Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][merged small]

G. [9167] BELGIAN QUESTION. 1. Specific References to the Section. See 879 above. Fox, Frank. The Agony of Belgium, Being Phase 1 of the Great

War. (London, Hutchinson, 1915.) A narrative account of

personal observations. Fuehr, Alexander. The Neutrality of Belgium, a study of the

Belgian case under its aspects in political history and international law. (N. Y. and London, Funk & Wagnalls, 1915.) An attempt to defend German activity in Gelgium and the violation of the neutralization of treaties on the ground that they had

become obsolete. Houtte, Paul van. The Pan-Germanic Crime. Impressions and in.

vestigations in Belgium during the German occupation. (London and N. Y., Hodder & Stoughton, 1915.) Quotes opinion from

neutral sources. Stowell, E. C. Diplomacy of the W'ar of 1914. I. 601, 603, 637

seq. Visscher, Ch. de. Belgium's Case, a juridical enquiry. (Trans

lated by Jourdain.) (London and N. Y., Hodder & Stoughton, 1916.) The best juridical exposition of Belgium's case, con.

clusively answers all the German excuses. Waxweiler, Emile. Belgium, Neutral and Loyal: The War of 1914.

(N. Y. and London, Putnam, 1915.) The violation of Belgian neutrality and atrocities committeed in Belgium from the point of

view of a Belgian. Waxweiler, Emile. Belgium and the Great Powers. Her neutrality

explained and vindicated. (N. Y. and London, Putnam, 1916.) Justifies the resistance to Germany on political and moral as

well as legal grounds. Fortnightly Rev., vol. 106, pp. 417 seq. (Sept. 1916.) Lapradelle, A. G. “Neutrality of Belgium,” in No. Am. Rev., vol.

200, pp. 847-857. (Dec., 1914.) N. Y. Times Current History. I. 60-63, 365-373, 1101-1125; IV.

536; V. 728.
2. Previous Neutralization.

(a) Treaties of 1814, 1839, 1870.
(b) Later accusations of bad faith by the Belgians before 1914.

(c) German railroad preparations.
3. Invasion by Germany (August, 1914).

(a) Germany's demand for passage.
(b) "Scrap of paper” episode.

(c) Later charges of bad faith by Belgians. 4. Treatment of Non-Combatant Belgians.

(a) Hostages and civilian prisoners.
(b) Destruction of villages.

(c) Louvain episode.
5. Effect on the World.

(a) Influence on Great Britain.

(b) Reception in the United States. 6. Question of Neutrals Defending a Guaranteed State. 7. Documents and Extracts on the Section. (a) [$168] A Chinese View of Germany's Violation of

Belgian Neutrality.

By RICHARD D. HARLAN. "I am a Country; I am NOT a Road.

A few months after the outbreak of Germany's war against the world, L'Eche de Chine, a Shanghai journal representing French interests in China, contained a brief article on Germany's violation of Belgium's neutrality from the pen of a young Chinaman, whose knowledge of current events was

more accurate than his command of the English language. The following was his quaint summary of the chain of events that within a few weeks plunged seven European nations into the war that has finally set the world on fire:

"Now there is a great war in Europe. This began because the Prince of Austria went to Serbia with his wife. One man of Serbia killed him.

"Austria was angry, and write Serbia. “Germany write to letter to Austria and said, I will help

[ocr errors]

“Russia write a lettere to Serbia and said, 'I will help you.'

"France did not want to fight, but they got ready their soldiers.

“Germany write a letter to France and said, 'You don't get ready, or I will fight you in nine hours.'

“Germany, to fight France, passed Belgium.
“Belgium said, 'I am a Country; I am not a Road.'

“And Belgium write a letter to England about Germany, to help them.

"So England helped Belgium.”

The salient acts and mobilizations and counter-mobilizations which are described in the voluminous White and Red and Yellow and Blue Books of diplomatic correspondence issued by the foreign offices of the leading European belligerents were condensed by this young Chinaman into a dozen or more lines.

"I am a Country; I am NOT a Road.” That epitome of Belgium's right to remain neutral in the war between Germany and France is as convincing as a whole treatise on the international law as to the “rights of neutrals.”

In the defense of Germany's right to "cut across lots” through Belgium and to overcome her resistance by force of arms, Chancellor von Bethman-Hollweg contrasted what he was pleased to call "Luxemburg's neutrality with Belgium's unneutral course.”

