War 1914: Punishing the Serbs

Excerpts from official papers : –

'M.N. Pashitch, [Serbian] Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, to all the Royal Serbian Legations abroad.

Belgrade, June 18/July 1, 1914.

'The Austrian and Hungarian press are blaming Serbia more and more for the Sarajevo outrage. Their aim is transparent, viz., to destroy that high moral reputation which Serbia now enjoys in Europe, and to take the fullest advantage politically against Serbia of the act of a young and ill-balanced fanatic. But, in Serbia itself, the Sarajevo outrage has been most severely condemned in all circles of society, inasmuch as all, official as well as unofficial, immediately recognised that this outrage would be most prejudicial not only to our good neighbourly relations with Austria-Hungary but also to our co-nationalists in that country, as recent occurrences have proved. At a moment when Serbia is doing everything in her power to improve her relations with the neighbouring Monarchy, it is absurd to think that Serbia could have directly or indirectly inspired acts of this kind. On the contrary, it was of the greatest interest to Serbia to prevent the perpetration of this outrage. Unfortunately this did not lie within Serbia's power, as both assassins are Austrian subjects. Hitherto Serbia has been careful to suppress anarchic elements, and after recent events she will redouble her vigilance, and in the event of such elements existing within her borders will take the severest measures against them....'

*******

'Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs] to Sir M. de Bunsen, British Ambassador at Vienna.

Foreign Office, July 23, 1914.

' ... I could not help dwelling upon the awful consequences involved in the situation.... [I]t would be very desirable that those who had influence in St. Petersburgh should use it on behalf of patience and moderation.... [T]he amount of influence that could be used... would depend upon how reasonable were the Austrian demands and how strong the justification that Austria might have discovered for making her demands. The possible consequences of the present situation were terrible. If as many as four Great Powers of Europe – let us say, Austria, France, Russia, and Germany – were engaged in war, it seemed to me that it must involve the expenditure of so vast a sum of money, and such an interference with trade, that a war would be accompanied or followed by a complete collapse of European credit and industry. In these days, in great industrial States, this would mean a state of things worse than that of 1848, and, irrespective of who were victors in the war, many things might be completely swept away....'

*******

'Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs] to Sir M. de Bunsen, British Ambassador at Vienna.

(Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, July 24, 1914.

'Note addressed to Serbia, together with an explanation of the reasons leading up to it, has been communicated to me by [the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador] Count Mensdorff.

'In the ensuing conversation with his Excellency, I remarked that it seemed to me a matter for great regret that a time limit, and such a short one at that, had been insisted upon at this stage of the proceedings. The murder of the Archduke and some of the circumstances respecting Serbia quoted in the note aroused sympathy with Austria, as was natural, but at the same time I had never before seen one State address to another independent State a document of so formidable a character. Demand No. 5 would be hardly consistent with the maintenance of Serbia's independent sovereignty if it were to mean, as it seemed that it might, that Austria-Hungary was to be invested with a right to appoint officials who would have authority within the frontiers of Serbia....'

*******

'Sir G. Buchanan, British Ambassador at St. Petersburgh, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received July 24.)

(Telegraphic.) St. Petersburgh, July 24, 1914.

' ... I said that I would telegraph a full report to you of what their Excellencies had just said to me. I could not, of course, speak in the name of His Majesty's Government, but personally I saw no reason to expect any declaration of solidarity from His Majesty's Government that would entail an unconditional engagement on their part to support Russia and France by force of arms. Direct British interests in Serbia were nil, and a war on behalf of that country would never be sanctioned by British public opinion....

'French Ambassador and M. Sazonof [Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs] both continued to press me for a declaration of complete solidarity of His Majesty's Government with French and Russian Governments, and I therefore said that it seemed to me possible that you might perhaps be willing to make strong representations to both German and Austrian Governments, urging upon them that an attack by Austria upon Serbia would endanger the whole peace of Europe. Perhaps you might see your way to saying to them that such action on the part of Austria would probably mean Russian intervention, which would involve France and Germany, and that it would be difficult for Great Britain to keep out if the war were to become general. M. Sazonof answered that we would sooner or later be dragged into war if it did break out...'

