-Caveat Lector- an excerpt from: Revelations of an International Spy I. T. T. Lincoln Robert M. McBride & Company�1916 New York ----- CHAPTER II HIDDEN DIPLOMATIC MOVES IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD (Secret Service Work�March�June, 1906) THE Hotel de la Poste, in which I made my headquarters on my first mission to Brussels in March, 1906, is one of the old-fashioned, comfortable hotels one still finds in Europe. In this modest hostelry there is excellent service, superb cooking, and a 'leave admirable," which more than compensate for the questionable advantages of luxurious furniture, superabundance of mirrors and page boys�the stock in trade�of latter-day "palace hotels." One evening shortly after my arrival I was honored at dinner by the presence of the Honorable Percy Wyndham, First Secretary of the British Legation, in whose conversation, under the stimulus of excellent Clos Veugeot, I hoped to discover some fresh gossip of the chancelleries. I ventured to get his complexion of mind on the Morocco Conference. "You diplomats, Wyndham, are past-masters in the art of coining phrases-look at this Morocco Conference heralded by an ecstatic press and by a flood of after-dinner oratory as a permanent guarantee of peace. What has it brought? Nothing, my dear Sir, but tension and crisis. I am sorely afraid it is the precursor of an Anglo-Russian understanding, which in turn will be the inevitable step toward war�a great European war. What a. policy is this for Gladstone's party to father!" "That's all very well, my dear fellow, but don It forget it is a question of expediency for us. We have made up our differences with France and are on the way to do so with Russia-you see, it is a kind of insurance policy against the German menace." "Look here, Wyndham, you are not addressing a public meeting in England or the House of Commons�leave your sophistries; they are out of place with me. By entering into a treaty with Germany's western neighbor," [France], "negotiating one with her eastern" [Russia], "you create a German menace. In other words, you provoke her, you push her-it seems deliberately�into an antagonistic, aye, hostile attitude." "That may be so," he said, lifting his glass and smiling across to me, "but perhaps it fits into our policy." I did not push my advantage. It would have been unwise then to pursue the subject further. Under the casual and informal guise of irresponsible table-talk I could safely approach the subject in our frequent meetings. His unguarded admission was significant in light of my instructions from "D," and the questions, which my readers will recall, had determined to answer: 1. Did England and France, under the influence of the Morocco crisis of last year, contemplate or conclude an alliance directed against Germany? If so, what was to be its scope and what were its provisions? 2. What was the nature of the feelers and negotiations going on between France and England and Russia, with a view of extending the Entente Cordiale? 3. What was discussed in the last week of January in Windsor Castle between King Edward VII and the Ambassadors present there? 4. What was behind the Congo agitation? I received these instructions during the last days of March, 1906. I set to work. Prior to this I had had several cautious conversations with Sir Arthur Hardinge, British Minister in Brussels. I should point out here and now that each embassy and legation is always kept informed by the Government of the general direction of their foreign policy, sudden changes, and flanking movements, though they may not be acquainted with all the details and secret negotiations. If, for instance, there is a meeting of minds in England and Russia on a pertinent topic, it is important that the British Minister in Brussels should know of it; for the Congo question, the employment of Belgians in the Persian customs (the historic spot of Anglo-Russian rivalry), may all be used as a lever in any desired direction. Again, the British Ambassador in Constantinople may by these timely words be warned not to oppose too vehemently or openly the habitual intrigues of his Russian colleague at the Sublime Porte. Even ministers in remote stations, such as Buenos-Aires or Mexico City, are kept informed of the various moves, but not as minutely as the European embassies or legations, who are important pawns on the diplomatic chessboard. Now, during my frequent conversations with Sir Arthur Hardinge (I could always find a pretext of seeing him in connection with my economic investigation), I always criticized England's foreign policy-and greatly deprecated the Entente Cordiale. This was by no means a pretended criticism-it was my honest conviction. I could never draw Sir Arthur into a general conversation�I did not really try. I was quite satisfied if I could learn from him sufficient to enable me to pump Mr. Wyndham, After all, the despatches[sic] from or to the Foreign Office in London were deciphered by Mr. Wyndham, so, of course, he knew all. I remember once during this time (in April) having called on Sir Arthur Hardinge at the legation in Rue de Spa on some matter connected with my economic investigation. The day before there was a rather ironical, almost cynical, editorial in the Times about Germany's inconsistent and noisy foreign policy, quite particularly as regards Morocco; how they had climbed down, etc. I called His Excellency's attention to its brilliance and mordant satire. "Cherchez l'Italie" His Excellency smilingly remarked. To me this was a tremendously significant remark, for it was evident, even to the most casual newspaper reader, that Italy was not acting loyally to her partners at the Algeciras conference. Knowing that the attitude of a government