"We have an interest in the independence of Belgium which is wider than that which we may have in the literal operation of the guarantee. It is found in the answer to the question whether under the circumstances of the case, this country endowed as it is with influence and power, would quietly stand by and witness the perpetration of the direst crime that ever stained the pages of history, and thus become participators in the sin." The position of England in regard to her obligations under the treaty was no different in 1914 from what it was in 1870, when neither belligerent was her ally and neither her enemy. In a statement furnished the press by Sir Edward Grey on September 16, 1914, he said, in answer to a criticism of the German Chancellor that England would not have intervened had France instead of Germany been the violator of Belgian neutrality: "The German chancellor entirely ignores the fact that England took the same position in 1870 in regard to the neutrality of Belgium that she has taken now. In 1870 Prince Bismarck, when approached by England, admitted and respected the treaty obligations in respect to Belgium. The British government stands in 1914 as it stood in 1870. It is Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg who refuses to meet us in 1914 as Prince Bismarck met us in 1870."1 Any other course than that which Great Britain adopted would have been in the face of a long-established construction of the nation's obligations as a party to the treaty, and one that had been reaffirmed by every government that had had occasion to pass upon the question since the treaty was concluded. 1 London Times, September 16, 1914. CHAPTER XXX INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF NEUTRAL TERRITORY (Continued) I THE GERMAN INVASION OF LUXEMBURG § 453. The Neutralization Convention of 1867; § 454. Invasion of Luxemburg by the Germans in 1914; § 455. Germany's Principal Defense; § 456. The German Plea Analyzed; § 457. Invasion of Belgium and Luxemburg Compared; $458. Other German Defences; § 459. Conclusion. II JAPANESE VIOLATION OF CHINESE TERRITORY § 460. The Japanese Proceedings; § 461. Chinese Concession of a “War Zone"; § 462. Seizure of Chinese Railways; § 463. The Japanese Defence Analyzed. III THE OCCUPATION OF GREECE BY ENGLAND AND FRANCE § 464. English and French Troops Occupy Saloniki and Other Places; § 465. Other Acts of the Entente Powers; § 466. The Greek Protest and the AngloFrench Defence; § 467. The Conflict between the King and Parliament; § 468. Attitude of the Guaranteeing Powers; § 469. The Allied Ultimatum of June, 1916; § 470. Other Allied Demands upon Greece; § 471. The Abdication of the King; § 472. The Anglo-French Measures Compared with the German Invasion of Belgium; 473. The Purpose of the Allied Measures. I THE GERMAN INVASION OF LUXEMBURG § 453. The Neutralization Convention of 1867. Like Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg was an independent State whose permanent neutrality was declared and guaranteed by a group of European powers of which Prussia was one. While the status of both States was identical in that their neutrality had been placed under the guarantee of the great powers, there was one difference in the nature of the guarantees, namely, Luxemburg was declared to be under the collective guarantee of the signatory governments, whereas the word "collective" is not found in the Belgian neutralization treaty. The original proposal of Bismarck was that the guarantee should be individual. This phraseology was altered at the request of the British secretary of state for foreign affairs, Lord Stanley, and the guarantee made "collective" for the reason that the British government was disinclined to undertake an obligation to guarantee the neutrality of Luxemburg, singlehanded and without the coöperation of the other guaranteeing powers. Great Britain had been willing in 1839 to become a guarantor of the neutralization of Belgium, without a stipulation that the obligation should be collective, because the maintenance of the neutrality of Belgium was of more vital interest to her than that of Luxemburg. Consequently she did not object to entering into a treaty for the neutralization of Belgium which might impose on her alone an obligation to guarantee the enforcement of the treaty.1 Thus while the treaty of 1839 left each of the contracting powers free to undertake to guarantee single-handed the observance of its provisions, the treaty of 1867 seems to have contemplated the concurrent action of all the guarantors.2 A second difference between the treaties of 1839 and 1867 is to be found in the fact that the status of neutralization imposed on Luxemburg was, unlike that of Belgium, an unarmed neutrality. The government of Luxemburg was required to demolish its existing fortifications and was forbidden to erect new ones. Aside from the maintenance of a small body of 1 For the details regarding the neutralization of Luxemburg see Stowell, The Diplomacy of the War of 1914, pp. 425-427; see also pp. 606 ff. for the texts of various extracts from the parliamentary debates of 1867 on the subject. See also Piccioni, Essai sur la Neutralité, pp. 49 ff.; Weiss, The Violation by Germany of the Neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg, pp. 6 ff.; Saint Yves, Les Responsabilités de l'Allemagne dans la Guerre de 1914, pp. 284 ff.; Amer. Jour. of Int. Law, Vol. IX, pp. 948 ff., and an official publication of the Luxemburg government entitled Neutralité du Grand-Duché pendant la Guerre de 1914–18, Attitude des Pouvoirs Publics (Luxemburg, 1919). 