OCR Text |
Show GHEY BRANDS GERMAN STORY MISLEADING Foreign Office Tells of Negotiations Ne-gotiations in 1912 for Entente Between Germany Ger-many and England. BERLIN'S PROPOSALS DESCRIBED AS TRAP Designed to Give Germany I I solute neutrality on one side, but not on the ot-her. It was impossible for us to enter Into a contract so obviously ob-viously inequitable and the formula accordingly was rejected by Sir Edward Ed-ward Giev (the British foreign minister). min-ister). (irey Presents Formula. Count Paul Wolff-Metternlch fthen German embassador to Great Britain) 1 upon this, pressed for counter proposals, pro-posals, which he stated would be without prejudice and not binding unless we were satisfied our wishes were met on the naval question. On this understanding. Sir Edward Grey, on the Hth of March, 1912. gave Count Wolff -Metternlch the following draft formula which had been approved ap-proved by the cabinet: "England will make no unprovoked attack upon Germany and pursue no aggresfti ve policy towa rd her. Aggression Ag-gression upon Germany Is not the subject and forms no part of any treaty, understanding, or combination to which England is now a party, nor will she become a party to anything any-thing that has such an object." Count Wolff-Metternlch thought Ihls formula Inadequate and suggested suggest-ed two alternative additional clauses: ""England win therefore observe at least benevolent neutrality should war be forced upon England," or "England a Free Hand and Shackle Great Britain, Is Charge. LONTJON. Aur 1 The BHtlah for- bjn 00104 tonight IflRMd a lengthy tare men t concerning the negotiation bat ween Great 8rita.ln and Germany In lfll3, compiled from thn official records In tha foreign off leu. The atatement fol- An r count of tha 1911 Anglo-German negotlatlona waa published In the a mi -official Norddeutache A liege -melne Zltung lat month. Thla account ac-count waa misleading and no doubt waa Intended to mislead. It made It appear that the British government had at that time rejected what would be regarded In many quarters as a reasonable offer of friendship from Germany. In theae circumstances It may be aa well to publish a statement state-ment of facts compiled from the official of-ficial records here. FJsrly In 1912 the German chancellor chancel-lor sketched to Lord Haldane (the British lord high chancellor) the following fol-lowing formula as one which would meet tha views of the Imperial government: gov-ernment: First: The high contracting parties , assure each other mutuaJly of their desire for peace and friendship. Second: They will not, either of them, make or prepare to make any unprovoked attack upon the other or Join In any combination or design against the other for the purposes of aggression, br become a party to any plan of naval or military enterprise, alone or In combination with any other oth-er power, directed to such an end, and declare themselves not to be bound by any such engagement. Benevolent Neutrality. Third: If either of the high contracting con-tracting parties becomes entangled In war with one or more powers, in which it cannot be said to bo the aggressor, ag-gressor, the other parly will at least observe toward the power so entangled en-tangled benevolent neutrality, and will use its utmost endeavor for the localisation of the conflict. If either of the high contracting parties is foiv.ed to go to war by obvious provocation provo-cation by a third party, they bind themselves to enter Into an exchange of views eoncurtilng their attitude on auch a conflict. Fourth: The making of new agreements agree-ments which render It Impossible for either of the parties to observe neutrality neu-trality toward the other beyond what is provided by the preceding limitation limita-tion Is excluded in conformity with the provisions of article 2. Sixth: The high contracting parties declare they will do all in their power to prevent differences and misunderstandings misunder-standings arising between them and other powers. Calls Conditions Unfair. These conditions, although in appearance ap-pearance fair, as between the parties, par-ties, would have been grossly unfair and one-aided in their operation. Owing to the general position of the European powers and treaty engagements engage-ments by which they were bound, the result of articles 4 and S would have been that while Germany. In case of a European conflict, would have remained re-mained free to support her friends, this country would have been forbidden for-bidden to raise n finger in defense of hers. Germany could arrange without difficulty dif-ficulty that the formal Inception of hostilities should rest with Austria. Tf Austria and Russia were at war Germany would support Austria, as Is evident from what occurred at the end of July, 1914, white aa soon as Russia was attacked by two powers. France was