This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/02/sp-first-world-war-manchester-guardian-uk-neutrality

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
First world war: how the Manchester Guardian fought to keep Britain out of conflict First world war: how the Manchester Guardian fought to keep Britain out of conflict
(4 days later)
Charles Prestwich Scott and the Manchester Guardian fought a vehement campaign against Britain’s involvement in the first world war which culminated in the most impassioned leaders in the paper’s history in the final days leading up to the outbreak of war.Charles Prestwich Scott and the Manchester Guardian fought a vehement campaign against Britain’s involvement in the first world war which culminated in the most impassioned leaders in the paper’s history in the final days leading up to the outbreak of war.
One hundred years ago this weekend the Guardian, in a series of stinging editorials, denounced a “conspiracy to drag us into a war against England’s interests”, arguing that it would amount to a “crime against Europe” and warning that it would “throw away the accumulated progress of half a century.”One hundred years ago this weekend the Guardian, in a series of stinging editorials, denounced a “conspiracy to drag us into a war against England’s interests”, arguing that it would amount to a “crime against Europe” and warning that it would “throw away the accumulated progress of half a century.”
As the leader put it on Thursday 30 July, six days before the official declaration of war on Germany: “Let us for the moment drop solicitude for Europe and think of ourselves. We care as little for Belgrade as Belgrade does for Manchester. But, though our neutrality ought to be assured, it isn’t.As the leader put it on Thursday 30 July, six days before the official declaration of war on Germany: “Let us for the moment drop solicitude for Europe and think of ourselves. We care as little for Belgrade as Belgrade does for Manchester. But, though our neutrality ought to be assured, it isn’t.
“If we, who might remain neutral, rush into war or let our attitude remain doubtful, it will be both a crime and an act of supreme and gratuitous folly.”“If we, who might remain neutral, rush into war or let our attitude remain doubtful, it will be both a crime and an act of supreme and gratuitous folly.”
The sustained attempt to “rally the forces for peace” in the columns of the Guardian was matched by a concerted campaign behind the scenes by Scott, its editor and owner and himself a former Liberal MP, who strained every sinew to lobby Herbert Asquith’s Liberal cabinet for Britain’s neutrality.The sustained attempt to “rally the forces for peace” in the columns of the Guardian was matched by a concerted campaign behind the scenes by Scott, its editor and owner and himself a former Liberal MP, who strained every sinew to lobby Herbert Asquith’s Liberal cabinet for Britain’s neutrality.
Surprising though it may seem now, the outcome was not a foregone conclusion. As David Lloyd George, then chancellor of the exchequer, who himself came close to resigning over the war, told Scott on Tuesday 4 August 1914 – the day Britain declared war on Germany – there had been a clear majority for the “peace party” in the cabinet only days before: “Up until last Sunday only two members of the Cabinet had been in favour of our intervention in the war but the violation of Belgian territory had completely altered the situation.”Surprising though it may seem now, the outcome was not a foregone conclusion. As David Lloyd George, then chancellor of the exchequer, who himself came close to resigning over the war, told Scott on Tuesday 4 August 1914 – the day Britain declared war on Germany – there had been a clear majority for the “peace party” in the cabinet only days before: “Up until last Sunday only two members of the Cabinet had been in favour of our intervention in the war but the violation of Belgian territory had completely altered the situation.”
As the historian AJP Taylor has pointed out, neither the cabinet nor parliament actually authorised the declaration of war and the foreign secretary, Sir Edward Grey, consulted only Asquith, and “perhaps not even him”, over the decision to send the ultimatum to Germany.As the historian AJP Taylor has pointed out, neither the cabinet nor parliament actually authorised the declaration of war and the foreign secretary, Sir Edward Grey, consulted only Asquith, and “perhaps not even him”, over the decision to send the ultimatum to Germany.
