The Brussels documents and the heresy of Woodrow Wilson

British Foreign Minister Edward Grey (left) and French Foreign Minister Théophile Delcassé (right) schemed to "inspire hostile feelings against Germany" from 1905 to 1914.

Two extraordinary articles from The Fatherland, by two extraordinary writers, make up this post, along with a shocking report on the US postal service further caving in to English demands.

First, we discover the World War I version of the famous “Potocki Papers” of WWII. Jerzy Potocki was the Polish ambassador to Washington from 1936 to 1940, whose dispatches to his government in Warsaw were discovered by the Wehrmacht after their victory in the 1939 German-Polish war. These documents proved the involvement of Franklin Roosevelt's "neutral" government with both Poland and England to incite war in Europe.

In likewise fashion, as Frederic Schrader informs us in the important article below, diplomatic documents were discovered in Brussels by the victorious German Army which revealed the machinations carried on by Great Britain beginning already in 1905 “to inspire hostile feelings against Germany.” Sir Edward Grey, Britain's foreign minister, and his French counterpart Théophile Delcassé schemed secretly to set the stage for a realignment of European powers. -cy

vol. 3 no. 16   November 24, 1915   Page 8

THE INDICTMENT OF ENGLAND

Record of Anglo-French Conspiracy Against Germany by Five Unprejudiced Witnesses

By Frederic Franklin Schrader

IT is a deplorable fact in relation to the European war that the average American begins his discussion of the events with the outbreak of hostilities, whereas the real history of the war began ten years before August 4, 1914. It is to be regretted, furthermore, that the German Government lacked the foresight to establish relations with one of the leading newspapers in New York—to buy it outright and control its policy with regard to the manner of presenting the news—in order to counteract the venomous influence which for more than a decade was exercised by England through the New York press upon the public mind of America. Though fifteen months have passed since the outbreak of the war, this press continues uninterruptedly to present but one side of the problems arising in connection with the great tragedy, and though the American people are doubtless by a considerable majority devoted to the motto, “America before England,” and inclined to study both sides impartially, they have never been permitted to get a glimpse of the diplomatic events which preceded the war save through the polluted channels of the London press as disseminated by its New York allies.

Now at last an impartial history of the diplomatic machinations by which Germany was forced into the war against her will has been made accessible to the public—and to anticipate any possible suspicion that it is the history of a German partisan, the reader is informed that it was written with no intention of finding its way into public print by the Belgian ministers to London, Paris and Berlin.

Among the documents found in Brussels by the victorious German troops was not only the tell-tale military convention between representatives of Great Britain and Belgium by which Belgium bartered away her neutrality—these papers have been discussed in a previous issue—but the complete reports made by Count de Lalaing, Belgian minister to London; Baron Greindl, Belgian minister to Berlin, and M.A. Leghait, Belgian minister to Paris, the series running from February 7, 1905, to April 26, 1912, after which the reports are rendered by Baron Beyens at Berlin and Baron Guillaume at Paris, concluding July 2, 1915.

Here is the complete history of every important diplomatic move made at the three principal capitals as recorded by trained observers reporting confidentially to their government. We see the Moroccan conspiracy between England and France showing its ugly face, we read these ministers boldly commenting on the sinister influences at work in London and Paris to inspire hostile feelings against Germany, sharp rebuffs of England's petty jealousy of Germany's prosperity, contempt for the snaky press organs beginning their campaign of vilification, notations on King Edward's scheme of isolating Germany, the scheming of Delcassé , etc. No partisan of Germany could possibly present the events preceding the war with a heartier sense of espousal of the justice of her cause than these Belgian diplomats writing under the seal of secrecy to their own government in order to advise it of what is going on behind the scenes. With this feeling doubtless, the German Government has issued the whole correspondence in pamphlet form under the title of “European Politics During the Decade Before the War as Described by Belgian Diplomats.” (25 cents; for sale by THE FATHERLAND. Ten cents extra for postage.) [I can't find this online -cy]

It consists of 144 pages and contains sundry fac simile reprints of the original documents, and the correspondence in the original French and in parallel columns the English translation. One of its best features is a carefully written introduction in which the correspondence is skilfully epitomized in a running review of editorial comments, so that the salient parts of the correspondence may be grasped and estimated in their true relationship.

