Tweet

Monthly Circular.
No. 225.	September.	1914.
To The Members.

Gentlemen,

The War: Its Origin and Situation.

It has been suggested that it might be a useful thing if we were to devote this circular, or part of it, to a consideration of the origin of this dreadful war, and the reason why we as a nation have been drawn so closely, and so enthusiastically into it. Go were we will we are met by a wave of martial enthusiasm, which is carrying all classes on its crest. There has never within the memory of the oldest inhabitant been seen a period when the national feeling was paralleled by even an approachment to it. Within living memory we have never as a nation been brought into such close and vital contact with the dread realities of war. It is not the first time that the envious eye has been cast upon our white cliffs, and threats have been made, and armies prepared, for the purpose of conquering this island of shopkeepers. It was the great Napoleon, a greater warrior (but with a less streak of madness in him) than the Berlin boaster and braggart, who said what he would do, but it was this island which sent him to Saint Helena. By this more modern meddler with the world's peace we are told that he will have his Xmas dinner in Buckingham Palace, and we as a nation should be blotted out, and become merely an appanage of the German nation. He has been counting his chickens before they were hatched, and he, too, if there be wisdom in the earth, may not only find himself on a lonely island, but must also be brought down from his lofty pedestal and his power to work mischief destroyed. This age, and most certainly the people of Great Britain (where freedom has slowly broadened down until it is the lot of all) cannot accept the vapouring and boasting of this Nebuchadnezzar, who erects an image in his own likeness on a plain of Dura he selects, and calls upon all men to bow down and worship him, or dread the fiery furnace of his wrath.

But let us turn to our inquiry. Why are we at war, and could we have kept out of it with honour? These are not idle questions, but their importance demands an inquiry and our answer. There are wars and wars. There are those of aggression, and those of defence. For years I have tried in my own way to advocate peace, and I certainly have been against all wars of the former kind, because my logic would not permit me to see the difference between piracy on sea, whereby ships were taken and their cargoes plundered, and landing an army, and by force of arms taking forcibly another people's country. In both these the action is in harmony with the ethics of the Border reivers where the strongest took and kept. I have therefore on principle been against all such, and have not hesitated to teach men that doctrine of opposition. In the other class of wars which this has developed into, I am as ardent for as I was in my objection to the others. My position in that may be illustrated by the story which is told of the quaker in one of our sea battles. He had been taken by the press-gang, but he refused to fight, and to take any part in the attack on the enemy. As he stood he observed one of the enemy climbing up the side of the English ship he was on, and he put his hands on the man, and pushed him into the sea, saying "Thou art not wanted here." That is a story, but it gives point to my position. In this war I think we are in the right. True the enemy is not on our shores, but his intentions are plain, and although I can count so many years in my own life, and although the heat is less in my blood, yet I am eager and desirous to do all I can to teach the proud Prussian Autocrat the respect due to other nations.

Is this therefore a war of aggression or defence? At the commencement it was motived by a spirit of ambition and grab, but its developments changed its character. Of that I am clear in my own mind, and I should like to present that view of it to you. In doing so I will not depend so much upon my own powers of description and explanation, but will give the recorded opinions of others. You will remember that Austria declared war against Servia on the 28th of July. The following quotation will give us an idea of the relation between those two nations :—

We have in the above the real reason why Austria and Servia went to war. Austria having in violation of the terms of her occupation annexed the two nations, was anxious to include Servia within her boundary as well. On the other hand Servia being of the same race as Bosnia and Herzegovina, was eager to form what is known as a larger Servia, by a junction with them. This of course would not suit Austria, because it would have set up a strong and warlike nation on her border. On the part of Servia there was a justification which could not be found for the action of Austria. Bosnia and Herzegovina were alien to the Austrians. Their incorporation was an act of usurpation and tyranny on her part, while the people of the two states are largely of the same race as the Servians.

