---
title: 3. Invasion of Belgium as Cause of War
url: https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/05-invasion-of-belgium-as-cause-of-war/
description: 3. Invasion of Belgium as Cause of War, from Falsehood in War-Time by Arthur Ponsonby.
section: FRAME
---

![Illustration: an interwar radio-and-newsreel intelligence collage with a 1930s map of Europe and propaganda poster proofs.](https://propagandaarchive.org/static/generated/detail/hero-interwar.jpg)

[Library](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/) · Book · [Falsehood in War-Time](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/)

# 3. Invasion of Belgium as Cause of War

This text

- **Work:** [Falsehood in War-Time](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/)
- **Author:** Arthur Ponsonby
- **Published:** 1928

Full details

- **Rights:** Published in the United Kingdom in 1928, more than 95 years ago, so in the public domain in the United States. Ponsonby died in 1946, so the text is also in the public domain in countries that count the author's life plus 70 years.

Chapters

1. [Preface](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/01-preface/)
2. [Introduction](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/02-introduction/)
3. [1. The Commitment to France](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/03-the-commitment-to-france/)
4. [2. Serbia and the Murder of the Archduke](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/04-serbia-and-the-murder-of-the-archduke/)
5. [3. Invasion of Belgium as Cause of War](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/05-invasion-of-belgium-as-cause-of-war/)
6. [4. Germany’s Sole Responsibility for the War](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/06-germany-s-sole-responsibility-for-the-war/)
7. [5. Passage of Russian Troops through Great Britain](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/07-passage-of-russian-troops-through-great-britain/)
8. [6. The Mutilated Nurse](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/08-the-mutilated-nurse/)
9. [7. The Criminal Kaiser](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/09-the-criminal-kaiser/)
10. [8. The Belgian Baby without Hands](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/10-the-belgian-baby-without-hands/)
11. [9. The Louvain Altar-Piece](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/11-the-louvain-altar-piece/)
12. [10. The Contemptible Little Army](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/12-the-contemptible-little-army/)
13. [11. Deutschland über Alles](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/13-deutschland-ber-alles/)
14. [12. The Baby of Courbeck Loo](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/14-the-baby-of-courbeck-loo/)
15. [13. The Crucified Canadian](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/15-the-crucified-canadian/)
16. [14. The Shooting of the Franzosling](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/16-the-shooting-of-the-franzosling/)
17. [15. Little Alf’s Stamp Collection](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/17-little-alf-s-stamp-collection/)
18. [16. The Tattooed Man](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/18-the-tattooed-man/)
19. [17. The Corpse Factory](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/19-the-corpse-factory/)
20. [18. The Bishop of Zanzibar’s Letter](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/20-the-bishop-of-zanzibar-s-letter/)
21. [19. The German U-Boat Outrage](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/21-the-german-u-boat-outrage/)
22. [20. Constantinople](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/22-constantinople/)
23. [21. The “Lusitania”](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/23-the-lusitania/)
24. [22. Report of a Broken-up Meeting](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/24-report-of-a-broken-up-meeting/)
25. [23. Atrocity Stories](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/25-atrocity-stories/)
26. [24. Faked Photographs](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/26-faked-photographs/)
27. [25. The Doctoring of Official Papers](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/27-the-doctoring-of-official-papers/)
28. [26. Hypocritical Indignation](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/28-hypocritical-indignation/)
29. [27. Other Lies](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/29-other-lies/)
30. [28. The Manufacture of News](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/30-the-manufacture-of-news/)
31. [29. War Aims](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/31-war-aims/)
32. [30. Foreign Lies](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/32-foreign-lies/)

[← 2. Serbia and the Murder of the Archduke](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/04-serbia-and-the-murder-of-the-archduke/) [4. Germany’s Sole Responsibility for the War →](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/06-germany-s-sole-responsibility-for-the-war/)

**Content note:** Repeats First World War atrocity stories, including invented ones, and their wording. This object is shown as it was published. [Why](https://propagandaarchive.org/about/#as-it-was)

Whatever may have been the causes of the Great War, the German invasion of Belgium was certainly not one of them. It was one of the first consequences of war. Nor was it even the reason of our entry into the war. But the Government, realizing how doubtful it was whether they could rouse public enthusiasm over a secret obligation to France, was able, owing to Germany’s fatal blunder, to represent the invasion of Belgium and the infringement of the Treaty of Neutrality as the cause of our participation in it.

We know now that we were committed to France by an obligation of honour, we know now that Sir Edward Grey would have resigned had we not gone in on the side of France, and we also know that Mr. Bonar Law committed the Conservative Party to the support of war before the question of the invasion of Belgium arose.