The whole makes the impression of a world-wide criminal conspiracy engineered by Lord Lansdowne, [Edward] Grey, Delcassé, Poincare and Edward VII. Seeing France bleeding to death, there seems something like prophecy in M. Leghait's conjecture, written from Paris June 17, 1907: “England is preparing her ground admirably, but has France, who is joining her in her policy, all the necessary guarantees that she will not be the victim of this policy some day?” Seven years before the day which he prophesied would break in sorrow over France, Leghait wrote (same dispatch): “France is contracting a debt of gratitude which will seem heavy to her on the day when England will reveal the purpose for which she wants to use the influences which she had grouped around her.”

Baron Greindl in Berlin was so simple (according to those who represent Germany as the arch schemer) that in June 22, 1907, after England's alliance with Japan and her entente with France and Russia were followed by the understanding of Italy with France and England on the Mediterranean question, and by the agreement over Egypt and Morocco, etc., he wrote his government: “Japan is strong enough to guarantee the integrity of China alone until the day when it will suit her to violate it herself. It would be hard to admit that England needs Spain's assistance in order to defend her position in Egypt, Cyprus, Malta and Gibraltar. Who is thinking of attacking it and who, moreover, would have the material means to do so? France is no less secure in Algiers and Tunis. The danger could only come from one of the signatory powers, if the friendship existing between them at present were to break. If they do not contain any secret clause, they seem to have been concluded only for the pleasure of leaving Germany outside once more during the regulation of the interests of the world.”

Assuredly, this compact was designed to isolate Germany and arraign a horde of selfish enemies against her. Seven months later we find Baron Greindl writing (January 27, 1908): “The policy directed by King Edward VII [First cousin to Kaiser William, both grandsons of Queen Victoria with William being the elder -cy] under the pretext of guarding Europe from the imaginary German peril, has created a French danger which is only too real, and which is a menace above all to us.” And here occurs a significant passage (same report) which we recommend to the editors of the pro-Allied press in this country:

“Where did M. Delcassé see that Germany was endeavoring to impose her supremacy on other nations? We are her close neighbors, but for twenty years I have never observed in the Imperial Government the slightest desire to abuse its strength and our weakness. I wish that all the other great powers had used the same consideration toward us.”

On February 2, 1908, the Belgian minister at Berlin summarizes his view of English and Germany rivalry: “no one here ever cherished the absurd and impracticable idea of an attack against England; but everybody fears an English attack.” In the middle of 1908 Sir Frank Lascelles was removed against his will from the position of the British Ambassador at Berlin—why? Because, in the words of the Belgian diplomat: “If the British Government deprives itself of the services of a diplomat of such merit, it is only because Sir Frank Lascelles worked for fifteen years, without permitting himself to be discouraged by numerous checks, to bring about a rapprochement between Germany and England. The zeal which he displayed in order to dissipate the misunderstanding which he considered absurd and detrimental does not correspond with the views of his sovereign.”

Count de Lalaing, Belgian Minister to London, had no high opinion of the estimate on truth prevailing in the House of Lords, for he writes under date of November 30, 1911: “Lord Courtney of Penrith, a Liberal and a friend of Germany, attacked the policy of the Government (the Entente) because it had been aiming at the isolation of Germany (it is rare to hear that truth expressed in the British Parliament) and because it had not upheld the Act of Algeciras.” The minister adds: “These disagreeable truths were not to the liking of the House of Lords.”

It is impossible within this limited space to follow even remotely the remarkable story of British and French intrigue which the correspondence lays bare, and in almost every page of which the consensus of the Belgian diplomats is remarkable for the frank concession that Germany has no desire for a quarrel and is attending strictly to her own affairs. Baron Beyens, for instance, writes from Berlin November 30, 1912: “There is no doubt that the (German) Emperor, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs are passionately pacific.”