*******

'Mr. Crackanthorpe, British Chargé d' Affaires at Belgrade, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received July 24.)

(Telegraphic.) Belgrade, July 24, 1914.

'Austrian demands are considered absolutely unacceptable by Serbian Government, who earnestly trust that His Majesty's Government may see their way to induce Austrian Government to moderate them.

'This request was conveyed to me by Serbian Prime Minister, who returned early this morning to Belgrade. His Excellency is dejected, and is clearly very anxious as to developments that may arise.'

*******

'Sir G. Buchanan, British Ambassador at St. Petersburgh, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received July 25.)

(Telegraphic.) St. Petersburgh, July 25, 1914.

' ... On my expressing the earnest hope that Russia would not precipitate war by mobilising until you had had time to use your influence in favour of peace, his Excellency assured me that Russia had no aggressive intentions, and she would take no actions until it was forced upon her. Austria's action was in reality directed against Russia. She aimed at overthrowing the present status quo in the Balkans, and establishing her own hegemony there. He did not believe that Germany really wanted war, but her attitude was decided by ours. If we took our stand firmly with France and Russia there would be no war. If we failed them now, rivers of blood would flow, and we would in the end be dragged into war....'

*******

'Mr. Crackanthorpe, British Chargé d' Affaires at Belgrade, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received July 25.)

(Telegraphic.) Belgrade, July 25, 1914.

'The Council of Ministers is now drawing up their reply to the Austrian note. I am informed by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that it will be most conciliatory and will meet the Austrian demands in as large a measure as is possible.

'The following is a brief summary of the projected reply:–

'The Serbian Government consent to the publication of a declaration in the “Official Gazette.” The ten points are accepted with reservations. Serbian Government declare themselves ready to agree to a mixed commission of enquiry so long as the appointment of the commission can be shown to be in accordance with international usage. They consent to dismiss and prosecute those officers who can be clearly proved to be guilty, and they have already arrested the officer referred to in the Austrian note. They are prepared to suppress the Narodna Odbrana ['Defence of the People': a Serbian nationalist group].

'The Serbian Government consider that, unless the Austrian Government want war at any cost, they cannot but be content with the full satisfaction offered in the Serbian reply.'

*******

'Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs] to Sir G. Buchanan, British Ambassador at St. Petersburgh.

(Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, July 25, 1914.

' ... The sudden, brusque, and peremptory character of the Austrian démarche makes it almost inevitable that in a very short time both Russia and Austria will have mobilised against each other. In this event, the only chance of peace, in my opinion, is for the other four Powers to join in asking the Austrian and Russian Governments not to cross the frontier, and to give time for the four Powers acting at Vienna and St. Petersburgh to try and arrange matters. If Germany will adopt this view, I feel strongly that France and ourselves should act upon it. Italy would no doubt gladly co-operate....'

*******

'Reply of Serbian Government to Austro-Hungarian Note. – (Communicated by Serbian Minister, July 27.)

(Translation.)

' ... The Royal Government [of Serbia] also agree to remove from military service all such persons as the judicial enquiry may have proved to be guilty of acts directed against the integrity of the territory of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and they expect the Imperial and Royal Government to communicate to them at a later date the names and the acts of these officers and officials for the purposes of the proceedings which are to be taken against them.

'The Royal Government [of Serbia] must confess that they do not clearly grasp the meaning or the scope of the demand made by the Imperial and Royal Government that Serbia shall undertake to accept the collaboration of the organs of the Imperial and Royal Government upon their territory, but they declare that they will admit such collaboration as agrees with the principle of international law, with criminal procedure, and with good neighbourly relations....'

*******

'Sir M. de Bunsen, British Ambassador at Vienna, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received July 27.)

