insist on the consequential points, as did at once the two Conservative statesmen just referred to. Instead, he dwelt on the more immediate cause of the war, the violation of Belgian neutrality.
It is this perpetual and insufficiently understood conflict between England's domestic and foreign policy --the necessity to reconcile the one with the other- which has more than once made England appear, to outsiders, as the "perfidious Albion." X...'s opinions might, indeed, have been expressed in short by these two words, although he would have been the first to admit that, of all men, the individual Britisher is the last to deserve this epithet.
In martial Germany, the violation of Belgian neutrality was all along a foregone conclusion. Any schoolboy knew it. In pacific England it came as a shock to the multitude whose foremost desire is to be left in peace and not to bother about hypothetical questions which it abhors.
But for this violation, a Liberal Cabinet (and its supporters) would hardly have decided to advise the King to join in the war. They would of course have stood by France in other ways,-money, munitions etc.
Moreover, there is the irrefutable evidence of Sir Edward Grey's persistent endeavours to stop the conflagration caused by Austria's incendiary ultimatum, as disclosed by the diplomatic despatches in our Blue- Book. I do not however refer to them, as in the present state of X....'s feelings, he would probably declare these despatches to be quite valueless, if not forgeries.
I myself think, had it been possible to obtain a plebiscite after explaining to the people what a German domination over France would probably mean to Eng- land, that the decision of the nation would have been:
"that our honour and our interest compelled us to join France and Russia, even if Germany had scrupulously respected the rights of her smaller neighbours."
18
This, as you are aware, is what the "Times" wrote in its leader of the 8th of March, entitled "Why we are at War," and that happens to be what I myself felt from the very beginning.
It may be interesting to note that some German papers promptly turned this opinion of the "Times" into a statement, said to have been made by it, that England would have begun the war even if Belgian neutrality had not been violated!
Lord Rosebery said a short while ago in a non- political speech (about racing): "No foreign nation has ever understood the English and the English have never understood, so far as I know, any foreign nation." That in my opinion is also the reason why the newspapers on both sides can publish so many silly stories without being found out at once.
Fully to understand a people, one must know them in the intimacy of their homes, must observe and study their idiosyncrasies and be able to think, not only to talk, as they think and talk.
6C
Can you, for example, imagine anybody in Germany speaking of his enemy in terms of high praise, such as: We rejoice that the cruiser 'Emden' has been destroyed at last, but we salute Captain von Müller as a brave and chivalrous foe. We trust his life has been saved, for if he came to London he would receive
a generous welcome! These are the opening words of a "Times" leading article at the time.
Can you imagine any German paper writing of her adversary in war:
; in the trade war of the past thirty years, England has been fighting with all too little success those elements of Germany which are admirable and deserving of
success.
Let us not blind ourselves to this. It was no decree
of the Prussian military bully which attacked our trade, but the laborious and honest endeavours of a population which rightly wished to do itself justice.
While able to take large views when necessary, they
do not scorn the small.........
The Germans have beaten us by reason of their pro- gressive spirit, by for ever seeking improvements........
19
"
575
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.