In that situation lies the real reason for the war between Austria and Servia, but there was an ostensible one which has been used as a pretext. On June 28th the Archduke, heir to the Austrian throne, was murdered in the main street of Serajevo, the capital of Bosnia The murder was committed on what was in reality Austrian territory, yet that Government directly charged Servia with not carrying out a promise of loyalty, and not preventing the intrigues which were proceeding in Bosnia, and which were the result of Servian influence. "It therefore demanded from the Servian Government formal assurance that it condemns the dangerous propaganda, whose aim is to detach from the monarchy a portion of its territory, and also that the Servian Government shall no longer permit these machinations and this criminal perverse propaganda."

An answer was demanded in 48 hours. The alternative being the withdrawal of the Ambassador and a declaration of war. Servia was thus placed in a most delicate situation. To comply with the terms was tantamount to admitting the charge, to refuse was to find themselves in war with a country of eighty millions population and 2½ million soldiers, while they were but 3½ million inhabitants, and an army of 300,000. This position Servia fully realised, and did all she could to avoid war. The following is a summary of what she promised:—

If war had not been intended by Austria (prompted and incited by Germany who was prepared) there was surely sufficient in Servia's offer to satisfy. The only reservation was regarding the participation of Austrian officials in the inquiry. There was a willingness to submit to the Hague tribunal and the nations which were parties to the declaration. That was ample, but not to the Austrians and their inspirers. Nothing would satisfy them, but the accusers must sit in judgment on the accused, and because it could not be agreed to, war was declared on July 28th.

If the situation had remained as the declaration left it, we should never have been in it, at least we had no part in it. Let us see the order of the proceedings. On the 25th of July Russia regarded Austrian's ultimatum to Servia as a challenge to her. On July 31st we see the Kaiser openly in the matter. He demanded from Russia an explanation as to the mobilisation of the army, when Russia had made no declaration of war with Germany, and asked for France to remain neutral. That was on the last day in July. On the 1st of August he declared war against Russia, and invaded Luxemburg.

On the 2nd of August he invaded France and Belgium. He had not allowed any grass to grow under his feet. for in three days he had demanded French neutrality, and made an attack on their frontier, and entered Belgium as a more expeditious way of getting into France. Every detail of his action is a complete indication of his connection with the flimsy pretext of Austria and his complete preparedness for war with Russia and France. He complained about their mobilization which they had not done, while his troops were 50 thoroughly in readiness that he could ask for an explanation on the 31st of July, and march forward in his invading course on the next day. And this by the man who desires to pose as an Apostle of Peace. Upon whom there was some idea of bestowing the Nobel Prize, which is given every year to the man who has done most to promote peace. This is the man who gave such brutal orders to his savage hordes of barbarians, when he sent them forth to slay and destroy, without regard to sex or age, learning or religion, and this is the man who shed tears of regret when he was told of the destruction of Louvain. Was there ever a greater or more repulsive exhibition of Pecksniffianism seen.

Let us see what England had been doing. We were in favour of peace, and to that end Sir E. Grey devoted the whole of his energies. No sooner had Austria delivered her ultimatum than he put forward the proposal for a Mediating Conference by the four powers not directly concerned in the war, Germany, France, Italy, and England. "If," said Mr. Asquith, "that proposal had been accepted, the actual controversy would have been settled with honour to everybody, and the whole of the terrible war would have been avoided." Germany alone refused. Let me quote further from Mr. Asquith's great oration in the Guild Hall :—

Let us examine a little more closely the invasion of Belgium, which was the immediate cause of our sending our troops to that country and France. How are we connected with it? What is our right of interference? Leaving out of the count the ultimate intention of the "War Lord," and any obligation that may be involved in the Triple Entente which might have afforded sufficient reasons for our participation, we were bound by a solemn treaty to take our stand where we have, and honour would not permit us to do any other. This is the key to the situation, so far as we as a nation are concerned. The German invasion of Belgium and Luxemburg was a direct and flagrant violation of treaties and national guarantees. By the treaties of 1839 and 1870, the neutrality of those two small states was guaranteed. Germany, France, and Great Britain were the chief parties to the guarantee. "Hostile action against. Belgium by any foe would have compelled one and all of these countries to have stood by Belgium in the defence of her nationality. The violation of this neutrality by one of the guaranteeing powers is so flagrant a violation of honour and international obligation that no excuse can be invented in mitigation of it."