But little more space is available for additional citations, of which not even the most interesting or important have been more than casually referred to. In conclusion the writer will cite a report of Baron Beyens to his government, dated April 24, 1914, three months before the war, in which he comments on the official visit of the King and Queen of England to Paris and the then-prevailing relations between France and England:

“For us the most interesting point in connection with the visit of the sovereigns of Great Britain is to know whether the British Government would be as inclined today as three years ago to range itself by the side of France in case of a conflict of the latter with Germany. We have had the proof that a co-operation of the British army and the dispatching of an expeditionary corps to the continent have been considered by the military authorities of the two governments (England and France). Would it be the same today and would we still have to fear the entry of British soldiers into Belgium in order to help us to defend our neutrality by first compromising it?”

These are not the words of German apologists. This intensely interesting correspondence registers the conviction of five professional students of contemporary international history, living in the three chief capitals of Europe with the advantage of being detached and unprejudiced with regard to the facts. And their convictions are identical. ~

_______________

A shocker ...

vol. 3 no. 17   December 1, 1915   Page 12

SIR CECIL SPRING-RICE TAKES CHARGE OF POST OFFICE DEPARTMENTS

Editorial

THE Post Office has surrendered the last shred of the dignity of the United States by suspending the parcel post service to Germany and Austria-Hungary. The ostensible reason for this shameful act is the unwillingness of the Holland-American Lines to offend Great Britain by carrying articles of food to Germany in the teeth of the British blockade, even under the seal of the United States. Be it remembered that officially the United States refuses to “recognize” this blockade, no matter how cravenly we submit to British blackmail in practice. If we had a strong man in the White House, an American battleship would carry the mail through the War Zone. Mr. Wilson, however, suspends the entire service. One effect of the decision will be to keep American Christmas gifts from the children of Germany. It will also keep the supply of American condensed milk from thousands of suffering babies. BUT IT WILL CARRY OUT THE STARVATION POLICY OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The seal of our Government on the parcel post, as the New York Evening Mail points out in a vigorous editorial, has heretofore been taken to mean that the power of the government is back of its safe delivery.

“If the present ruling stands, the seal of our government will lose that assurance, and the convenience of the Steamship company will be supreme. Our government's attitude will be: We will send it—if there is no objection from any source …

“ 'The service is suspended'—such is the official word from Washington.

“Why should it be suspended? Why should it be possible for ships to sail from here loaded down with ammunition for one country, while other ships are permitted to tell our Post office department that we cannot dispatch parcels of foodstuffs to those far removed from battle lines?

“Why does not this government say to these steamship owners: 'You have cut off the United States mails because you want your ships to touch at English ports, and do not care to risk the delay caused by English search. We say to you that you cannot use American ports unless you carry American mails without discrimination. You must handle our Post Office department that we cannot dispatch parcels one without the other; you cannot use our ports only to the extent of your own interests. This government insists that its mail shall go unquestioned to the point of destination, wherever that may be.'

“Why do we, as a sovereign nation, not say to England: 'Stop interfering with our mails.'

“Throughout our own land, as the incident on woman's suffrage day so aptly demonstrated, the letters 'U.S. Mail' have a real meaning. The power and protection of the nation is back of them. Our people gladly give way under all conditions to the 'U.S. Mail.' It carries the hopes and fears, the words of cheer and good-will, the parcels of help and comfort, to our millions of families. We have girdled the world with it, and have a nation's pride in its efficiency.

“Yet at the moment of crisis, when its power and protection are needed for humanity's sake, we are stunned and humiliated by the message from Washington: 'Service Suspended.'” ~

_______________

The always wonderful Edmund von Mach has exceeded himself in the following essay explaining what being an American means. It does not mean what the 'England First' dual loyalists & monarchists want to believe it means, or the Pilgrim Society members we were introduced to in my last post. As a German who immigrated to the United States at the age of 21 years, Von Mach quickly grasped what it meant go be an American. At the time of this writing, he was 45 years old. Very impressive understanding of his adopted country. -cy

Page 13

SOVEREIGN OR SERVANT?

By Dr. Edmund von Mach, author of “Germany's Point of View”

IN his well-considered speech before the Manhattan Club in New York on November 4^th last Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, spoke as follows:

“The only thing within our own borders that has given us concern in recent months has been that voices have been raised in America professing to be the voices of Americans which were not indeed and in truth American, but which spoke alien sympathies, which came from men who loved other countries better than they loved America, men who were partisans of other causes than that of America and had forgotten that their chief and only allegiance was to the great government under which they live.”