on any question of international importance is at all times determined by material considerations, I could perceive the impelling influence behind this "cherchez l'Italie!" A few days afterwards Mr. Wyndham was my guest at luncheon. Over our coffee, liqueur, and cigars said I: "Did you read that ironical editorial in the Times a few days ago�on Germany, the bete noir of Printing House Square?" "Yes," it was very good, quite funny," he remarked. "This Algeciras conference," I said, "will mean trouble in the future, I am afraid. The deflection of Italy from her partners in the Triple Alliance will be interpreted by Germany, and rightly so as a further attempt to isolate her. And she will not submit to it. Do you really suppose that she does not know that Italy has been squared for her support and promise?" "You mean the 500,000 men?" I said "yes"�although I did not know what 500,000 men, or what they meant at all. But I posed as one who knew. "Now, Italy may consider the prize worth her promise and support, but any attempt to honor the promissory note will be prevented by Germany�who, conscious of her strength and position, will not submit to continual snubbing and offense." "My dear fellow, matters will not be driven to extremes until the ring around her is strong and completely forged, 'I was his ominous reply. But I did not yet know who or what those 500,000 men were. "I hope," I continued, "that Grey makes no mistake, for, after all, he might think the ring forged and strong and it might turn out to be weak. Consider the disastrous, the irretrievable, consequences. In a future war 500,000 men here or there will have no decisive issue." "I do not agree with you. Five hundred thousand Italian soldiers thrown against the Germans in South Germany�via Austria�will threaten Germany's lines and communications in Alsacea very decisive theater of war in the future conflict. " I was getting on quite well. After this, it did not take me long to find out all about the 500,000 men. Here is the full story. During the diplomatic skirmishings preceding the opening of the Algeciras conference, Italy's support was gained on the following understanding: Should war result between France and Germany or should the tension between the two result in a European conflagration, Italy would come to the aid of France with 500,000 men. In return she was promised Tripoli (at the first opportune time), besides concessions on the vexed question of Abyssinian railways, so long opposed by England. The question of I 'economic concessions I in Asia Minor received "favorable reception," with an assurance of "sympathetic consideration" when the time came, but nothing more substantial. This is by no means the only Franco-British intrigue behind the scenes of Algeciras. Count Cassini, the Russian Plenipotentiary, and Sir Arthur Nicholson, the British Plenipotentiary and newly appointed British Ambassador at St. Petersburg, continued to discuss the bases of a general understanding between the two countries. These negotiations were started soon after the Anglo-French treaty of 1904, but they were discontinued during the Russo-Japanese War. Mr. Huybers, the correspondent of the Times in Belgium and Holland between 1900-09, also gave me a most valuable and startling piece of information. I was introduced to Mr. Huybers by Sir Arthur Hardinge, who took me in the legation's carriage to him�a fact which must have had its effect on Mr. Huybers. Indeed, Mr. Huybers used to converse freely with me and communicate to me anything of importance. He did this without any arriere pensee; it was nothing but an exchange of views between two men who agreed on the subject. Mr. Huybers is a gentleman of high moral standard and he thoroughly disagreed with English foreign policy and the policy of his paper. Indeed, it was this disagreement that led him to sever his connection with the Times. In justice to Mr. Huybers I must say that he did not know who I really was, yet, on the other hand, he never bound me to secrecy�so I do not think I should withhold the information he gave me. Deploring the anti-German direction of Britain's foreign policy, he plaintively remarked: "The Times has fallen low from its once high tradition. Just imagine! Mr. (now Sir) Valentine Chirol, Director of Foreign Department of the Times (1899-1912), gave me instructions to suppress all news tending to improve Anglo-German relations and to bolster up everything that might embitter it." This same instruction was given to all European Times correspondents. I was staggered. Can, any one imagine a more Machiavellian, aye, diabolical scheme to sow distrust, dissension, and hatred between two great nations? But his own comment on this information is even more startling. "I have reasons to say that Lord Esher is behind this inspiration." Lord Esher, it should be remarked, was King Edward VII's unofficial but trusted and confidential adviser. I considered this information of such importance that I immediately sent it on to "D"�not waiting for the completion of my report. It was this very same Times which gave great prominence to the publication of an appeal for better relations between Britain and Germany issued on January 12, 1906, by a very influential committee of prominent Britons and Germans. Concurrently with these little intimate dinner parties with Mr. Wyndham, or Mr. Huybers, and my rather frequent visits to Sir Arthur Hardinge at the British Legation, I also had several illuminating interviews with Monsieur Sam Wiener, Belgian Senator. The Senator always received me with utmost cordiality and discussed questions of international importance quite freely, due, no doubt, to the fact that I was introduced to him by Sir Arthur Hardinge. It should be