The Guardian was also not alone in the press in arguing for neutrality. As that most hawkish of papers, Lord Northcliffe’s Times, was prepared to agree at the time, up until Monday 27 July 1914, “on the whole, English newspapers have avoided taking sides in the quarrel” between Austria and Russia over Serbia following the assassination of the Crown Prince of Austria.The Guardian was also not alone in the press in arguing for neutrality. As that most hawkish of papers, Lord Northcliffe’s Times, was prepared to agree at the time, up until Monday 27 July 1914, “on the whole, English newspapers have avoided taking sides in the quarrel” between Austria and Russia over Serbia following the assassination of the Crown Prince of Austria.
Once war was declared on 4 August, Scott however swung the Guardian firmly behind the decision, declaring in the next day’s paper: “We ourselves have contended for the neutrality of England to the utmost of our power and with a deep conviction that we were doing our patriotic duty … Some time the responsibility for one of the greatest errors in our history will have to be fixed, but that time is not now. Now there is nothing for Englishmen to do but to stand together and help by every means in their power to the attainment of our common object – an early and decisive victory over Germany.”Once war was declared on 4 August, Scott however swung the Guardian firmly behind the decision, declaring in the next day’s paper: “We ourselves have contended for the neutrality of England to the utmost of our power and with a deep conviction that we were doing our patriotic duty … Some time the responsibility for one of the greatest errors in our history will have to be fixed, but that time is not now. Now there is nothing for Englishmen to do but to stand together and help by every means in their power to the attainment of our common object – an early and decisive victory over Germany.”
The decision was to divide some of the senior staff of the Guardian. The chief leader writer, Charles Edward Montague, then aged 47, whose hair had been completely white from an early age, tried to enlist but was twice turned down because of his age. Only when he dyed his hair did the Royal Fusiliers take him as a private. However, he spent most of the war as a “conducting officer” shepherding war correspondents around the front and censoring their despatches.The decision was to divide some of the senior staff of the Guardian. The chief leader writer, Charles Edward Montague, then aged 47, whose hair had been completely white from an early age, tried to enlist but was twice turned down because of his age. Only when he dyed his hair did the Royal Fusiliers take him as a private. However, he spent most of the war as a “conducting officer” shepherding war correspondents around the front and censoring their despatches.
By contrast, John A Hobson, who had covered the Boer war, which the Guardian had strongly opposed, and written the definitive book on imperialism, was to play a leading role in the Union of Democratic Control – the little-known but ultimately influential anti-war movement founded by Charles Trevelyan, one of three Liberal ministers to resign over the declaration of war, and the future Labour prime minister Ramsay MacDonald.By contrast, John A Hobson, who had covered the Boer war, which the Guardian had strongly opposed, and written the definitive book on imperialism, was to play a leading role in the Union of Democratic Control – the little-known but ultimately influential anti-war movement founded by Charles Trevelyan, one of three Liberal ministers to resign over the declaration of war, and the future Labour prime minister Ramsay MacDonald.
The first public hint of the “conspiracy to drag us into war” came in a leader in the Times on 29 July, the day after Austria attacked Serbia and Russia began mobilising, arguing that Britain could not stand aloof and should intervene on the side of Serbia and Russia to “ensure elementary fair play between Vienna and Belgrade” and because “it is our traditional policy to uphold the balance of power in Europe”.The first public hint of the “conspiracy to drag us into war” came in a leader in the Times on 29 July, the day after Austria attacked Serbia and Russia began mobilising, arguing that Britain could not stand aloof and should intervene on the side of Serbia and Russia to “ensure elementary fair play between Vienna and Belgrade” and because “it is our traditional policy to uphold the balance of power in Europe”.
The Guardian’s leader the next day, England’s Danger, contrasted the silence in Whitehall and Westminster with the “unofficial garrulity” on the matter. “The ‘Times’, whose influence at great crises in our foreign affairs has almost always been for evil, yesterday took it for granted that if the war were not localised this country ought to take the side of Serbia and Russia,” it said, adding that “unhappily” the Times was regarded in Europe as “speaking with the voice of the Foreign Office”.The Guardian’s leader the next day, England’s Danger, contrasted the silence in Whitehall and Westminster with the “unofficial garrulity” on the matter. “The ‘Times’, whose influence at great crises in our foreign affairs has almost always been for evil, yesterday took it for granted that if the war were not localised this country ought to take the side of Serbia and Russia,” it said, adding that “unhappily” the Times was regarded in Europe as “speaking with the voice of the Foreign Office”.