The Government already know, but I give them now the assurance on behalf of the party of which I am Leader in this House, that in whatever steps they think it necessary to take for the honour and security of this country, they can rely on the unhesitating support of the Opposition.

Quoted in “ Twenty-Five Years,” by Viscount Grey.

The invasion of Belgium came as a godsend to the Government and the Press, and they jumped to take advantage of this pretext, fully appreciating its value from the point of view of rallying public opinion.

We are going into a war that is forced upon us as the defenders of the weak and the champions of the liberties of Europe.

“ The Times” August 5, 1914.

It should be clearly understood when it was and why it was we intervened. It was only when we were confronted with the choice between keeping and breaking solemn obligations, between the discharge of a binding trust and of shameless subservience to naked force, that we threw away the scabbard. . . . We were bound by our obligations, plain and paramount, to assert and maintain the threatened independence of a small and neutral State (Belgium).

Mr. Asquith, House of Commons, August z-j, 1914.

The treaty obligations of Great Britain to that Little land (Belgium) brought us into the war.

Mr. Lloyd George, January 5, 1918.

Neither of these statements by successive Prime Ministers is true. We were drawn into the war because of our commitment to France. The attack on Belgium was used to excite national enthusiasm. A phrase to the same effect was inserted in the King’s Speech of September 18, 1914.

I was compelled in the assertion of treaty obligations deliberately set at naught ... to go to war.

The two following extracts put the matter correctly :

They do not reflect that our honour and our interest must have compelled us to join France and Russia even if Germany had scrupulously respected the rights of her small neighbours, and had sought to hack her way into France through the Eastern fortresses.

“The Times,” March 15, 1915.

Sir D. Maclean : We went into the war on account of Belgium.

Mr. Chamberlain : We had such a treaty with Belgium.

Had it been France only, we could not have stayed out after the conversations that had taken place. It would not have been in out interests to stay out, and we could not have stayed out without loss of security and honour.

House of Commons, February 8, 1922.

But in addition to the attack on Belgium being declared to be the cause of the war, it was also represented as an unprecedented and unwarrantable breach of a treaty. To this day “ the Scrap of Paper ” (a facsimile of the treaty) is framed on the walls of some elementary schools.

There is no nation which has not been guilty of the breach of a treaty. After war is declared, treaties are scrapped right and left. There were other infringements of neutrality during the war. The infringement of a treaty is unfortunately a matter of expediency, not a matter of international morahty. In 1887, when there was a scare of an outbreak of war between France and Germany, the Press, including the Standard, which was regarded at that time more or less as a Government organ, discussed dispassionately and with calm equanimity the possibility of allowing Germany to pass through Belgium in order to attack France. The Standard argued that it would be madness for Great Britain to oppose the passage of German troops through Belgium, and the Spectator said : “We shall not bar, as indeed we cannot bar, the traversing of her soil.” We were not more sensitive to our treaty obligations in 1914 than we were in 1887. But it happened that in 1887 we were on good terms with Germany and on strained terms with France. The opposite policy, therefore, suited our book better.

Moreover, the attack on Belgium did not come as a surprise. All our plans were made in preparation for it.

The Belgian documents which were published disclosed the fact that the “conversations” of 1906 concerned very full plans for military co-operation in the event of a German invasion of Belgium, but similar plans were not drawn up between Belgium and Germany. The French and British are referred to as the Allied armies, Germany as “ the enemy.” Full and elaborate plans were made for the landing of British troops.

Politically the invasion of Belgium was a gross error. Strategically it was the natural and obvious course to take. Further, we know now that had Germany not violated Belgian neutrality, France would have. The authority for this information, which from the point of view of military strategy is perfectly intelligible, is General Percin, whose articles in I'ire Nouvelle in 1925 are thus quoted and commented on in the Manchester Guardian of January 27, 1925.

VIOLATION OF BELGIAN NEUTRALITY INTENDED BY FRANCE.

Allegations by a French General.

(From our own Correspondent^ Paris, Monday.

Immediately before Great Britain’s entry into the war in 1914 the British Government inquired both in Berlin and Paris whether Belgian neutrality was going to be respected. Was the addressing of this inquiry to France a pure matter of form ?

If General Percin, the well-known Radical non-Catholic French General, is to be believed, apparently not, for he declares authoritatively in a series of articles that he has begun in the Nouvelle that the violation of Belgian neutrality had for many years been an integral part of the war plans of the French General Staff and even of the French Government.

The controversy that has started, it need hardly be said, is of world importance, for it disposes in a large moral degree of the Scrap of Paper stigma against Germany.