pointed out that the Senator was one of King Leopold II's confidential advisers and from him I learned these hidden cracks in the lava: During the acute stages of the Morocco crisis of 1905, England and France inquired of the Belgian Government what would be their stand in case of an armed conflict between France and Germany and what political attitude they would assume. The reply, inspired by King Leopold II�an inveterate opponent of British policy throughout the world, as we shall see later�was as follows: Belgium would mobilize her forces to defend her neutrality; as to her political attitude, that would be determined by the circumstances of the moment. This reply did not in the least satisfy England and France, and they suspected, with good reason, as M. Wiener added, that, should Germany invade Belgium, King Leopold would simply protest but would not oppose it by force of arms. This was one of the reasons of the sacrifice of M. Delcasse by the French Government in 1905 and the acceptance by them of Germany's proposal of a European conference for the settling of the Morocco question. France, under such circumstances, would have been crushed before she was fully mobilized. For my own satisfaction I wanted to have confirmation of this from Sir Arthur Hardinge. He, indeed, confirmed this and added. "Indeed, Belgium is. in an unfortunate position. If she is not amenable to France, she is bullied by her and threatened with tariff wars and the like. If she is, she is threatened by Germany, and vice versa." Senator Wiener assured me that the renewal and intensity of the Congo agitation in England was secretly inspired and fanned by the clique of conspirators in England who were working against friendly relations with Germany. Sir Edward Grey made repeated and determined efforts in vain, to force King Leopold to abdicate, for it was feared that in case of war he would simply protest against Germany's invading Belgium but would not offer armed resistance. In addition to the persons already mentioned I established excellent relations with several high permanent officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ministry of Finances. The usefulness of connection in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be self evident; but, it may be asked, why in the Ministry of Finances? The reply is as follows: Belgium was then governed-absolutely governed-by the Catholic party. They put their own nominees in all the important offices of state. King Leopold did not mind this as long as these officials did not interfere with his plans. In the Belgian Ministry of Finance there were two very high officials who were splendid channels for my secret inquiries. Both were anti-British by sentiment and conviction, both had in a special degree King Leopold's confidence and connected with the operations in Congo Free State. One of them was the Treasurer of the King's Household. The other was a maker and unmaker of cabinets behind the scenes. I did not, however, restrict my secret activities to Brussels. Paris, with Sir Francis Bertie and the British Embassy, was the center of British intrigue. Thither I went. In fact, I continually traveled between Paris and Brussels, for I had to investigate both countries for Mr. Rowntree. To the British Embassy in Paris I had a special letter of recommendation from Sir Edward Grey, through which I obtained from the Embassy the letter reproduced in these pages. But I found my secret service work much more difficult here than in Brussels. Sir Francis Bertie, the Ambassador himself, was unapproachable; I did not see him at all until more than a year afterwards. Mr. O'Beirne, the First Secretary, and Mr. Grahame, the Third Secretary, were very reserved, and I did not succeed to establish with them the same degree of intimacy as I did with Mr. Wyndham in Brussels. I did not progress far enough to invite them or to be invited by them to dinner. My relations were restricted with them to Mr. Rowntree's investigations�until in the fall of 1907, when at last I succeeded in being received by Sir Francis Bertie. But the circumstances and history of this will be dealt with in a later chapter. My inability to get on the inside of the British Embassy in Paris compelled me to adapt new tactics. I decided I would use the British Legation in Brussels for the unraveling of British Secret Diplomacy and with the information thus gained and through the instrumentality of the British Embassy in Paris, establish inside connections with High Permanent Officials particularly at the Ministry of Interior and at the Palais d'Orsay (French Foreign Office). Permanent officials in France play a much more important role in the administration and government of the country than anywhere in Europe. For in France ministries are short lived and newcomers have to quit their posts before even familiarizing themselves with the merest routine. Another evil in the French ministries�an evil which is of the greatest possible use for foreign spies�is the fact that many, if not most, of the high and highest permanent posts are given to political proteges. These high officials do not take a very great interest in their work, nor have they in many cases the requisite qualifications for their particular post. Their work consequently is relegated to badly paid subordinates�an easy prey to foreign gold. M. Clemenceau, on becoming Prime Minister in October, 1906, tried to remedy this glaring evil as far as his ministry (the Interior) was concerned�but he only succeeded during his tenure of office. Most of these subordinates were in my pay and if I were to mention names�well, France has not had such a scandal before, though she is very prolific in political scandals. My name is well remembered in