The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915 eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 465 pages of information about The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915.

The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915 eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 465 pages of information about The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915.

Like Maine Case.

The situation really was analogous to that which existed between the United States and Spain when the Maine was blown up in Havana Harbor.  In order to fix the responsibility for this dastardly affair we then similarly demanded an investigation by Spain, to be carried out with the assistance of representatives of this Government.  Spain, too, then offered to conduct an investigation, but she peremptorily declined to allow us to take part in it.

This attitude on her part quickly brought about our declaration of war against her.  It is important that Americans should realize the similarity in the two situations and the likeness of the Austrian action of 1914 to that which our own Government took in 1898.

As soon as Austria had rejected as unsatisfactory Servia’s reply to her ultimatum she prepared to undertake a punitive armed expedition against Servia, and Russia at once declared that she would rank herself as Servia’s protector.

Indeed, without any further parley, and to give effect to this threat, Russia immediately mobilized her army.  Since then it has been averred that this mobilization had been in progress for several weeks previous to Servia’s rejection of the Austrian ultimatum.

This made it obligatory upon Germany to go to Austria’s aid, under the provisions of their treaty of alliance, although she was well aware that such an action would bring France into the conflict under the terms of her alliance with Russia.  Indeed, an unsatisfactory reply had been received from France as to the latter’s intentions, but Germany endeavored to secure at least an assurance of England’s neutrality.  This proved to be impossible.

How the German Government could indulge for a moment in the hope that in a war with Russia and France on the one side and Germany and Austria on the other, England could be induced to remain neutral passes comprehension, but that it did believe this seems a certainty.

The English Government, no doubt, correctly felt that without the aid of its immense resources, and particularly without the operations of its great navy against Germany and Austria, the latter nations would find it not so very difficult a task to dispose of both Russia and France.

English statesmen very promptly must have become alive to the probability that a Germany which had subdued Russia and France, and thus had made itself master of the Continent, would be unlikely long to tolerate a continuance of England’s world leadership.

So, even if the neutrality of Belgium had not been violated, other reasons would have been found by England for joining France and Russia in the war against Germany, for England would not risk, without any effort to protect them, the loss of her continued domination of the high seas and her undisputed possession of her vast colonial empire.

Germany Fighting for Life.

I am not defending the violation of Belgian neutrality.  This, undeniably, was a most unjustifiable action, in spite of German claims that she was forced into it by the necessities of the situation.  But I am explaining that, even had it not occurred, still England would have gone to war.

Copyrights
Project Gutenberg
The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915 from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.