General Percin, it must be admitted, is an embittered man, though no one has yet been found to question his honour or capacity. He is a Protestant—a rare thing in the high ranks of the French Army—and has always been at loggerheads with the military hierarchy of the General Staff. That is little wonder, for he was chief of the Cabinet to General Andre, Minister of War in the Combes Cabinet, when in the Dreyfus affair a more or less vain effort was made to purge the High Command. General Percin’s principal interest was in artillery, and the German papers during the war credited him with having been principally responsible for the adoption of the famous -75. The deposition of General Percin from the military command at Lisle in the first few weeks of the war has never been clearly explained. It seems to have been part of a vendetta. At any rate, that no disgrace was implied was shown by the later grant to him of the Grand Cordon of the Legion of Honour.

A Discovery of 1910-11.

General Percin’s evidence in Ere Nouvelle dates from the time when he was one of the chiefs of the Superior Council of War. “ I took a personal part,” he writes, “ in the winter of 1910-11 in a great campaign organized in the Superior Council of War, of which I was then a member. The campaign lasted a week. It showed that a German attack on the Alsace-Lorraine front had no chance of success ; that it would inevitably be smashed against the barriers accumulated in that region, and that (Germany would) be obliged to violate Belgian neutrality.

“ The question was not discussed whether we should follow the German lead in such violation and if necessary anticipate it ourselves, or whether we should await the enemy on this side of the Belgian frontier. That was a question of a Governmental rather than of a military kind. But any commander of troops who in time of war learns that the enemy has the intention of occupying a point the position of which gives him tactical advantage has the imperative duty to try to occupy that point first himself, and as soon as ever he can. If any of us had said that out of respect for the treaty of 1839 he would on his own initiative have remained on this side of the Belgian frontier, thus bringing the war on to French territory, he would have been scorned by his comrades and by the Minister of Wat himself.

“ We were all of us in the French army partisans of the tactical offensive. It implied the violation of Belgian neutrality, for we knew the intentions of the Germans. I shall be told that on our part it would not have been a French crime, but a retort, a riposte to a German crime. No doubt. But every entry into war professes to be such a riposte. You attack the enemy because you attribute to him the intention of attacking you.”

On August 3t, 1911, the Chiefs of the French and Russian General Staffs signed an agreement that the words “ defensive war ” should not be taken literally, and then affirmed “ the absolute necessity for the French and Russian armies of taking a vigorous offensive as far as possible simultaneously.”

According to General Percin, that “ vigorous offensive ” meant French violation of Belgian neutrali^.

” Could we take a vigorous offensive without the violation of Belgian neutrality ? Could we really deploy our 1,300,000 men on the narrow front of Alsace-Lorraine ? ”

Violation of Belgium Inevitable.

He asserts categorically that in the mind of the French General Staff the war was to take place in Belgium, and, indeed, six months after the signature of the agreement between the French and Russian General Staffs quoted above, Artillery-Colonel Picard, at the head of a group of officers of the General Staff, made a tour in Belgium to study utiliaation, when the time should come, of this field of operations.

General Percin concludes: “The treaty of 1839 could not help but be violated either by the Germans or by us. It had been invented to make war impossible. The question that we have to judge upon, then, is this: Which of the two, France or Germany, wanted war the most? Not which showed most contempt for this treaty. The one that willed war more than the other could not help but will the violation of Belgian territory.”

A number of extracts might be given to show that the invasion of Belgium was expected. Yet no steps were taken in the years before the war to reaffirm the obligations under the old treaty of 1859 and make them a great deal more binding than in actual fact they were.

The invasion of Belgium was not the cause of the war; the invasion of Belgium was not unexpected ; the invasion of Belgium did not shock the moral susceptibilities of either the British or French Governments. But it may be admitted that, finding themselves in the position which they had themselves largely contributed to create, the British and French Governments in the first stages of the Great War were fully justified, and indeed urgently compelled, to arrange the facts and distort the implications as they did, given always the standard of morality which war involves. To colour the picture with the pigment of falsehood so as to excite popular indignation was imperative, and it was done with complete success.

[← 2. Serbia and the Murder of the Archduke](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/04-serbia-and-the-murder-of-the-archduke/) [4. Germany’s Sole Responsibility for the War →](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/06-germany-s-sole-responsibility-for-the-war/)

Falsehood in War-Time, Arthur Ponsonby. Published in the United Kingdom in 1928, more than 95 years ago, so in the public domain in the United States. Ponsonby died in 1946, so the text is also in the public domain in countries that count the author's life plus 70 years. [Provenance and rights](https://propagandaarchive.org/library/ponsonby-falsehood-in-war-time/).