(Telegraphic.) Vienna, July 27, 1914.

'I have had conversations with all my colleagues representing the Great Powers. The impression left on my mind is that the Austro-Hungarian note was so drawn up as to make war inevitable; that the Austro-Hungarian Government are fully resolved to have war with Serbia...'

*******

'Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs] to Sir E. Goschen, British Ambassador at Berlin.

Foreign Office, July 29, 1914.

' ... The German Ambassador said the view of the German Government was that Austria could not by force be humiliated, and could not abdicate her position as a Great Power. I said I entirely agreed, but it was not a question of humiliating Austria, it was a question of how far Austria meant to push the humiliation of others....'

*******

'Sir G. Buchanan, British Ambassador at St. Petersburgh, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received August 2.)

(Telegraphic.) St. Petersburgh, August 1, 1914.

' ... In the evening M. Sazonof [Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs] had an interview with the Austrian Ambassador who, not being definitely instructed by his Government, did his best to deflect the conversation towards a general discussion of the relations between Austria-Hungary and Russia instead of keeping to the question of Serbia. In reply the Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed his desire that these relations should remain friendly, and said that, taken in general, they were perfectly satisfactory; but the real question which they had to solve at this moment was whether Austria was to crush Serbia and to reduce her to the status of a vassal, or whether she was to leave Serbia a free and independent State....'

“History the Interpreter of Prophecy” (1799)

Union Flag 1606-1800

HISTORY

THE

INTERPRETER OF PROPHECY,

OR,

A V I E W

OF

SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES

AND THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENT

IN THE

PAST AND PRESENT

OCCURRENCES OF THE WORLD;

WITH

CONJECTURES RESPECTING THEIR FUTURE

COMPLETION.

_______________________

BY HENRY KETT, B.D.

FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD, AND ONE

OF HIS MAJESTY'S PREACHERS AT WHITEHALL.

________________________

IN THREE VOLUMES.

VOL. III.

OXFORD;

Printed for Messrs. HANWELL and PARKER; and J.COOKE;

And sold by C.and J.RIVINGTON, St. Paul's Church-Yard;

ROBSON, Bond-Street; EGERTON, Whitehall;

CADELL and DAVIES, Strand; and HAT-

CHARD, Piccadilly, London.

MDCCXCIX.

[1799]

In his 1799 work, Henry Kett writes the following concerning, 'the re-instatement of the Jews in their own land'; and Britain's possible involvement as the nation to facilitate that long-prophesied, restoration:

'“Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows? Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarsish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver, and their gold with them; unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee. And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee.” Isaiah lx.

'Is it an improbable conjecture, that the British isles so highly favoured by the establishment of the Church of Christ, and hitherto by signal marks of Divine protection in the midst of surrounding dangers and temptations, should be brought, by a merciful share of general calamity, “to see the things that belong to their peace,” and continue to wait with faith and hope, for the accomplishment of the good promises of God? and that this maritime, commercial, Protestant kingdom should take the lead in executing the Divine will on such an occasion?' (pp. 229-230).

The Rise of Germany

From Winston S Churchill's, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Vol. 4, “The Great Democracies”; (Cassel & Company Ltd, 1958, 1974); “Book Twelve; Chapter Fifteen – The Rise of Germany” :

'In 1861 William I of Prussia ascended the throne of Frederick the Great, and marked the first years of his reign with three public appointments whose impact on European history and modern events is incalculable. Count von Moltke became Chief of the General Staff, Count von Roon Minister of War, and – most important of all – Count Otto von Bismarck was recalled from the Embassy in Paris to become Minister-President of Prussia. First as Chancellor of the North German Federation, and finally of the German Empire, this singular genius presided with a cold passion over the unification and Prussianisation of Germany, the elimination of Prussia's nearest European rivals, and the elevation of William to the German Emperor's throne in 1871. . . .