The Guardian leader firmly rejected the claim that it was England’s job to “uphold the balance of power in Europe” by supporting the “Russian autocracy”: “We are friends with every power in Europe. Why give preference to one friend over another? Why should the Slav be so much dearer to us than the Teuton that we should tax the necessaries of the poor to famine prices, and the income of the rich to extinction? For that is what participation in a great European war must mean to England. Have the people of England so far lost all spirit that they will humbly bow to this grotesque conception of our national policy and wait till the guillotine falls and takes off their submissive heads?”The Guardian leader firmly rejected the claim that it was England’s job to “uphold the balance of power in Europe” by supporting the “Russian autocracy”: “We are friends with every power in Europe. Why give preference to one friend over another? Why should the Slav be so much dearer to us than the Teuton that we should tax the necessaries of the poor to famine prices, and the income of the rich to extinction? For that is what participation in a great European war must mean to England. Have the people of England so far lost all spirit that they will humbly bow to this grotesque conception of our national policy and wait till the guillotine falls and takes off their submissive heads?”
Three days before, Scott recorded in his diaries that he had seen Lloyd George and the Liberal chief whip, Lord Illingworth: “I insisted that the only course for us was to make it plain from the first that if Russia and France went to war we should not be in it. I hoped Grey would keep them out of this war as he had when they threatened last year, but if he lets us into it there would be an end of the existing Liberal combination.” Three days before, Scott recorded in his diaries that he had seen Lloyd George and the Liberal chief whip, Percy Illingworth: “I insisted that the only course for us was to make it plain from the first that if Russia and France went to war we should not be in it. I hoped Grey would keep them out of this war as he had when they threatened last year, but if he lets us into it there would be an end of the existing Liberal combination.”
The next day Scott wrote privately to the political theorist Leonard Hobhouse, saying: “What a monstrous and truly hellish thing this war will be if it really brings the rest of Europe into it. It ought to sound the death knell of all the autocracies – including that of our own Foreign Office.”The next day Scott wrote privately to the political theorist Leonard Hobhouse, saying: “What a monstrous and truly hellish thing this war will be if it really brings the rest of Europe into it. It ought to sound the death knell of all the autocracies – including that of our own Foreign Office.”
On Friday 31 July, the Guardian’s leader, The Nation’s Danger, raised the temperature in response to the mobilisation of the British territorial reserves, pinning the blame firmly on a secretive, powerful and irresponsible group of politicians and officials who were not even willing to debate the reasons to go to war in public.On Friday 31 July, the Guardian’s leader, The Nation’s Danger, raised the temperature in response to the mobilisation of the British territorial reserves, pinning the blame firmly on a secretive, powerful and irresponsible group of politicians and officials who were not even willing to debate the reasons to go to war in public.
“The elements of danger are these,” it warned. “At the head of affairs is a government which may be bluffing and is fallible. Behind it are strong influences, social and bureaucratic, which are anxious for war. In the newspapers there is visible the workings of a conspiracy to drag us into war. The House of Commons, which should be the guardian of the national interest at such a time as this, is discussing the Milk and Dairies Bill. Mr Asquith calls that ‘presenting a united front to the nations of Europe.’”“The elements of danger are these,” it warned. “At the head of affairs is a government which may be bluffing and is fallible. Behind it are strong influences, social and bureaucratic, which are anxious for war. In the newspapers there is visible the workings of a conspiracy to drag us into war. The House of Commons, which should be the guardian of the national interest at such a time as this, is discussing the Milk and Dairies Bill. Mr Asquith calls that ‘presenting a united front to the nations of Europe.’”