No one condemned helpless little Luxemburg because, in the face of Germany's colossal armies, she felt forced to say, “I am nothing but a road; I am NOT a Country.” But the whole civilized world took its hat off to brave Belgium because she had the courage to say to Germany, “I am a Country; I am NOT a Road. I refuse to take sides with Germany and against my other neighbor, France, by allowing myself to be used as the shortest and quickest 'road to Paris.”

Belgium has, indeed, saved Europe and the whole world. She has saved liberty and free, representative government, as those great phrases are understood by the Anglo-Saxon and Latin races. Germany shamelessly broke the word she had solemnly plighted to Belgium and the other signatories to the Neutrality Treaty of. 1837. And while Britain and France, as co-guarantors of Belgian neutrality, loyally kept their word to Belgium, it must not be forgotten that sheer self-interest and motives of self-defense compelled them to defend that neutrality.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Not so with Belgium. No nation could have blamed her very much if, like Luxemburg, she had declined to sacrifice herself. And yet Belgium not only kept her word, but, as Maeterlinck so finely put it, “She nearly died in doing so." She lost nearly everything; but she has kept her soul.

(Written for this Handbook.)

H. [$169] SUBSEQUENT ENLARGEMENT OF

GERMAN POLICY.

1. Specific References to the Section. See $100 above. “Politicus.” “Germany's Real War Aims,” in Fortnightly Rev.,

vol. 107, pp. 617-628. Whitney, Sidney. “Germany's Obsessions,” ibid., vol. 102, pp. 563

573. (Oct., 1914.) Hyndman, H. M. “The Awakening of Asia,” ibid., vol. 106, pp.

677-690. (Oct., 1916.) Imperialist. “The Final Expulsion of Germany from China,” ibid.,

vol. 103, pp. 733-740. (April, 1915.) O'Connor, T. A. "The Bagdad Railway,” in ibid., vol. 101, pp. 201.

216. (Feb., 1914.)
Blake, Barton. “World Empire and National Ideals,” in Forum,

LVII. 1-6. (Jan., 1917.)
Delbrück, H. “German Colonial Aspirations,” in Atlantic Monthly,

vol. 115, pp. 525-533. (April, 1915.)
Kawakami, Kijoshi K. “Japan and the European War,ibid., vol.

114, pp. 708-713. (Nov., 1914.) Pool, K. “The Bagdad Corridor," in New Republic, IX, pp. 318

319. (Jan. 20, 1917.) Pears, Sir Edwin. "The Future of Turkey,” in Yale Rev., IV, 162

177. (Oct., 1914.) Emery, H. C. “German Economics and the War,ibid., pp. 247-266.

Jan., 1915.) 2. Expansion in Western Europe.

(a) Northern France with iron, coal and Calais.

(b) Belgium with Congo-annexation or commercial control. 3. Expansion in Eastern Europe.

(a) Annexation of Russian Baltic Provinces.
(b) Partial annexation or control of Poland.

(c) Russia to be a satellite to Germany. 4. Policy of Berlin to Bagdad.

(a) Austria-Hungary as a satellite.
(b) Paramount interest in Bulgaria and the Balkans.
(c) Turkey as a vassal state.
(d) Resulting new empire in Central Europe and Western Asia

completely dominated by Germany. 5. World Commerce. (a) Preferences to satellite powers and against United States and

other powers.
(b) Flank positions on English and French communications to

Asia.
(c) Ruin of commercial marine of other powers.

I. [$170] OUTBREAK OF GENERAL WAR.

1. Specific References to the Section.

See $894-98 above.

Murray, Sir Gilbert. Foreign Policy of Sir Edward Grey.
Headlam. History of Twelve Days.

American Year Book, 1914, chaps. iii, iv.
Cook, Sir E. Britain and Turkey. The causes of the rupture

set out in brief form from the diplomatic correspondence.

(London, Macmillan, 1914.) Shaw, B. “Common Sense About the War,” N. Y. Times Current

History, I, pp. 11-60. (Dec., 1914.) “Russia Enters War," ibid., I, pp. 358-365. (Dec. 26, 1914.) Guerrazzi, G. F. “Why Italy Went Into the War," ibid, IV, pp.