'Absolute monarchy was [Bismarck's] ideal and aim. Liberalism and Parliamentarianism were anathema [to him]. [He believed that] Prussia must be purged of weak and liberal elements so that she could fulfil her destiny of leading and controlling the German-speaking peoples. A decisive struggle with Austria was [therefore] inevitable.

'Before a background of intense, brilliant, and unscrupulous diplomatic activity the three hammer-blows that forged Germany were deliberately prepared and struck. These were the war with Denmark in 1864, by which the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein were attached to Prussia, the Seven Weeks' War of 1866, in which Austria was crushed and her associates in Germany overrun, and as culmination the war against France in 1870.' (pp. 207-208)

'Britain played no effective part in this affair. Palmerston would have liked to intervene, for Britain had guaranteed the integrity of Denmark by the Treaty of Berlin in 1852, which he himself had helped to negotiate. Before the blow fell he had said in the House of Commons: “We are convinced – I am convinced at least – that if any violent attempt were made to overthrow [Danish] rights and interfere with that independence those who made the attempt would find in the result that it would not be Denmark alone with which they would have to contend.” But the Cabinet was hesitant and divided and was not prepared to back these imprecise assurances. . . . [Under these circumstances, and in the reluctance of any of the other European Powers to involve themselves on the side of the Danes in the dispute] Palmerston felt he could do no more than press for conferences and mediation. It is not the only time in British history when strength has been lacking to reinforce bold words. Palmerston's words had given the Danes a false sense of security and tempted them to obduracy in an argument where legality did not entirely lie on their side, though some justice did. An ominous precedent was thus set for what the Germans politely called Realpolitik, while Britain and France looked on. Realpolitik meant that standards of morality in international affairs could be ignored whenever material advantage might be gained.' (p. 209)

In Two Years After and Onwards, or The Approaching War Amongst the Powers of Europe, (published the same year as the Dano-Germanic war of 1864) the works' Author, David Pae, wrote the following concerning the position then taken by Britain in that conflict:

'The course she did take, in not rendering material aid to Denmark, was the right course, though naturally her sympathies lay on the side of the weak and ill-used power. But the course of neutrality she adopted was consistent with her policy in regard to Poland and Italy. The claims of Denmark were not greater than the claims of those other countries; but Britain, being the guardian of universal, and not sectional liberty, kept neutral towards all.' (p. 93)

And he was of the opinion that in the predicted 'universal war' to come, that it would be in the best interests of Britain to remain neutral – to 'husband her strength and resources' – up until such time as she would need to intervene in Palestine, and the Near East, to safeguard the overland route to her 'Eastern [Indian] possessions'.

John Charmley, the British historian who specialises in modern diplomatic and political history, in the Introduction to his work, Splendid Isolation? Britain, the Balance of Power and the Origins of the First World War (1999), writes:

'One strand in the 'inevitability' argument is the belief that Britain had a role to play in maintaining the balance of power in Europe and that this 'traditional' policy was being fulfilled in 1914 and 1939. Neville Chamberlain is assaulted for not following this tradition. Yet where was this 'tradition' between 1815 and 1914, or between 1714 and 1793 for that matter?

'This book dissents from the view that there was such a traditional foreign policy, and therefore from the opinion that the British involvement in the war of 1914 was inevitable; it dissents, by implication, from the view that British participation was desirable. Just before this book begins in 1874, the Germans had defeated the French. The skies had not fallen in and civilisation had not ended; nor would it have done in 1914 had the German once more defeated the French.'

But returning back to Churchill's work, and the actual events of history – Churchill continues:

'The outcome of the war with Denmark was soon to furnish the pretext and occasion for the next and far more important step of eliminating Austria from the German Confederation [(in the Seven Weeks' War of 1866), and therefore ensuring Prussian hegemony] . . . Schleswig and Holstein had [on annexation] become a condominium of Prussia and Austria. Bismarck played upon the awkwardness of this arrangement, maintaining a screen of protests against the indignant but long-suffering Austrians [whist seeking the support of the other Continental Powers]. . . .