The leader memorably observed: “Everywhere there is evidence of organisation for war; nowhere a sign that the forces for peace are being mobilised … governments make a virtue of isolation from public opinion. When a foreign crisis comes they take refuge in mystery and silence … It is this secrecy elevated into a system which makes the chief danger of our present position. If the facts were known, and there were free discussion, there would be no danger. It is the darkness we fear.”The leader memorably observed: “Everywhere there is evidence of organisation for war; nowhere a sign that the forces for peace are being mobilised … governments make a virtue of isolation from public opinion. When a foreign crisis comes they take refuge in mystery and silence … It is this secrecy elevated into a system which makes the chief danger of our present position. If the facts were known, and there were free discussion, there would be no danger. It is the darkness we fear.”
On Saturday 1 August, the day Germany declared war on Russia, the Guardian’s leader looked in detail at whether the treaties signed in 1870 by Britain, France and Germany at the end of the Franco-Prussian war still guaranteed Belgian neutrality in 1914 and pointed out that legally they had expired in 1871. Britain was only bound “in honour, not in law” by an earlier treaty dating back to 1839 to defend Belgium. “Then is it honour we must fight for?” it asked. “No: for honour’s sake we must keep the peace.”On Saturday 1 August, the day Germany declared war on Russia, the Guardian’s leader looked in detail at whether the treaties signed in 1870 by Britain, France and Germany at the end of the Franco-Prussian war still guaranteed Belgian neutrality in 1914 and pointed out that legally they had expired in 1871. Britain was only bound “in honour, not in law” by an earlier treaty dating back to 1839 to defend Belgium. “Then is it honour we must fight for?” it asked. “No: for honour’s sake we must keep the peace.”
On Sunday 2 August, Germany invaded Luxembourg and demanded free passage through Belgium. The British cabinet met all day and discussed what its response should be to the imminent German invasion of Belgium. Grey also disclosed the secret terms of the entente with France. The Royal Navy was now bound to protect the French channel ports, and any failure to defend them against any attack by a German ship would see the government swept from office. In the face of this the “peace party” disintegrated. Although others wavered, only three ministers were to resign as a result: John Burns, John Morley and Trevelyan.On Sunday 2 August, Germany invaded Luxembourg and demanded free passage through Belgium. The British cabinet met all day and discussed what its response should be to the imminent German invasion of Belgium. Grey also disclosed the secret terms of the entente with France. The Royal Navy was now bound to protect the French channel ports, and any failure to defend them against any attack by a German ship would see the government swept from office. In the face of this the “peace party” disintegrated. Although others wavered, only three ministers were to resign as a result: John Burns, John Morley and Trevelyan.
Scott wrote privately to Hobhouse telling him they had spent Saturday and Sunday “working desperately to work up opposition to the war … but events moved too fast for us and all was in vain.”Scott wrote privately to Hobhouse telling him they had spent Saturday and Sunday “working desperately to work up opposition to the war … but events moved too fast for us and all was in vain.”
The Guardian leader on Monday 3 August – written without knowing the outcome of the cabinet’s discussions – continued the fight: “This country should not make itself an accessory to the crime against reason and human happiness that is now beginning. We are asked by the war conspirators to make poor men destitute and rich men poor, to throw away in a calculated gamble the accumulated progress of half a century, to starve every hope except those that can be indulged by the suffering and impoverishment of others.”The Guardian leader on Monday 3 August – written without knowing the outcome of the cabinet’s discussions – continued the fight: “This country should not make itself an accessory to the crime against reason and human happiness that is now beginning. We are asked by the war conspirators to make poor men destitute and rich men poor, to throw away in a calculated gamble the accumulated progress of half a century, to starve every hope except those that can be indulged by the suffering and impoverishment of others.”
Germany had decided to “strike the first blow” and “seems to have started the fighting but not, assuredly, with a light heart”, having convinced herself that Russia meant war. “Her only chance, she probably reflected, was in flinging herself on one [enemy] before the other was fully prepared …Germany had decided to “strike the first blow” and “seems to have started the fighting but not, assuredly, with a light heart”, having convinced herself that Russia meant war. “Her only chance, she probably reflected, was in flinging herself on one [enemy] before the other was fully prepared …
“Sooner or later she will bear the whole brunt of the war with France and Russia at once. And she was uncertain of the neutrality of Britain. Therefore she decided to strike the first blow. We deeply regret it, but we understand it.”“Sooner or later she will bear the whole brunt of the war with France and Russia at once. And she was uncertain of the neutrality of Britain. Therefore she decided to strike the first blow. We deeply regret it, but we understand it.”