We are not left in the dark as to the intention of Germany. "Made in Germany" is a proverbial expression for Pinchbeckism. This excuse is true to that character. We have the excuse in the words of the German Secretary of State and their Chancellor. Our Ambassador in Berlin acting on the instructions of Sir E. Grey, asked the German Secretary on the 4th of August to refrain from violating the Belgian neutrality. He was told the answer must be no, as the German troops had crossed the frontier that morning, and the neutrality had been violated. Still reasons for the violation were pressed for, and the following are taken from our Ambassador's letter to Sir E. Grey :—

There was never a thief of any grade from sneak to the bold highwaymen, who could not plead an extenuation as logical as that, but with all his pleadings he would stand convicted, and receive the well-merited condemnation, as the German Emperor and his colleagues in this dishonourable transaction will. They will realize that might can never be substituted for right so long as there is justice in the Universe.

Our Ambassador was then instructed to inform them that unless an assurance was given by 12 o'clock that night that the German troops would be withdrawn, he would demand his passport, and we as a nation would do all in our power to uphold the neutrality of Belgium. The Ambassador then had an interview with the German Chancellor, who endeavoured to throw all the blame upon the English. In the course of his remarks, "He said that the step taken by His (British) Majesty's Government was terrible to a degree, just for the word 'neutrality,' a word which in war time had so often been disregarded just a "scrap of paper." Great Britain was going to make war on a kindred nation, who desired nothing better than to be friends with her. What we (the British) had done was unthinkable, it was like striking a man from behind while he was fighting for his life against two assailants. He held Great Britain responsible for all the terrible events that might happen."

These are the words spoken to our Ambassador and transmitted by him to Sir E. Grey. Was theme ever a grosser specimen of hypocrisy. Because we would not join them in violating a solemn treaty and stand by with folded hands while their armies entered the territory of a people we had with them sworn to protect, and who were living at peace with all other nations, and destroyed their cities and slaughtered the innocent non-combatants, we were to be chargeable with the actual murders they (the Germans) have committed."

I am glad as an Englishman that our sense of honour and standard of ethics were not "Made in Germany," and I am proud of our statesmen who, without a moment's hesitation, repudiated the suggested co-partnership in crime in the only manner it deserved. Let its take a quotation from Mr. Asquith's splendid speech in the Guild Hall, when dealing with this aspect of the situation he put it in the form of a question :—

That grand expression will find full endorsement to the uttermost part of our empire. If we had even temporised with the low suggestion we should have forfeited all right to the honourable position we have won and hold among the nations of time earth, and we should have rightly deserved it. After the German had made a convenience of Belgium, and as a result had conquered France, where should we have been ? We might have had a nominal national existence, but it would have been as a vassal of the Autocrat of Germany. With France crushed, as in 1870, what was to prevent him from laying his hand on Belgium, Holland, and further North, in succession as they did with Alsace Lorraine at the conclusion of the previous war. The Bismamckian policy of "Blood and Iron" is still the guiding principle with them. The Kaiser is credited with saying to his troops on their departure for the front — "Remember that the German people are the chosen of God. On mne as German Emperor the spirit of God has descended. I am his weapon. His sword and his Vice-gerent. Woe to the disobedient, death to cowards and unbelievers."

The Situation.