'The stage was set. . . . Within ten days of the outbreak of war Hanover, Hesse, and Saxony were occupied. The King of Hanover, grandson of George III, fled to England and his country was incorporated in Prussia. Thus disappeared the ancient Electorate which had given Britain her Protestant dynasty in 1714. . . .

'Three weeks later the Prussians were within reach of Vienna. At Bismarck's vehement insistence the capital was spared the humiliation of occupation and the peace terms were once again lenient. Bismarck's mind was already turned to his next move, and he set store by future Austrian friendship. “So to limit a victory,” he said, “is not only generous but a most wise policy. But for the victor to benefit from it the recipient must be worthy.” Austria's only territorial loss was Venetia, granted to Italy, but she was finally excluded from Germany and her future ambitions had inevitably to lie south-eastwards among the Slavs. So ended the Seven Weeks' War. . . . The balance of Continental power had changed radically. A premonitory shudder went through France . . . .' (pp. 210, 212)

“The Position of Britain”

'The downfall of Napoleon in 1815 left Britain in unchallenged dominion over a large portion of the globe. France and indeed the whole continent of Europe was exhausted. A United Germany had not yet arisen and Italy still lay in fragments. Russia was withdrawing from Western Europe. The Spanish and Portuguese peoples were busy in their peninsula and in their tropical possessions overseas. In the following decades revolution and civil commotion smote many of the Powers of Europe, and new nations were born. Britain alone escaped almost unscathed from these years of unrest.'

(From the Preface to Winston S Churchill's, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Vol. 4, “The Great Democracies”; Cassel & Company Ltd, 1958, 1974).

What follows is extracted from Chapter VI of, The Approaching War Among the Powers of Europe (1864):

CHAPTER VI

THE POSITION OF BRITAIN

'Whatever be Britain's shortcomings and defections, surely she is a nation in which lives the genius of the gospel of Jesus. Liberty, benevolence, public charity, progress, enlightenment, have all had a starting-point in the land. If there is error, sin, and backsliding, let it be remembered that humanity is in a state of imperfection; and let this also never be forgotten, that Britain has only to be true to the religious foundation on which she rests, to reach national purity and righteousness. The foundation is laid, and needs not to be changed. What she requires to do is to build in harmony with the foundation, and to sweep away her false erections; and when “the time of trouble” comes . . . the day of fiery trial shall purge this land, but shall not destroy it . . . . [T]he trial to which Britain is to be subjected shall be in proportion to her failure to build aright on her true foundation. . . .

'This is the test to which Britain shall be put in the day of European judgment. Her highest wisdom now is to cultivate that righteousness which exalteth a nation; to rid herself more and more of her connexion with Antichrist; and to understand, better than she yet does, the relation of antagonism which she occupies to the despotic powers of Europe, so that she may clearly know the work that has been given her to do, and do it, not from the promptings of instinct and feeling and interest alone, but from a regard for truth and justice, from a conviction of duty, and from a deeper spiritual insight. She is like a great giant, working with half-opened eyes, and in the main she takes the right path, but it is less through judgment than through instinct. What she much wants is a clearer knowledge of her position, and of her high mission in the interests of humanity. Let but her statesmen govern and her people obey, under a knowledge of the truth, and she shall proceed on her high course with immensely increased intelligence and power.

'Britain is the natural antagonist of the despotisms of Europe, and she and they are equally conscious that she is so. She is openly disliked by the whole of them; her liberal laws, her free institutions, her popular government, her protest against oppression, and her unfettered advocacy of human rights, make her hated by those powers whose thrones are based on tyranny and maintained by iron rule — while her physical power makes her feared as much as she is hated. . . .