every ministry in Paris. Political journalism plays a more important part in France than in any other country. Many of France's ministers rose from the ranks of these journalists, notably M. Delcasse. Now these journalists in France really know things, which again is due to a peculiarity of social life in Paris. The political salons of yore are dead, but it would be a great mistake to think that the political salon is extinct. No I It survives and thrives in another form. And since in Paris women play a most important part in every phrase of life, political gossip is much more abundant in Paris than anywhere else. These journalists are, needless to say, everywhere, and pick up secret" titbits which give one a good bearing as to how and where to pursue one's more thorough inquiries for political and diplomatic secrets. Another characteristic of Paris life, as already mentioned, is the ubiquity of women, mondaines and demi-mondaines. A secret service agent, such as I was, must well study and fathom all the peculiarities of his ground before he makes a single move. Only a thorough knowledge of locality will enable him to spread his nets and weave his webs successfully. The political writers on the Temps and Journal de Debats were, most of them, known to me and I to them. But I was only known to them in my capacity as Mr. Rowntree's investigator and as being supported by His Britannic Majesty's Government and the French Government. M. Jacques Bardoux, to mention but one of these political writers, will now be surprised to hear who I really was. I am sure that he would not have invited me to luncheon to his house and spoken so freely to me on many occasions about France's political aim, the Entente Cordiale, the Triple Entente, and many other portentous subjects. Nor,. do I think he would have introduced me to so many useful persons. In particular, I mean the gentleman who had just returned from a secret mission in Africa and who was present at that dainty little luncheon in his flat. Par bleu! no harm done. All the same I am obliged to him for services rendered. In Brussels I got most, if not all, my secret information, without paying for itthanks to the cordial, and in some cases intimate, relations I established with all and sundry permanent officials. In Paris this proved to be impossible, except in very few cases. Hence, other methods had to be tried. To gain my end�everything else was immaterial�I enlisted the services of demi-mondaines in Paris. I had to get answers of a definite nature to the questions repeatedly referred to. I had already collected much secret data in Brussels and now in Paris I learned that many things which happened during and immediately prior to the Boer War, and which will be described presently, had brought home to British statesmen the impossibility of continuing the much vaunted policy of "splendid isolation." They had to choose between a leaning on the Dual Alliance (Russia-France) or the Triple Alliance (Germany-Austria-Hungaxy-Italy)'. In order to present to the reader a coherent, clear story of the secret political moves and diplomatic tangle, I will group the various items under different headings and present them as a continuous narrative. Needless to say, the information did not come to me in this form, but is pieced together from data obtained through months of arduous work. 1. FAR EASTERN PROBLEMS The conclusion of the Chinese-Japanese War on the 17th of April, 1895, by the signing of the Peace Treaty at Shimonoseki, starts a new epoch in the Far East. It brought Japan as a rising military and naval power before the attention of a surprised world. Two things happened as a consequence of this war, which proved to be two new factors in the shaping not only of world policy but of the relations of all the Great Powers to one another. These two things were: 1. The acknowledgment of the independence of Korea. 2. The Russo-Franco- German combination, which discarded the treaty of Shimonoseki and forced Japan to evacuate the Feng-Tien Peninsula, one of her prizes of her successful war with China. Whenever two Powers acknowledge or guarantee the independence of another weaker Power than themselves, it inevitably leads to rivalry, and very often to war, for the sole possession of the gauranteed[sic] country by one of the guarantors, Vide, Korea, Persia, Morocco, Egypt, Zanzibar, etc. The Russian-French-German combination tore up the Treaty of Shimonoseki and compelled Japan to give up Feng-Tien with Port Arthur on the pretext that Japanese possession of this peninsula would be a menace against the capital of China and would render Korea's independence merely nominal. Now, the great Powers, it can safely be said, are never actuated by high ideals nor are their actions ever disinterested. That this case was no exception to this rule was proved on the 6th of March, 1898, when Germany compelled China to lease to her Kiaochau and a zone of fifty kilometers around it for ninety-nine years, and on the 27th of March Russia took possession under a forced lease of Port Arthur, the same Port Arthur which Japan was prevented from keeping by these self-same Powers. And France? Oh, yes, she got her share too. On April 11, 1898, she exacted a lease from China of the Bay of Kwang-Chow-Wan. The meaning of this scramble was manifold. Apparently it was the first concerted attempt between RussiaFrance and Germany for the partition of China. Under the surface and the secret history of this step by the three Powers concerned, was a deeplaid, double scheme. The three Powers collectively had a common aim, viz., an anti-British policy which was put to a test in the Far East by, taking a foothold there. But in addition to this collective aim, each one of the three Powers pursued a scheme of their own. Russia sought expansion in the Far East with an ultimate aim of reaching a warm water-port, her ambition for two hundred years; and incidentally to swallow Manchuria and Korea. Russia induced China to enter into a secret treaty with her, granting her certain rights and privileges in Manchuria, already in 1895. France, as an ally of Russia followed her, but went there chiefly against Britain. Germany, true to one of Bismarck's pet schemes, encouraged France in her colonial expansion, hoping that thereby French energy and enterprise might be diverted from Alsace-Lorraine. Germany also greatly encouraged Russia to expand into the Far East for the following reasons: 1. She hoped that England and Russia might come into collision there. 