bound to come to her assistance. Tn other words, the pledge of neutrality offered by Germanv WOUM have been absolutely valueless because she could alwavs ptead the necessity of fulfilling her existing obligations ob-ligations under the triple alliance as an excuse for departing from neutrality. neu-trality. On the other hand, no such departure, de-parture, however serious the provocation, provo-cation, would have been possible for thla country, which was bound bv no alliances, with the exception o'f those of Japan and Portugal, while the making of fresh alliances was prohibited by article 5. In a word. M appeared still more evident later, there was to be a guarantee of ab- will therefore, as a matter of course, remain neutral If war Is forced upon Germany." This, he added, would not be binding-unless our wishes were met with regard to the naval programme. Sir Edward Grey considered that, the British proposals were sufficient. He explained that if Germany desired to crush France, England might not be able to sit still, though if France were aggressive or attacked Germany no support would be given by his majesty's majes-ty's government or approved by England. Eng-land. Sees Bad Faith. It Is obvious that the real object of the German proposal was to obtain ob-tain the neutrality of England in all eventualities, since should war break out, Germany would certainly contend con-tend that it had been forced upon her and would claim that England should remain neutral. An admirable example of this is the present war, in which. In spite of the facts, Germany contends war has been forced upon her. Even the third member of the triple alliance, who had sources of information not open to us. did not share this view, but regarded it as an aggressive war. Sir Edward Grey eventually proposed pro-posed the following formula :( "The two powers being mutually desirous of securing peace and friendship friend-ship between them. England declares that she will neither make nor join In any unprovoked attack on Germany. Ger-many. Aggression upon Germany forms no part of any treaty, understanding under-standing or combination to which England now Is a party, nor will she become a party to anything that has such an object." Sir Edward Grey, when he handed this formula to Count Wolff-Metternlch, said that the use of the word neutrality would convey the impression impres-sion that more was meant than was warranted by the text. He suggested that the substance of what was required re-quired would be obtained from the more accurately expressed words. "Will neither make nor join In any unprovoked attack." Chancellor Insists. Count Wolff-Metternlch thereupon received instructions to make it quite clear that the chancellor could recommend recom-mend to the emperor to give up the essential parts of the novelle (the bill then pending for an increase of the German navy) only if we could conclude an agreement guaranteeing neutrality of a far-reaching character charac-ter and leaving no doubt as to any interpretation. He admitted that the chancellor's wish amounted to a guarantee guar-antee of absolute neutrality, falling which the novelle must proceed. Count Wolff-Metternlch stated that there was no chance of withdrawing the novelle, but said that it might be mod If led. If would be disappoint -lug to the chancellor If we did not go beyond the formula we had suggested. sug-gested. Sir Edward Grey said that he could understand that there would be disappointment If his majesty's government were to state that the carrying out of the novelle would put an end to the negotiations and form an Insurmountable obstacle to better relations. His majesty's government did not say this and they hoped that the formula which they had suggested suggest-ed might be considered in connection with the discussion of territorial arrangements, ar-rangements, even tf it did not prove effective in preventing an increase in the naval expenditures. Sir Edward Grey added that tf some arrangement could be made between the two government it would have a favorable, though indirect effect upon, naval expenditures: as time went on, it would have, moreover, a favorable direct effect on the public opinion of both countries. A few days afterward Count Wolff-Metternlch Wolff-Metternlch communicated to Sir Edward Ed-ward Grey the substance of a letter from the chancellor. In which the latter lat-ter said that as the formula suggested suggest-ed by his majesty's government was from the German point of view, insufficient, in-sufficient, and as his majesty's government gov-ernment could not agree to the larger formula tor which he had asked the novelle must proceed on th,e lines on which it had been presented to the federal council. The negotiations then came to an end and with them the hope of a mutual reduction in the expenditure for armaments by the two countries |