One is that when our troops on the night of Aug. 3-Aug. 4 entered
Belgian territory they were on the ground of a State which had given up
its neutrality long ago. The other is that, not for the sake of the
neutrality of Belgium, which she had herself undermined, did England
declare war on us, but because she believed that she would be able to
master us with the help of two great Continental powers.
Since Aug. 2, since her promise to assist France, England was no longer
neutral, and was actually at war with us, and the argument that the
declaration of war was a sequel to the violation of Belgian neutrality
is nothing but a piece of play-acting performed to mystify the English
people and neutral States.
Now that the Anglo-Belgian war plans are unveiled in their smallest
details, the policy of British statesmen is branded before the tribunal
of history for all time.
But British diplomacy went further. At England's request Japan snatches
away heroic Kiao-Chau and violates the neutrality of China. Has England
interfered in this violation of neutrality? Has England shown a care for
neutral States in this case?
When, five years ago, I was called to office the Triple Alliance was
opposed by a firmly united Entente. England's work was designed to serve
the known principle of the balance of power, which means in plain German
that the principle, followed for centuries by British policy and
directed against the strongest Continental power, should find its
strongest tool in the Triple Entente.
Pages:
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329