Mr. Wilson is a man of learning, not given to hasty speech, and the above statement must be understood as deliberately voicing his convictions. During the past months, while Congress enjoyed a recess, the President represented the national government of the United States. He now solemnly claims that American citizens owe their “chief and only allegiance to the great government under which they live.”

Does the President really not know the American oath of allegiance? It reads:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion: So help me God.”

Ours is a government of laws and not of men—or at least so it should be. The people are sovereign in their own right, owing allegiance to no man, or group of men. The “government,” composed of men to whom the people entrust the management of their affairs from time to time, does not represent a sovereign to whom the people owe allegiance, as Mr. Wilson wishes to have the country believe. On the contrary, the American Government remains at all times the servant of the sovereign American people.

Mr. Wilson's deliberate statement does not square with the facts, is at variance with the Constitution, and represents a falsification of the American oath of allegiance.

If Mr. Wilson erred from ignorance, and none of his official advisers set him right, it implies a serious state of affairs, because it gives an insight into Mr. Wilson's un-American turn of mind. The lode star of every American should be the freedom and sovereignty of the people owing allegiance to none except the Constitution and the principles on which this nation was founded.

Nobody owes allegiance to Mr. Wilson, and if Mr. Wilson errs in his conduct of our affairs, or if a citizen believes Mr. Wilson errs, it is the bounden duty of such a citizen to raise his voice in protest. This is most especially true if Mr. Wilson expounds doctrines and claims rights and privileges for his government which run counter to the Constitution. If a citizen, realizing this, fails to protest, he breaks his oath of allegiance which forces him “to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

And in all seriousness the question must be asked whether greater danger can threaten the Constitution than from a chief executive, who in contravention of the Constitution and the principles on which the nation was founded, and in defiance of explicit pronouncement by the United States Supreme Court, preaches the doctrine that his fellow-citizens owe allegiance to him and his government.

“For as the sovereignty resides in the people,” says the United States Supreme Court (14 How. 38, 49), “every citizen is a portion of it.” In England and Canada men, women and children are subjects of King George, to whom they owe allegiance. In the United States nobody is anybody's subject, for the people are sovereign. A sovereign cannot owe allegiance to any one, while he may give his allegiance to principles and ideals, and to the instrument which is drawn to protect them.

If all this is true, assuming only an error on Mr. Wilson's part, how much more imperative becomes vigorous action against him, if it should appear that he claimed allegiance for himself and his government not in error, but in knowing defiance of the Constitution and the lawfully established American Oath of Allegiance.

It may be assumed, without the shadow of a doubt, that Mr. Wilson is familiar with the Constitution, and Article II governing the Executive Department. Section II discusses the Powers of the President, Section III the Duties of the President, and Section IV his Impeachment. Neither in the section on his powers nor in that of his duties is any sentence written which could even remotely be construed as suggesting that his fellow citizens owed the President or his government “chief and only allegiance.”

Nor is it conceivable that Woodrow Wilson should have been unfamiliar with the American Oath of Allegiance. It is printed on every application blank for a passport. The Secretary of State doubtless knows this oath by heart, and yet the President, without protest from his official family, dared to utter the heresy that the American people owe “Chief and only allegiance to the great government under which they live.”

If he should resolve to stand by this doctrine he would properly be “removed from office on impeachment,” as specified in Article II, Section IV, of the Constitution.

Hiding his own partisan conduct of our international relations with the English and the Teutonic allies, respectively, behind an attack on those who want justice and not personal bias, humanity and not financial interest in our intercourse with foreign nations; and basking in the support of a press which for purely materialistic reasons has espoused the cause of England, Woodrow Wilson has at last shown how extremely un-American the trend of his spirit is.

By his Manhattan Club speech Woodrow Wilson hoped to squelch the opponents of his Morgan-dictated foreign policy. Grant God that he did more, that he aroused every American citizen to a realization of the danger threatening the liberties and principles of the American people so long as Woodrow Wilson resides in the White House. For Woodrow Wilson, either in error or in wilful defiance of the Constitution, is claiming for himself and his government the allegiance of a sovereign people! ~