2. Russia, as France's ally, should, according to German aims, be always busy and absorbed elsewhere than in Europe, thus weakening the military power of the Dual Alliance (Russia-France) 3. Germany, with her policy of "re-insurance" (a heritage of Bismarck), always found it difficult to reconcile, to harmonize, and satisfy Russian and Austro-Hungarian aspirations on the Balkans, It was from this Point of view, more than from any other, imperative for Germany to divert Russia's attention from the Balkans in which she admirably succeeded until the Russians were defeated by the Japanese in 1905. Then again they turned to the Balkans, with dire consequences for the whole world, for, as we shall see, the dreaded collision between Austria-Hungary and Russia, long warded off, happened at last. Great Britian was not slow to discern the moves and compelled China to lease to her Wei-hai-Wei in April, 1898, on the terms and for a period equal to the Russian lease of Port Arthur. These events led to what Lord Salisbury so admirably called the "Battle of Concessions" amongst the powers in China. Space and other considerations prevent me from entering into details of this interesting period of China Is history. But a permanent treaty with Russia is an impossible thing. The wonder is that there are always statesmen who are blind enough to enter into such a treaty. France and Germany soon saw that Russia pursued relentlessly her own selfish policy. France, to her present undoing, never dared to oppose Russia Is mad schemes in the Far East. But Germany began to distrust Russia whom she herself helped to plant there. Britain, of course, had many and old reasons of distrusting Russia. Yet King Edward and Sir Edward Grey, with their eyes closed, signed a treaty with her in 1907, which is one of the causes of the present war. But in 1900, during the Boxer Rebellion, the devilish uprising which was a work of Russia's secret agents, England and Germany, prompted by mutual distrust of Russia, drew together and signed an agreement on October 16th, with three main paragraphs: 1. To uphold and maintain a policy of open door in China. 2. Not to make use of present complications (Boxer Rebellion) for territorial advantages. 3. They would take common steps for protection if any other Power would do so. This was directed against Russia, who meanwhile poured troops into Manchuria, proclaimed Feng-Tien a Russian Protectorate (November 11), occupied Niu-Chwang and Manchuria, but promised that these occupations should be temporary�a promise she never kept. On the contrary, she pushed in and in 1903 created a vice-royalty for the Far East (Admiral Alexeieff first Viceroy). Japan, who was so deeply humiliated by Russia, France and Germany in 1895, looked with growing concern upon Russia's expansion towards Korea and tried to arrive at an understanding with her. In 1901, the Marquis Ito, Japan's foremost statesman, came to Europe and went to St. Petersburg, offering an alliance to Russia. Russia refused, which clearly showed to all concerned that she aimed at the conquest of Korea. Britain, cleverly using Japan's predicament, succeeded in entering into a treaty with Japan, January 30, 1902. This was Great Britain's reply to Russia's expansion and to Germany's scheme to embroil her with Russia. For, notwithstanding the Anglo-German agreement of 1900, Germany declined to support Great Britain in opposing Russian expansion in Manchuria on the grounds that Manchuria did not form part of China proper. Any keen observer could see these moves, all except France. It was evident that Russia Is greedy, -not to say indecent, behavior in the Far East would soon lead to an armed conflict between her and Japan, Britain's ally. Russia's expansion in itself weakened Russia as an ally of France and weakened France as an ally of Russia in Europe. France was unaware of the fact that in blindly supporting Russian policy in the Far East, she was playing the game of Germany, as was brought home to her during the Morocco crisis, of 1905, which, as I will later show, was partly the result of Russia's defeat by the Japanese the same year. Furthermore, the milliards of French savings lent to Russia for military purposes in Europe, were squandered on wild schemes in the Far East. And now, when France is fighting simply because Russia made Servia's case her own, in other words, in support of an attempted establishment of a virtual Russian protectorate on the Balkans, she finds her ally not at all prepared. France is bleeding herself to death for a cause not her own. Immediately after the signing of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty in 1902, Japan invited Russia to discuss the position of the Far East. These discussions went on, but it became too clear to Japan that their respective viewpoints were antagonistic (October, 1903). It is well known that these difficulties led to the Russo-Japanese War on the 8th of February, 1904. The history of this war