The question, therefore, arises, “Did Belgium commit acts in favor of one of Germany’s opponents, if not actually hostile acts against Germany?” In order to understand Germany’s charge that Belgium had committed such acts, attention must be directed to one of the most unfortunate stipulations of the Treaty of 1839, which compelled Belgium to maintain several fortresses.  This meant that a small neutral people, sandwiched in between two great powers, had to keep itself informed on military affairs.  Instead of being able to foster a peaceful state of mind, which is the surest guarantee of neutrality, the Belgians were forced to think military thoughts.

[Illustration:  ANDREW CARNEGIE

(Photo (c) by Underwood & Underwood.)

See Page 415]

[Illustration:  JACOB H. SCHIFF

(Photo by American Press Assn.)

See Page 459]

In the eighties and early nineties they suspected France of designs on their integrity.  Since then a change in the popular feeling has taken place and in recent years the instruction of the Belgian artillery, for instance, was intrusted to French officers in active service.  These officers were constantly at home and very properly concerned with solving military problems such as a future war with Germany might present.  What was more natural than that these same officers, when they were detached for a few months or years to Liege or Namur or Huy, taught their Belgian charges to prepare against a German attack, and to look upon the French as their friends and the Germans as their enemies?  If conditions had been different, and German officers had been in charge of Belgian fortresses, the Belgian guns in practice would always have been trained on imaginary French invaders.

French Officers in Belgian Forts.

If this is understood it will be seen that in the case of war the actual neutrality of the Belgian garrisons would naturally be determined by the position taken by that nation whose officers had been in charge of the Belgian fortresses.  And this might be entirely independent of the professed wishes of the Belgian people or their Government.  If French officers in active service remained in the several fortresses, or even only in one after the beginning of hostilities, and if the French campaign plans contemplated an attack through Belgium, then Belgium had committed an “act in favor of France” by not forcing the French officers to leave, and had forfeited the rights and privileges granted by The Hague Convention of 1907 to a neutral State.

Did French officers remain in Liege or in any other Belgian fortress after hostilities had begun, and did France plan to go through Belgium?  Germany has officially made both claims.  The first can easily be substantiated by the Supreme Court of Civilization by an investigation of the prisoners of war taken in Belgium.  Until an impartial investigation becomes possible no further proof than the claim made by the German Government can be produced.