Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
OCR
.22. C ‘
("v' ..
'l‘HE‘VITAL’ISSUE .“ a
. . ' V
An Englishman Gives‘ His Unbiased Views
In Mr. Cecil Chesterton’s The New Witness of
Oct. I, appeared a letter written by Mr. F. Hugh
O'Donnell, a former member" of parliament, and for
‘a number of ears editor of several of the most
. prominent periodicals in England. This letter con-
tains special interest because it is the unbiased ex-
pression of a British subject. Below, we print what
‘ Mr. O’Donnell has written. -
‘ To the Editor of the New VVitness.
Sir: It is creditable to the New Witness’s probity
and judgment to recognize so clearly and promptly
the vital character of the charge that His Majesty’s
present government committed the first act of war
in this awful conflict days before there was any vio-
lation of the Belgian frontiers, and that this act of
war was directed against Germany, with whom Eng-
-land was still otiicially at peace. The rumpus about
Belgium was a subsequent maneuver. The British
government committed its act of war against Ger-
, many on Aug. 2.
There was nothing uncertain or ambiguous about
i the act of the Asquith Cabinet. It was treacherous,
but it was clear . . . for the enemies of Ger-
many. On Aug. 2 the Asquith Cabinet ordered the
British Fleet to attack Germany in defense of
France, and in furtherance of the French Naval ac-
. tion in the Mediterranean against Austria, and Italy
as well if required. This act of the Asquith Cabinet
'in.aid of France against Germany was committed
with full knowledge of the fact that Germany and
Russia were already in a state of war, and that the
French government had already mobilized its entire
army in virtue of its offensive and defensive Treaty
7 of Alliance with Russia against Germany.
Your good judgment and your honorable policy
‘recognize that these facts are vital, and that the
judgment of history cannot be determined without
‘ their just appreciation. Now to the proofs in the
White Paper itself. The White Paper has been
, edited and arranged for public inspection. It really
‘ requires the auxiliary knowledge of experts. It can
easily mislead. In the present case moderate care
is sufficient to detect the terrible weight of its revela-
> tions.
On Aug. 1,-VVhite Paper No. 136-Sir Edward .
Grey learned from the British Ambassador at Paris
that the French Minister "of VVar had otiicially in-
formed the British ‘Embassy “that orders had been
given for a general mobilization of the French
Army.” - ‘ ‘
On Aug. 2, Sir Edward Grey learned from the
a British Ambassador at Berlin-White Paper No.
144-That the German Secretary of State had ‘offi-
cially informed him that, “owing to certain Russian
,troops having crossed the frontier, Germany and
Russia are now in a state of war.”
The British Government was consequently fully
aware on Aug. 2 that Germany and Russia were at
. war, and that the French Government had mobilized
the whole of its forces in support of its alliance with -
the ‘Russian Empire. What was the consequence?
The British Government immediately resolved to
join France against Germany. By a telegram from
Sir Edward Grey to our Ambassador at Paris on
‘Aug. 2-A-White Paper No. 148-Sir Edward Grey
informed him that he had already given the French
Ambassador at London the assurance of the British
Government that the British Fleet would defend
, France against any hostile action by the German
avv. Here are the terms of the official assurance
. given ‘by the British Foreign Secretary to the
,Representative of France at London:
"I am authorized to give an assurance that, if
the German Fleet comes into the Channel or
through the North Sea to undertake hostile opera-
tions against French coasts or shipping, the British
Fleet will give all the protection in its power.”
Sir Edward Grey was perhaps prepared to inti-
mate that the British Government would not attack
the.German Army with the British Fleet. That was,
perhaps, unavoidable. But the instant the German
Navy moved against Russia’s ally, the British
Fleets'were to fire upon the Navy of Germany.
There was no condition about the neutrality of
Belgium or the neutrality of Timbuctoo in this dec-
laration of war. The British Fleet would attack
the German Fleet the moment it showed its nose
in the Channel.
But the Asquith Cabinet meant more than the
protection of the northern coasts of France against
Germany. As Sir Edward Grey explains to our
Ambassador at Paris in the same communication,
the action of the British Fleet in relieving the
French Government from anxiety for the defense of
the Atlantic shores of France was.intended to
facilitate the unimpeded action of the French Fleets
in Jhe Mediterranean against the Austrian coasts
an Navy. The English act of war against Germany
was also an act of war against Austria. In the
words of Sir Edward Grey, the French Fleet con-
centrated in the Mediterranean would now “know
how to make their dispositions.” The action of
the British Navy against Germany in the Atlantic
would “give a security to France that would enable
her to settle the disposition of her own Mediter-
ranean Fleet.” Could anything, Sir, be more definite
than this? Not only was England to strike at Ger-
many the instant that a German Fleet appeared
in the Channel, but France was to be thereby liber-
ated from all anxieties which would prevent her
from attacking Austria in the Mediterranean with
the united forces of the French Navy.
It is really unnecessary for me to go into the
Belgian question at present. England made war
on Germany without any reference whatever to Bel-
gium. The Belgian affair came later. It has, per-
haps, been utilized for, public consumption. You
may urge that the Asquith Cabinet’s act of war
against Germany was not “communicated” to the
German Government. But the broadsides of the
British Navy were ready to be communicated to the
Fleet of Germany. The act of war was not the
less hostile because it was to be concealed until it
could be committed.
For the moment allow me merely to protest
against your article on Austria, which is not in con-
formity to facts of the situation. Your article is
based upon a communication from the late Ambas-
sador of England at Vienna. I have read the com-
munication carefully. It is quite in keeping with
the part of Agent Provocateur which was performed,
with greater thoroughness perhaps by the British
Ambassador at Vienna than by any other of Sir
Edward Grey’s subordinates in his successful plan
for convulsing the civilization of Europe. Austria
-the empire of the little nations-was always in-
tended to be the main victim of Russia, even though
the "commercial and naval progress of Germany
formed the special goal of Sir Edward Grey's
hostility.-Yours faithfully, F. Hugh O’Donnell,
38 Tregunter Road, The Boltons, S. W., September
26th, 1914.