.

09.00 (CET) Antoine Adolphe Fonck, aged 21, a lancer in the 2nd Lancers, becomes the first Belgian to fall in combat. He dies close to Battice as the Germans advance from the border towards Liège. 08.45 Front page of Brussels newspaper Le Soir reports the violation of Belgium's neutrality on the morning of August 4 1914. 08.20 (CET) General Otto von Emmich leads the assault on Liège via Gemmerich with six infantry brigades and three cavalry divisions. General Otto von Emmich 08.00 (CET) It is confirmed in Brussels that German troops have entered Belgian territory. Germans have crossed the Belgian frontier at Gemmerich, 30 miles from the fortress of Liège. 07.30 The morning papers are enthusiastic about Grey’s speech the day before. ‘Britain will not allow Germany’s fleet to batter France’s undefended coast ...

The thoughts of all Britishers went out to sea yesterday, for with the statement of Sir Edward Grey in Parliament, the safety and sanctity of the Empire may easily again depend upon the Navy which has given us such heroic a history,’ says the Daily Mirror The Daily Mail declares that ‘Proceedings in the House of Commons yesterday were worthy of a tremendous occasion. They will fill the nation with fresh courage and confidence. The Manchester Guardian takes a different line, still hoping for British neutrality: ‘Europe in arms watches Great Britain. Italy has asserted her freedom to keep the peace, will England follow the good example?’ Foreign secretary, Sir Edward Grey The leader column in The Daily Telegraph shows no such hesitation: ‘Today we say with calm conviction, and with as full a consciousness as one can have of what this conflict must involve, that anything would be better for this country – anything!

– than to slink away like a frightened cur from the menace of the Prussian jackboot, and risk the imposition upon Europe, of which we are a part, of the absolute dominance of a Power which can act as Germany has acted in this crisis.’ 07.00 In London, The Daily Telegraph carries several pages about the crisis and a full transcript of Sir Edward Grey’s speech. But elsewhere the impression is given of a normal day in London. The Commons and the Lords will sit as normal; a number of companies are meeting; and the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies is to convene at Kingsway Hall, Holborn, 8pm. The theatres, concert halls and cinemas are open as normal. Kismet had originally opened at the Garrick in 1911, to great acclaim. After a run on Broadway and in Australia, it is now back at the Globe. 06.00 (CET) Germany informs the Belgian government that its troops will be entering Belgian territory. Walter von Below-Saleske, of the German Legation, makes his last visit to the Foreign Office in Brussels.

Because Belgium has rejected its ‘well intentioned proposals’, he says, Germany must now attend to its own security, ‘if necessary by force of arms’. At dawn on Tuesday August 4 1914, Austria-Hungary was at war with Serbia, and Germany had declared war on Russia and France. Belgium had been given an ultimatum by the Germans, who demanded they be allowed to enter Belgian territory to defend themselves against France; Belgium had rejected this. Britain was a signatory to the 1839 Treaty of London, guaranteeing to protect Belgian neutrality. The previous day, Sir Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary, had told the House of Commons that the country could not ‘run away’ from its ‘obligations of honour and interest’. ........................................

The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914, Christopher Clark (Penguin) The War that Ended Peace, Margaret MacMillan (Profile Books) The Month that Changed the World: July 1914, Gordon Martel (OUP) July 1914: Countdown to War, Sean McMeekin (Icon Books) July Crisis: The World's Descent into War, July 1914, T.G. Otte (Cambridge) The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman (Penguin) Margot Asquith's Great War Diary, 1914-1916 (OUP) telegraph.co.uk/ww1archive

Question: Who was the Prime Minister of Gt. Britain at the outbreak of The First World War?
Answer: HERBERT ASQUITH