is well-known. It ended with the defeat of Russia; peace having been reestablished by the Treaty of Portsmouth, N. H., October, 1905. Prior to the signing of this treaty the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1902 was changed into an Anglo-Japanese Offensive and Defensive Alliance (12th of August, 1905). We must now leave the Far East and follow the thread of hidden diplomatic moves, converging around the same point in other parts of the world. II. ANGLO-FRENCH RIVALRY Having been worsted by United Germany in 1871, France turned her attention to the building up of a colonial empire, particularly to the colonization of Africa. This was the more natural, as France already had the large colony of Algiers in North Africa. In 1882 she proclaimed a protectorate over Tunis and in the same year occupied Mzab. In 1883 she sent an expedition to Senegal and Nigeria; in 1884 she settled in the Congo; between 1882-1885 she settled in Djibuti (East Coast of Africa); in 1885-88 she conquered Ton-King and Annam. In 1894, the French Colonial Office was created and vast schemes of African colonization were broached, which should find their culmination in a huge African empire stretching from the Atlantic to the Red Sea and Indian Ocean right across the African continent; this scheme also included the absorption, if possible, of Abyssinia and the reclaiming of French influence in the regions of the Upper Nile. It should be pointed out that this time France and England were bitter enemies of centuries' standing. Indeed, French Colonial expansion was mainly directed against Great Britain. There were several collisions between the two Powers, some of them nearly leading them to war. In 1895, the English and French spheres of influence met at Lake Tchad. Since 1893 France openly attacked Siam, which England considered as within her sphere of influence. But in 1896 an agreement was reached between them on the Siamese question. In 1897 a number of threatening collisions of English and French claims and undertakings in Nigeria took place, but they compromised their differences by lengthy negotiations in Paris, which were concluded by a convention signed there on the 14th of June, 1897. Now we come to a chapter of Franco-British relationship which brought the two countries to the verge of war. For this and for the reason that no true story of this event has yet been published, I will relate it here, but exigencies of space compel me to be brief. III. FASHODA "C'est bien vrai, mon cher Monsieur Lincoln," affirmed my friend, whom we shall call Monsieur Brezey. We have just been having an argument over the Entente Cordiale between England and France, its origin, its cause, and its aim. With great emphasis and evident knowledge, M. Brezey maintained that the Fashoda incident was one of the causes of the Entente Cordiale. We were sitting on the veranda of a beautifully situated summer bungalow of King Leopold II, on one of his estates near Tervueren, which His Majesty graciously placed at the disposal of my friend M. Brezey, during the summer months each year. M. Brezey, let it be known, was the Treasurer of the King's Household, administrator of the Crown Domains of the Congo Free State, and one of the highest permanent officials in the Kingdom of Belgium. It is no mere figure of speech when I call M. Brezey my friend. We were friends. I was a frequent visitor in his charming home in Brussels and when during the summer months he took up his residence in the King's bungalow I had a standing invitation of which I made frequent use. The bungalow was superbly situated in the Forest de Tervueren, surrounded by a delightful garden and vines. Many a pleasant hour did I spend there. M. Brezey was a devoted Catholic, and as such and for political reasons he was a Francophobe, although he was a Walloon-from the south of Belgium. In bitter tones he was wont to complain of the pin-pricks and bullying Belgium was subjected to by England, Germany, and France. "Our situation, which is a political and geographical factor, invites their jealousy. Belgium has ever been the battle field of Europe and I am afraid we shall be so in the future. We are the bone of contention of these three Powers. Germany looks with jealous eyes on Antwerp, whose trade is principally German. Our situation, our magnificent and cheap railways, our extensive canals, bring us the bulk of the transit trade of Central and South Germany. To divert this the Germans have built many canals connecting their rivers and created the Port of Emden. But all in vain. Antwerp and Rotterdam are the great prizes Germany is coveting. As to France and England, they want to use us as a pawn in their anti-German schemes and because our gracious sovereign"�(he always spoke with great respect, almost veneration�of King Leopold II)�"consistently refused to do their behest, England fanned the Congo agitation into tremendous proportions, whilst France is continually carrying on a commercial war against us. England is one of the guarantors of our neutrality, as the diplomatic phrase goes; in fact, she created us against French aggression. from the south. During the past few years"�this conversation took place in 1906)�"she and France are trying to convert us into their advance post against Germany." I had always listened with deep interest to his expositions of international intrigues-his position and influence gave authenticity to his words. He was an ardent patriot and often he spoke with a tinge of bitterness in his voice. He distrusted all the big neighbors of Belgium. He did not believe their protestation of friendship. The policies of the Great Powers, he said, have always been immoral. "They trample�all of them�upon the weak and brutally brush