'Britain proves incontestable that popular government is no vain theory, and that free thought and action lead not to anarchy, but to the safest and securest order. Nowhere in Europe is the majesty of the law so manifest as in this country, where the law-makers are the law-obeyers, and where the highest freedom is found to spring directly out of the strongest necessity. Accordingly, Britain has ever been a stimulative to patriots and peoples who have struggled to be free: to this land of ours all true hearts and panting nationalities turn for sympathy and guidance; Britain is to them the land of the morning, the land of light and hope, the bright beaming star in the darkness of their sky: and likewise, by a correspondence of feeling, the despots and oppressors regard Britain with a common hatred, and view her as the nursery of European revolution. There can possibly be no cordial friendship between her and them; they belong to the doomed past, she belongs to the promised future; they are the offspring of darkness, she is the child of light; they are an incarnate and developed lie, she is the embryo of undying truth. In all things she stands as their antipodes, and though political expediency may cause them to maintain with her an external correspondence, they would gladly hail a safe opportunity to crush and overthrow her.

'She is, however, a divinely-reserved power to work against them. Her place and influence in fulfilled prediction have been prominent within the last fifty years, and her whole history for more than three hundred years back has been a preparation for her grand mission on the earth. She was made the great centre of truth, and she has been a centre of influence for the whole world. Her ideas are not those ideas of conquest or of military glory, which have ever animated heathen and antichristian powers; but they are ideas of peace, of industry, of commerce, and moral and intellectual progress. Thus she has colonised the earth, and planted her race and her principles on distant continents. Her language is spoken, and her institutions flourish, in all parts of the globe; while her power is so far spread as to induce the remark, that on the British Empire the sun never sets. In prosecuting this work, she has by no means kept her garments spotless. She has sometimes been unjust and oppressive towards the tribes whose territories she entered upon; and one serious blot upon her conduct was the introduction of negro slavery into America. But see how the gospel principles she rested on ultimately brought her right on that matter, and caused her, at the cost of an immense sum of money, to emancipate the slaves in her West Indian possessions, and to decree that the moment the foot of a slave rested on British soil, that slave was free! It is the noble characteristic of our country, and one which makes amends for many faults, that she is open to the ingress of truth; and that when she comes to see her duty, she will do it, at whatever sacrifice.

'It was for a very important purpose that Britain rose to supremacy, and extended herself over the globe. The territory occupied by the Babylonian empire was given up to Antichrist There he was to establish his seat — to set up his banner of rebellion; and there he was to reign and triumph in his wickedness, till the time determined should be accomplished. But the world at large was not to be given him for a prey. Christ was to have the heathen for His inheritance, and the uppermost parts of the earth for His possession; and it was necessary that a diffusive and evangelising power should be raised up to spread His truth and maintain His cause, and to prepare the way for His kingdom that was to come. At the very borders of the antichristian territory, therefore, — and so near that Antichrist cast its shadow over it, yet so separated by insular position as to remain distinct and apart, — the Anglo-Saxon people grew into a strong and independent power. Keeping Continental despotism in check, and sending its God-received life and truth into unpeopled wastes and heathen wilds, Britain has shadowed with its wings the very ends of the earth. . . . It has sent its people to occupy the far West, and the still far more distant South. It has sent its missionaries and spread the Bible among the regions of the shadow of death. It is easy enough to sermonise on the sins of our land; but let her be judged by the wide charity of the gospel of Christ, and let justice be done to the efforts she has made, and the achievements she has accomplished, on behalf of human freedom. Fix the thoughts not on particular flaws and blots, but on general tendencies and characteristics, and these will be found to be on the side of truth and for the sake of that Christian truth which she holds, and on which she rests . . .

'Britain is, we say, a divinely-reserved power, and her mission is twofold, — to spread the truth, and take a stand against despotism. This latter work she has most obviously been doing for the past half century. . . . (pp. 84-92)

(“Britannia” Union Flag image modified from image by Charles Ashburner from: “FOTW Flags Of The World Website” at http://flagspot.net/flags)