[FONT="]ENGLAND: GUILTY IN 1914[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Alfred George Gardiner (1865-1946) was one of England's most distinguished author/journalist/publicists. In 1902 he was appointed editor of the Daily News which he made into one of the leading liberal journals of the day. His eloquence was such that no one – not even Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, and Lord Northcliffe - could afford to ignore him.
On the morning of August 1st, 1914, the following lead editorial appeared in the London Daily News. It was written on July 28th by A.G. Gardiner and sets forth the Crisis as it was on the eve of war, and England’s part in it. Please note the timeline: the editorial was written on July 28, 1914, but published when the clock was still ticking on Germany’s July 31st ultimatum to Russia to suspend mobilization.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]“The greatest calamity in history is upon us - a calamity so vast that our senses are numbed with horror. We hardly dare look into the pit that yawns at our feet and yet any hour, any minute may plunge us in beyond any hope of return. Every step at this hour may be irrevocable. The avalanche trembles on the brink and a touch may send it shattering into the abyss.
The peace of every land, the happiness of every home in Europe, the very bread by which we live, hang at this moment upon the will of one man, the Czar of Russia. It is he whose hand is on the avalanche. It is he who with one stroke of the pen, one word of the mouth, one motion of the head can plunge Europe into a sea of blood and bury all the achievements of our civilization in anarchy.
And at St. Petersburg, there sits the man who has every one of these lives and millions more at his mercy, and who can at one word let hell loose upon the face of Europe. Is he a man we can trust with this momentous power? Is he the man for whom we are going to shed our blood and our treasure?
The question is for us! For though the Czar has his hand on the avalanche, it is we who have our hand on him. It is we who in the last analysis must say whether Europe is to be deluged with blood. We see the Czar with his hand on the avalanche looking toward England for the one assurance that he needs. Let England say: “No, you touch it at your own risk and peril,” and his hand will drop. Let England falter, temporize, equivocate, and he will plunge us into ruin with the rest.
We are told that we must be quiet. that we may encourage Germany by making her believe that she has not to reckon with us. But the move is not with Germany. The move is with Russia. It is she whom we encourage or discourage by every word that is said and every other action that is taken. It is she who has the issues of peace and war in her hand.
If we are free - and we know that we are free - what ground is there for involving ourselves in this unspeakable calamity? On the immediate cause of the quarrel we can have no sympathy with Servia. The assassination of the Crown Prince and his wife was a brutal and cold-blooded crime, the fruit of a conspiracy laid with infinite care and deliberation and wholly inspired by Servia. Why is a European war threatened to save Servia from punishment? Because Servia is the instrument of Russia. It was in Belgrade that that most mischievous of Russian diplomatists, M. Hartwig, carried on his machinations throughout the Balkan Wars. It is through Belgrade that Russia hopes to establish her domination of the Balkan peninsula. Have we any interest in helping her?
It is our neutrality which is the only protection that Europe has against the hideous ruin and combustion on the brink of which trembles. Let us announce that neutrality to the world! It is the one hope. There is no other. We can save Europe from war even at the last moment. But we can only save it by telling the Czar that he must fight his own battles and take the consequences of his own action.
If the British government does this, it will do the greatest service to humanity in history. If it does not do it, it will have brought the greatest curse to humanity in history. The youngest of us will not live to see the end of its crime.”[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]History records that the British Government did not do it. The British Government remained ominously silent. It was the silence of consent which gave the green light to the Russian general mobilization in the full knowledge of what was to follow and then used the Belgian imposture to defeat British public opposition to war.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]It may perhaps be credibly argued that Grey was not familiar with the details of European diplomacy, and was content to rely upon Nicolson and his assistant, Sir Eyre Crowe – both fanatically anti-German – for advice. But in The Pity of War, author Niall Ferguson reminds us of Grey’s “dominant belief, from as early as 1902, that Britain should align itself against Germany” and that “Grey’s Germanophobia and his zeal for the Entente with France were from the outset at odds with the views of the majority of the Liberal Cabinet.” And Grey had repeatedly expressed his view that Germany represented “a danger greater than Napoleon.” And Sir Edward had friends in high places . . . [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]While still Prince of Wales, King Edward VII, Grey’s godfather, had begun to prepare the diplomatic ground between London, Paris, and St. Petersburg. On May 6, 1878, French Foreign Secretary, W.H. Waddington, introduced the future King of England to Leon Gambetta, the “most notable figure in France” who kept the issue of Alsace/Lorraine alive in French hearts with his famous slogan: “Speak of it never; think of it always!” Sidney Lee tells us that [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]“At their first meeting at M. Waddington’s table, he fell completely under M. Gambetta’s spell.” [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Lee further informs us that [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]“The Prince’s confidence in the fair prospects of Anglo-French amity was fostered by his continued intercourse with M. Gambetta, the most potent force in France, whose Anglophile sympathies were never in doubt.” [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Ian Dunlop [author of Edward VII and the Entente Cordiale] confirms that [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]“Gambetta fully reciprocated the Prince’s interest . . . It was most remarkable. Two men, whom birth and social context could hardly have set further apart, the one destined to s crown, the other the Apostle of republicanism, had found, in their common devotion to improving relations between their two countries, mutual appreciation and mutual respect. Seldom can so great a gap have been so quickly and easily bridged.”