332 seq., 560 seq. (May, 1916.)
"Italy vs. Austria-Hungary,” statements of Hollweg and Salandra.

Ibid., II, pp. 735-747. (July, 1915.)
Lowrie, W. "Italy's Relation to the War," in No. Am. Rev.,

vol. 205, pp. 62-76. (Jan., 1917.)
Sedgwick, H. D. "Italy and the War,” in Yale Review, V, pp. 19-37.

(Oct., 1915.) “Politicus.” “The Plight of Germany's Dupes,” in Fortnightly

Rev., vol. 106, pp. 374-389. (Sept., 1916.) “Politicus.” “Russia and the War,” ibid., vol. 102, pp. 621-632.

(Oct., 1914.) Barker, J. E. “Relations Between Russia and Germany,ibid.,

vol. 101, pp. 616-627. (April, 1914.)

2. The Austro-Serbian Conflict. 3. Austro-Russian Discussions.

4. Efforts of Grey to Maintain Peace.

5. Germany's Declaration of War on Russia and France.

6. Western Powers.

(a) Montenegro.
(b) Italy.
(c) Portugal.

7. Eastern Powers.

(a) Japan.
(b) Turkey.

J. [$171] SUMMARY OF THE RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES TO THESE

CAUSES OF WAR.

1. Specific References to the Section.
See $98 above.

Bullard, Arthur. Diplomacy of the Great War, Book iv.
Coolidge, A. C. United States as a World Power. (N. Y., Mac-

Millan, 1908.)
Cyclopaedia of American Government. “Diplomatic Relations of

United States with Germany,” II, p. 78; with Austria-Hungary,
I, p. 97; with the Near East, II. p. 507; with France, II, p. 42.
43; with Great Britain, II, pp. 96-99; with Italy, II, p. 245;
with Russia, pp. 243-244; with China, I, pp. 260-263; with

Japan, II, pp. 247-249.
Millard, T. F. Our Eastern Question. (N. Y., Century Co., 1916.)
Angell, Norman. "America and the European War," in Yale Re.

view, IV, pp. 219-234. (Jan., 1915.)
Bullard, A. “Are We a World Power?” in The Century, XCI, p.

114. (Nov., 1915.) Colcord, L. “The U. S. as a Sea Power,” in New Republic, IX, p.

240. (Dec. 30, 1916.) Anon. “The Defence of the Atlantic World,” ibid., X, pp. 59-60.

(Feb. 17, 1917.)

[ocr errors][merged small]

2. Territorial.

(a) Dependencies in Pacific and Caribbean.
(b) Danger to the Monroe Doctrine.

3. Commercial.

(a) Vast interest of U. S. A. in foreign trade.
(b) Principle of Freedom of the Sea.
(c) Danger to the Panama Canal.

4. Asiatic Questions. ?

(a) Interest in Philippines.
(b) Interest in Open Door in China.

5. World Empire.

(a) Opposition to Imperial power.
(b) Doctrine of equality of right of International trade and

intercourse.
(c) Opposition to the World Supremacy of any one power.

K. DOCUMENTS AND EXTRACTS ON THE

CHAPTER.

1. [$172] Gems of German Thought.

BY VARIOUS GERMANS. .

It has been said that it is un-German to wish to be only German. That again is a consequence of our spiritual wealth. We understand all foreign nations; none of them understand us, and none of them can understand us.-Prof. D. Sombart.

The German soul is the world's soul; God and Germany belong to one another.—Pastor W. Lehman, On the German God.

Let us bravely organize great forced migrations of inferior peoples. Posterity will be grateful to us. We must coerce them! This is one of the tasks of war: the means must be the superiority of armed force. Superficially such forced migrations, and the penning up of inconvenient peoples in narrow “reserves" may appear hard; but it is the only solution of the race question that is worthy of humanity. . . Thus alone can the overpopulation of the earth be controlled: The efficient peoples must secure themselves elbow room by means of war, and the inefficient must be hemmed in, and at last driven into “reserves," where they have no room to grow ... and where, discouraged and rendered indifferent to the future by the spectacle of the superior energy of their conquerors, they may crawl slowly toward the peaceful death of weary and hopeless senility.-K. Wagner.

He who does not believe in the divine mission of Germany had better hang himself, and rather to-day than to-morrow.H. S. Chamberlain.

« ПретходнаНастави »