aside the rights of small nations, whom each one of them considers his pawn, by divine right as it were, for the execution of their high-handed schemes." When he declared that the Fashoda incident, which, as will be remembered, brought England and France to the brink of war, was really the beginning of the Entente Cordiale, I burst out into laughter, remarking: "Vous n'etez pas bien informe cette fois si, mon cher Monsieur Brezey"�in order to draw him. He reaffirmed his statement, as reproduced at the head of this chapter. A lively discussion ensued between us. I knew some phases of the Fashoda incident,, but I also knew that my knowledge was not complete. So I drew my friend into an argument�carried on by both of us with vivacity, irony, and much force-thanks to his superb Burgundy. M. Brezey, in addition to his other talents and accomplishments, was the greatest wine connoisseur of clarets and Burgundies. He could tell you whether it was genuine, whether it was a Chateau Lafitte or Haut-Brion�a Clos Veugeot or Chambertin�yea, he could tell you the year of vintage. He made a study of it, both theoretically and practically. The opening of an old bottle of Burgundy was a ceremony and a celebration. It was carefully glided into a basket from its shelf where it had lain perhaps for thirty or forty years, carried by his "dean" upstairs more carefully than a trained nurse would handle a new-born infant, put on the table, unscrewed by a patent screw-driver so that the bottle would not be shaken in the least, and then poured out into the glasses by handling the basket. The dust collected on the bottle during all these decades was left undisturbed, lost by removing it the bottle might be shaken. That would have amounted to nothing less than sacrilege in the eyes of my friend. When once the wine was poured out�it was drunk? No, not at all. First, he raised his glass, behold the color of the "King of Wines," would remark that it was either good, or slightly troubled, or perfectly clear. The next act was to place the glass to his nostrils, and if the "bouquet" of the wine was to his satisfaction he would exclaim with ecstasy, "C'est superb! Allons! Buvons nous a' votre sante!" Now if you should empty the glass at once you would surely have committed another sacrilege in his eyes. You can do that with Rhine wine, beer or old Claret, but not so with this acme of perfection�old Burgundy. It was indeed a ceremonial of Bacchus. Burgundy must be enjoyed, not simply "drunk" was one of his maxims. Under this genial glow be told me his version of the Fashoda affair, amidst my interruptions, contradictions and questions-as he had it from King Leopold himself. Here is the true story of Fashoda�published for the first time. "On the 12th of May, 1894, Great Britain made a treaty with my sovereign, King Leopold II, as Sovereign of the Congo Free State, by which Great Britain granted a lease to His Majesty of a large area lying west of the Upper Nile, including the Bahr-el-Ghazal region and Fashoda. France, however, by threats and bullying and other shady transactions, prevented His Majesty from occupying the whole leased territory, as it would have prevented the carrying out of the ambitious French schemes in the Upper Nile. The Congo State, in return, leased to Great Britain a strip of territory fifteen and one-half miles in breadth between the north end of Lake Tanganyika and south end of Lake Albert Edward�this to insure the lines of communication between British possessions in Northern and Southern 'Africa. "Germany and France, acting in unison, protested against this lease, and Great Britain had to modify it. France continued her threat to our king, as Sovereign of the Congo Free State, should he dare to occupy the whole territory leased to him by Great Britain. "On the 14th of August, 1894, His Majesty was compelled and induced by France to renounce certain of his rights west of 301 East and north of a line drawn from that meridian to the Nile, along 50 30' North. Of the Bahr-el-Ghazal only the part known as the Lado Enclave could be occupied by King Leopold. This left the way open for France to the Nile and in June, 1896, Captain Marchand left. France with secret instructions to lead an expedition into the Nile Valley. On the 10th of July, 1898, he reached Fashoda, the capture of which was meant to be the first step towards the reestablishment of French influence in Egypt. "This is bow the great Powers treat their weaker neighbors," interrupted M. Brezey himself. "France forced our king out of his own rights and immediately grabbed it. "On the 2nd of September, 1898," he continued, "Sir Herbert Kitchener captured Khartum and dispersed the Khalifa's army. Here he learned of the French flag flying at Fashoda." The subsequent stages of this Fashoda incident are well known; France threatened with war by Great Britain, withdrew on the fourth of November from Fashoda and by the Anglo-French declaration of the 21st of March, 1899, France withdrew from the Upper Nile Valley. "During the negotiations between England and France, King Leopold revived his claim to the Bahr-el-Ghazal, as he was solely, prevented by the insolent threats of France from occupying it," continued M. Brezey. "France, although compelled to retire by the superior forces of Kitchener and to give up for the time being the Nile Valley, nevertheless hoped that Leopold might occupy the Bahr-el-Ghazal. "During the negotiations France inquired of Lord Salisbury whether Great Britain considered her lease with Leopold still in force. Just think of it I Great Britain and our king enter into a treaty which is upset by France. France then comes and grabs part of the territory; they take their stand on the sanctity of treaties (which