[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]“Mutual appreciation and mutual respect,” perhaps. But did the future King have more worldly motives? After the death of his mother, Queen Victoria, the newly crowned King Edward VII let it be known in no uncertain terms that he should not be regarded as a mere figurehead and would fully expect to be consulted on all matters and especially those relating to foreign policy. Suiting action to words, the King paid a visit to France in 1903. With his characteristic aura of good-natured bonhomie, the charismatic British King parted and dissipated the dark, decades-old clouds of Anglo-French hostility and cleared the way for the Anglo-French Cordiale a year later.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The Wilhelmstrasse took alarm and attempted to use the First Moroccan Crisis to break the Entente Cordiale, while Kaiser Wilhelm and Czar Nicholas concluded the abortive Treaty of Bjorko. The Kaiser, jubilant that he had at last recued his country from the horns of the “Franco-Russian dilemma,” watched in dismay as the treaty became a dead letter despite his strong protests. ([/FONT]"[FONT="]We joined hands and signed before God, who heard our vows!... What is signed, is signed! and God is our testator!”) German alarm continued to build. When it became known that the British Government was negotiation in St. Petersburg for a comprehensive understanding that would mirror the 1904 Entente Cordiale, the Kaiser exploded “He’s a Satan! You can hardly believe what a Satan he is!” The German Press was meanwhile beginning to mutter darkly about einkreisung (encirclement). On April 15th, the Newe Freie Presse declared:[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]“Who can fail to receive the impression that a diplomatic duel is being fought out between England and Germany under the eyes of the world. The King of England . . . is no longer afraid of appearing to throw the whole influence of his personality into the scales whenever it is a question of thwarting the aims of German policy. The meeting at Gaeta [with the King of Italy] is another fact connected with the burning jealousy between England and Germany. Already people are asking themselves everywhere: What is the meaning of this continual labour, carried on with open recklessness, whose object is to put a close ring around Germany?”[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The question is this: was the British King motivated by a simple desire to finally mend fences with Britain’s traditional enemies, or did he have more sinister motives? This question is convincingly answered by the very high price which Britain paid for her Ententes with France and Russia. This included far-reaching settlements about Egypt, Morocco, Siam, and Persia for which Britain would earlier have risked war. Moreover, the complex, all-embracing web of military agreements and “conversations” created by the King’s godson, Foreign Secretary Grey, leaves little doubt that the Royal purpose aimed at the military defeat of Germany.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]With the single exception of Ambassador Prince Lichnowski, German leaders were virtually unanimous in blaming Great Britain for the outbreak of war in 1914. [/FONT][FONT="]We know that the victors write history while the vanquished write the truth. With this in mind consider the speech of Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg to the Reichstag just after the outbreak of war.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]“Where the responsibility in this greatest of all wars lies is quite evident to us.
Outwardly responsible are the men in Russia who planned and carried into effect the general mobilization of the Russian army.
But in reality and truth the British Government is responsible.
The London Cabinet could have made war impossible if they had unequivocally told Petersburg that England was not willing to let a continental war of the Great Powers result from the Austro-Hungarian conflict with Serbia.
Such words would have compelled France to use all her energy to keep Russia away from every warlike measure.
Then our good offices and mediation between Vienna and Petersburg would have been successful, and there would have been no war!
But England has chosen to act otherwise. She knew that the clique of powerful and partly irresponsible men surrounding the Czar were spoiling for war and intriguing to bring it about.
England saw that the wheel was set a-rolling, but she did not think of stopping it. While openly professing sentiments of peace, London secretly gave St. Petersburg to understand that England stood by France and therefore by Russia too.
This has been clearly and irrefutably shown by the official publications which in the meantime have come out, more particularly by the Blue Book edited by the British Government.
Then St. Petersburg could no longer be restrained. In proof of this we possess the testimony of the Belgian Charge d'Affaires at St. Petersburg, a witness who is surely beyond every suspicion.
He reported (you know his words, but I will repeat them now), he reported to his Government on July 30th that:
England commenced by making it understood that she would not let herself be drawn into a conflict. Sir George Buchanan said this openly. To-day, however, everybody in St. Petersburg is quite convinced - one has actually received the assurance - that England will stand by France.
This support is of enormous weight and has contributed largely toward giving the war-party the upper hand.
Up to this summer English statesmen have assured their Parliament that no treaty or agreement existed influencing England's independence of action, should a war break out, England was free to decide whether she would participate in a European war or not.
Hence, there was no treaty obligation, no compulsion, no menace of the homeland which induced the English statesmen to originate the war and then at once to take part in it.
The only conclusion left is that the London Cabinet allowed this European war, this monstrous world war, because they thought it was an opportune moment with the aid of England's political confederates, to destroy the vital nerve of her greatest European competitors in the markets of the world.
Therefore, England, together with Russia (I have spoken about Russia on the 4th of August), is answerable before God and man for this catastrophe which has come over Europe and over mankind.” [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The two Edwards – King and Lord – stand convicted before the bar of history. King Edward VII picked up the moribund, long-neglected spear of the Franco-Russian Alliance. Edward Grey - motivated by his “misperception” of Germany - felt its heft, polished and sharpened it, and used the Sarajevo crisis to hurl it at Germany. Four years later this crime against humanity was crowned by Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles.[/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]P.S. For more on this see my new e-book, OUR CENTURY at[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]http://www.ourcenturybook.com
(Some forums object to members linking to their own work. I included this link to my own e-book because it is very much consonant with the subject matter on this forum and would be of interest to its members. If this is not permitted, I will be happy to remove the link.