2 On August 2, 1914, the day on which German troops entered Luxemburg, Sir Edward Grey in a conversation with the French ambassador at London reminded him that the treaty of 1867 differed from that of 1839 in that England was bound to interfere for the purpose of enforcing the observance of the latter treaty without necessarily obtaining the coöperation (concours) of the other guaranteeing powers, whereas in the case of Luxemburg the concurrence of all the guarantors was considered necessary. French Yellow Book, No. 137. GERMAN TROOPS ENTER LUXEMBURG 233 troops for the preservation of order, the Grand Duchy was also forbidden to keep a standing army, this on the principle that the powers having solemnly pledged themselves to respect its neutrality, it would have no need of armies and fortifications for defence against attack from without. During the war of 1870-1871 Bismarck charged that France violated the neutrality of the Grand Duchy, and that the Luxemburg government was a party to the violation in that it offered facilities to French troops to return to France by way of Luxemburg. The Prussian government appears to have respected the treaty, and as steps were taken to prevent further violations by the French, the neutral co-guarantors did not find it necessary to protest or intervene. § 454. Invasion of Luxemburg by the Germans in 1914. On July 31, 1914, when war between Germany and France seemed imminent, M. Eyschen, minister of state and President of the government of Luxemburg, made inquiries of the French and German ministers whether, in the event of war between their countries, their governments would respect the neutrality of the Duchy. The German minister replied in substance that Germany would do so, provided France would make a similar promise.2 On the following day M. Viviani, President of the French council of ministers, gave assurances that the government of the Republic intended to respect the neutrality of Luxemburg in conformity with the treaty of 1867, unless a violation by Germany should compel it to do otherwise in order to safeguard its own interests. On the afternoon of this same day (August 1) a detachment of German troops seized the railway station of the Trois Vierges, and during the course of the night, before Germany had declared war against France, German troops entered the territory of the Grand Duchy.4 § 455. Germany's Principal Defence. On the following day M. Eyschen received a telegram from Herr von Jagow, saying: "to our great regret, the military measures which have been taken have become indispensable by the fact that we have received sure information that the French military were marching against Luxemburg (im Vormarsch auf Luxemburg sind). We were forced to take measures for the protection of our army and the security of our railway lines. 1 Piccioni, op. cit., p. 53. 3 Ibid., No. 129. 2 French Yellow Book, No. II. We do not intend any hostile act against Luxemburg, and Luxemburg will be fully indemnified for any damage caused by the use of railways leased to the Empire." The German military commander thereupon issued a proclamation in which it was stated that "all the efforts of our Emperor and King to maintain peace have failed. The enemy has forced Germany to draw the sword. France has violated the neutrality of Luxemburg and has commenced hostilities on the soil of Luxemburg against German troops, as has been established without a doubt." The occupation of Luxemburg, he added, was for the sole purpose of opening the way for future operations; the liberty and property of the inhabitants would be guaranteed and respected; the occupying troops would observe an "iron discipline," and all requisitions would be paid for in cash. The proclamation concluded: "I count upon the spirit of justice of the people of Luxemburg not to lose sight of the view that His Majesty decided to order troops into Luxemburg only in obedience to stern necessity due to the violation of Luxemburg by France."1 On August 4 the Chancellor in his address to the Reichstag defended the violation of both Belgium and Luxemburg on the ground of military necessity and reiterated the charge that France had already violated the neutrality of both countries. § 456. The German Plea Analyzed. As in the case of Belgium, no proof was submitted in support of the charge against France. Only "reliable information" had been received that French troops were marching upon the Grand Duchy, and neither the source nor the nature of this information was ever disclosed. M. Eyschen promptly protested against the German invasion and denied that a single French soldier was in Luxemburg, or that there was any indication whatever of any intention on the part of France to violate the neutrality of the country. In view of the solemn assurances of M. Viviani, the emphatic denial of M. Eyschen, and the failure of the German government to furnish any evidence whatever in support of its charges against France, it is safe to assume that they 1 Text in Renault, p. 14. 2 French Yellow Book, No. 131. Cf. also Saint Yves, op. cit., p. 298; Van den Heuvel, De la Violation de la Neutralité Belgique, pp. 12, 13, and Henckel, Germany's Violation of Luxemburg, New York Times, July 26, 1916. |