they themselves prevented being carried out). They wanted our king to occupy the disputed territory, knowing that at some future time they might evict him. Indeed, they would not have yielded bad Great Britain not given emphatic assurances that the treaty with His Majesty was still in force. Lord Salisbury had no intention of ever again giving up the Bahr-el-Ghazal. So he deceived France. "To France's inquiry he replied, literally as follows: 'The arrangement concluded with the King of Belgians exists and remains in full force. It has -never been repudiated or annulled by England. It is true that the King of the Belgians was induced, without any consent on the part of Great Britain, to promise the French Government not to profit by this treaty beyond a certain limit; but that concession on his part did not diminish the significance of the act as an assertion of her rights by England.' "So France withdrew, hoping that Leopold would reoccupy it, from whom she hoped to grab it at some future date. The Belgian contention was that the withdrawal of France from Fashoda cancelled any opposition to the official lease granted by England. In that view King Leopold was strengthened by Lord Salisbury's above declaration. This declaration, indeed, is a full and unequivocal confirmation of the original lease. But the battle of Omdurman had changed English views of the matter, and notwithstanding Salisbury's declaration (made after Omdurman) King Leopold was greeted with the cry of 'hands off I when his forces attempted to penetrate into any region outside the Lado Enclave." M. Brezey stopped, he puffed the smoke of his cigar with an effort into the air, raised his glass -I followed his example. "SaMajest," he proposed. "This is all interesting," I said, "but how do you connect this with the Entente Cordiale?" "The year after the Fashoda incident the Boer War started. Many things happened. France, still smarting under the humiliation of the Fashoda affair, became intensely pro-Boer. You recollect, of course, all the incidents." "Yes," I said, "and I know of the proposed European coalition against England, which suffered shipwreck on the opposition of the Kaiser." "Precisely, the Kaiser thought that through the Fashoda affair he might drive France and England even further apart and then gain or compel England's support to his colonial schemes. "But he achieved just the reverse-drove France and England together�thanks to his impulsive temperament and the blunderings of German diplomacy." It was getting late and although I greatly enjoyed the company of my friend, his cigars, his Burgundy, the charming surroundings, the mystic stillness of the Tervueren forest by which we were surrounded�I decided to go. It was my method never to pursue a conversation too far at one sitting. This for many reasons. After an hour or two of conversation, my informants would naturally in their exposes pass over many details, the very things wanted, and furthermore my insistent questionings might look a little bit strange. I could have never obtained directly the information I did obtain from my friend Brezey. But I was his friend, I was introduced to him by the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, I knew things�I moved and had my being amongst diplomats�he located me as his equal-as one of the privileged observers from behind the scenes. I had to be careful not to lose this, my status. So this night, as always, I broke off when he was quite ready and willing to go on with his confidential disclosures. I pretended -not to be interested at all. I merely had an argument with him, that was all. Besides, Madame Brezey appeared. "La politique, toujours la politique!" she remarked reproachfully. So I got up and after the exchange of the usual French compliments, I drove home in his motor car. Shortly after I looked up my friend, Mr. Huybers, the Brussels correspondent of the London Times. I wanted to have his confirmation of M. Brezey's version of the Fashoda affair, knowing that Mr. Huybers was well qualified to speak on this matter. The Bahr-el-Ghazal affair-as the Fashoda affair was called in Belgium-was known to him as to few individuals. During the negotiations over this matter between England and King Leopold II, he was received in private audience by the latter. Mr. Huybers supported the Belgian standpoint. Mr. Huybers not only confirmed M. Brezey's versions, but added some rather interesting details. King Leopold, apropos of the Bahr-el-Ghazal incident, said to Mr. Huybers: "With England might is always right. Now that my treaty with her does not suit her, England treats it as a scrap of paper-tearing it up." This was in 1901�thirteen years before Great Britain made so much noise about a "scrap of paper!" A new treaty of the 9th of May, 1906, annulled the treaty of 1894 between King Leopold II and Great Britain, and the Bahr-el-Ghazal became an integral part of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. M. Huybers not only gave me the above rather piquant information, he also showed me two letters which he received from Mr. (now Sir) Valentine Chirol, Director of the Foreign Department of the Times (London). The letters were so interesting that I asked Mr. Huybers to let me have them-which, as they are not marked private, he did. I have -never made any use of them. But in view of the British outcry about Belgium and neutrality, I thought it worth while to reproduce these letters in these pages. It is rather amusing to be told by the Times (in the name of the British Government) that Belgium never behaves as a neutral country-though they now pretend to have gone to war to protect and defend this selfsame neutrality. Pps. 44-79 ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