The above quotation is on a par with the whole of his arrogance. He may imagine he is Divinely chosen. Megalomania is a terrible disease. He has a sermons attack. His methods are a long way from being after the Divine order. I wonder how he likes the situation. Is it such as a man "the spirit of God" would expect? The complaint with which he is afflicted induced him to look down with scorn upon others from the Olympian height of his autocratic pedestal. The Belgians were an insignificant folk. The British army was contemptible, and he would make a repetition of 1870 in the discomfiture of the French. "Pride goeth before a fall." He found the Belgians at Liege, and the flower of his great fighting machine was met, and held in check until the French and ourselves who had been taken unawares by the suddenness of his attack had time to mobilise. He will know now whether the British army is contemptible or not, at least the German army will inform him when in their retreat they reach Berlin, and he has found that the Frenchmen of to-day are different in their fighting spirit and vastly different in their Generals than they were in 1870.

He was thoroughly deceptive prior to the outbreak of war. Making loud professions of peace, while at the same time he was making the most strenuous efforts to prepare for war, and had the best of his troops ready to march over the Belgian frontier. In fact they did march before the declaration of war was made. His action previously exhibited the bully issuing an ultimatum to the small nation at seven on a Sunday night, with a demand that the reply must be given by seven on Monday morning, or he would declare war. All the elements of bullyism are in that action. A small nation in comparison with Germany. In area, population, and army. Its peculiar position of neutrality was against keeping @

One pleasing aspect of the situation is the large response to the appeal which is made for recruits. If there was any fear that such would not be the case, it has been dispelled. We have some 500,000 willing men leaving their occupations, and offering their young lives in defence of their country in about five weeks. I am glad to see that our miners have occupied a foremost place, and as I have seen them eagerly offering themselves, or marching in our streets, my old heart has warmed towards them, and my admiration has been greater than my words could express. I feel confident all our country wants to maintain liner honour will be forthcoming as it is required.

In my opinion our mothers and sisters are deserving of a place in the commendation. Theirs is the anxiety and the sorrow, yet sons, brothers and sweethearts have been allowed to go uncomplainingly. I would like to say to every one of them whatever the relationship "Sister you have my respect and sympathy. The future is wisely hid from us. We can only hope. In that I am with you. When they return we will rejoice together and try as far as we can to share the glory they have won. If they like soldiers fall then we will reverence their memory and say he or they fell that their country might still be great among the nations and be saved from the rule of one of the worst forms of despotism imaginable in these modern times." Our recruits have gone to dare those dangers that Freedom may still be our National heritage.

"The Labour Movement and the War."

Under that heading there appeared in the "Daily News" of September 8th an article. The writer was the Rev. Archdeacon Lilley. I quote the first paragraph

I insert that here first because the question asked by the writer is part of the present situation. Second it is as far from a correct statement of time case as anything can possibly be, and third because the writer (unwittingly no doubt) has done a gross injustice to the "Labour organisation of this country." He has built a case on a very flimsy foundation. Whence got he is data? If he had said that one man who is not a labour leader had expressed himself adversely to the war I would have excepted the statement, but surely the Archdeacon knows that person is not the Mouthpiece of Labour. Let him look around and he will not find a responsible leader of a trade-union who is against this war. When the dispute was between Austria and Servia there were many who were against our joining in it, but since the declaration of war by Great Britain there has been the most complete unanimity amongst labour leaders.

We are told of the man who burnt Ephesus down that his name might go down to posterity. It would have been poor logic to have blamed all the people in the city for the action. The Archdeacon will allow me to suggest (which may be presumption on my part) that his knowledge of present day men and manners is very narrow if he is not aware that there are some men (not many I am thankful) who would make a bonfire of Ephesus or any other place if they could only be seen in the glare of it. I hope that he will with the same publicity with which his article was published correct the insinuation contained in it for I assure him it has no foundation whatever and if it remains in its absolute form it is an insult to a class whose love for their country is as great and who will dare and do as much as any other for its honour and prestige.

Durham, 1914. John Wilson.

 

Source:

NEEMARC - Ref: NUMDA/1/6/39, D.M.A. Minutes, Circulars etc. for 1914 (two volumes: covers Jan-Jun, Jul-Dec)