Scott wired Lloyd George: “Feeling of intense exasperation among leading liberals here at prospect of government embarking on a war. No man who is responsible can lead us again.”Scott wired Lloyd George: “Feeling of intense exasperation among leading liberals here at prospect of government embarking on a war. No man who is responsible can lead us again.”
That Monday night Grey went to the Commons and insisted on preserving the neutrality of Belgium. He also disclosed for the first time the British undertaking to defend France’s Atlantic and Channel coasts.That Monday night Grey went to the Commons and insisted on preserving the neutrality of Belgium. He also disclosed for the first time the British undertaking to defend France’s Atlantic and Channel coasts.
The Guardian’s leader on Tuesday 4 August, headed Peace or War, made a final plea: “We hold it to be the patriotic duty for all good citizens to oppose to the utmost the participation of this country in the greatest crime of our time,” it opened.The Guardian’s leader on Tuesday 4 August, headed Peace or War, made a final plea: “We hold it to be the patriotic duty for all good citizens to oppose to the utmost the participation of this country in the greatest crime of our time,” it opened.
It talked of “rallying forces for peace” and praised the minority of MPs who had protested at Grey’s statement. It argued that Prussian militarism was “profoundly mistaken” but so was believing it was possible to “repair Belgian neutrality by violating the neutrality of England”.It talked of “rallying forces for peace” and praised the minority of MPs who had protested at Grey’s statement. It argued that Prussian militarism was “profoundly mistaken” but so was believing it was possible to “repair Belgian neutrality by violating the neutrality of England”.
On the day that Britain declared war on Germany, Scott went to London to see Lloyd George, who told him no British government could tolerate German attacks on the French side of the Channel coast and survive in office: “He had done his utmost for peace but events had been too strong for him,” Scott records in his diary.On the day that Britain declared war on Germany, Scott went to London to see Lloyd George, who told him no British government could tolerate German attacks on the French side of the Channel coast and survive in office: “He had done his utmost for peace but events had been too strong for him,” Scott records in his diary.
“He asked if under existing circumstances I were in the cabinet I should resign and I said I thought I should on the ground that there was no effective obligation to fight for the neutrality of Belgium and that from the point of view of British interests the dominance of Russia would be worse than the dominance of Germany,” wrote Scott.“He asked if under existing circumstances I were in the cabinet I should resign and I said I thought I should on the ground that there was no effective obligation to fight for the neutrality of Belgium and that from the point of view of British interests the dominance of Russia would be worse than the dominance of Germany,” wrote Scott.
The final leader, on Wednesday 5 August, when the Germans began their assault on Liège, recognised the position had radically changed: “All controversy … is now at an end. Our front is united.The final leader, on Wednesday 5 August, when the Germans began their assault on Liège, recognised the position had radically changed: “All controversy … is now at an end. Our front is united.
“A little more knowledge, a little more time on this side, more patience, and a sounder political principle on the other side would have saved us from the greatest calamity that anyone living has known. It will be a war in which we risk almost everything of which we are proud, and in which we stand to gain nothing.“A little more knowledge, a little more time on this side, more patience, and a sounder political principle on the other side would have saved us from the greatest calamity that anyone living has known. It will be a war in which we risk almost everything of which we are proud, and in which we stand to gain nothing.
“Even those who have worked for the war will enter upon it without enthusiasm, and amongst the majority of our countrymen the thought of it has aroused the deepest misgivings and the most poignant regret. Some day we shall all regret it.”“Even those who have worked for the war will enter upon it without enthusiasm, and amongst the majority of our countrymen the thought of it has aroused the deepest misgivings and the most poignant regret. Some day we shall all regret it.”
• This article was amended on 5 August 2014. An earlier version referred to the Liberal chief whip Lord Illingworth. The chief whip at the time was Percy Illingworth, younger brother of Albert Illingworth. Albert was postmaster general from 1916 to 1921 and it was he, not Percy (who died in 1915), who was ennobled in 1921.