%.% Class _i.r:4i Book__y2jd GopightN". i:? .' COPflaGHT DEPOSIT THE NOTE THAT RINGS TKUE WAR ECHOES OR Germany and Austria in the Crisis Excellent Illustrations and Maps Dedicated to Peace and the Fatherland PEACE versity of Illinois. THE CAUSES OF THE EUROPEAN CONFLICT. A GREAT MAN DEFENDS GERMANY. WHY I CHAMPION GERMANY. WHAT WOULD BISMARCK SAY? THE EVOLUTION OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE. „^ ,,,T, T^ r.TT^ , , Dr. George L. Schekgee, Professor of History, Dr. John W Burgess, Dean of the Department j~,^^ Armour Institute of Technology., Chi- of Political Science, Columbia University. ^^^g jn THE RUSSIAN ORANGE PAPER. GERMANY AND THE GREAT WAR. THE WAR AND AMERICA. ^ t u iV -d r- r ^ ■ , Count J. H. Von Bernstorff, German Imperial Herman Ridder, Editor, New Yorker Staats- Ambassador to the United States. Zeiliing, New York City. LESSONS ON THE WAR. GERMANY'S DECLARATION. PAN-SLAVISM. OUR COUNTRY'S POSITION. r. r. r- cj-, f ^i r^., r * j Dr. Paul Carus, Editor of The Open Court and Horace L. Brand, Editor, Illinois Staats-Zeitung, The Monist, Chicago, III. Chicago, III. GERMANY AND ENGLAND REAL ISSUE. EMPEROR WILLIAM THE MAN. DR. ELIOT'S ANTI-GERMAN TERRORS. MORALS OF THE WAR. „ ,, „ „ _ ^ , . , Dr. Bernard Dernberg, Former German Colonial Dr. Hugo Muensterbeeg, Professor of Psy- Minister. chology. Harvard University. GERMAN "ATROCITIES" AND INTERNATIONAL AN APPEAL FOR A FAIR JUDGMENT. LAW. Hon. Peter S. Grosscup, Judge of the United Psof. James G. McDonald, Professor in States Circuit Court, Chicago, III. Indiana University. GERMANY'S FATEFUL HOUR. COREY DECLARES BRITISH CENSORS FORGE DIS- PATCHES Dr. Kuno Francke, Head of the Department of the Germanic Languages and Literatures, Mr. Herbert Corey. Harvard University. RUSSIAN DIPLOMACY AND THE WAR. Dr. James Westfall Thompson, Professor of Dr. George Stuart Fullerton, Professor of History, University of Chicago. GERMANY AND THE PEACE OF EUROPE. Dr. Ferdinand Schevill, Professor of History, Dr. Benjamin Ide Wheeler, President of the University of Chicago. GERMANY OF TODAY. Charles Tower, Professor in the University of Dr. Herbert Sanborn, Professor of Philosophy, Chicago. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GERMAN MILITARISM George Stuart Fullerton, Pre Philosophy, Columbia University. GERMANY'S PLACE IN THE SUN. Benjamin Ide Wheel; University of California. WHAT THE TEUTON DEFENDS Ierbert Sanborn, Pt Vanderbilt University. THE DUTY OF PREPAREDNESS. GERMA'NY'S ENEMIES. Dr. C. R. Henderson, Late Professor of Political Dr. Alfred E. Meyer, Chicago, III. 0"d Social Sciences, University of Chicago. THINKS GERMANY WAS FORCED INTO THE WAR. GERMAN RACE WARS FOR LIFE. Raymond E. Swing. Mr. Joseph Medill Patterson. Table of Contents Page FIRST CHAPTER— Causes of the World War 1 INTRODUCTION— The Root of the World War- Doctor Paul Rohrbach — An Address to the Protestant Union of Hamburg, Germany 3 LOOKING DEEPER AND BEYOND CASUAL AP- PEARANCES FOR REAL CAUSES OF THE WAR 3 More Remote Causes of the War — German Ideals and Their Realization — Bismarck 3 Early Distinction and the Rise of Prussia — Recent -t History of the German People — The Confedera- tion of the German States 3 ^ What This Conflict Means to Germany, Just Coming Into Its Highest National Maturity 8 The Problems of the Balkans— The Balkan Policy— On This Principle Rests the Justice of Their Cause 13 The Serbian-Russian Balkan Policy, Backed Up by Russia — Pan-Slavism 15 The Balkan Policy of Many of the Slavonic Peoples in South Central Europe — Their Policy Directly or Indirectly Supported by Great Britain, France, Japan 16 The Central Empires — Austria and Germany — Their Balkan Policy 19 The Austrian-German Policy Supported by Tur- key — Sympathy for Their Cause also by the Teutonic States and Bulgaria 20 The Great European Problem of the Twentieth Cen- tury for the Whole of Europe — Pan-Slavism; Can It be Justified ? 20 Playing the Greatest Game of World Politics Ever Played — Great Britain and the Entente 23 Fairness and Impartiality, the Plain Duty of All Intelligent Neutrals 30 Immediate Causes of the War — From the Time of THE Assassination of the Archduke and Duchess of Austria '. ZJ The Real Immediate Cause of the War— The Russian Mobilization ! 37 Modern Diplomacy, Especially "Secret" Diplomacy — Discussions on General and Special Diplomatic Questions 43 The Special Diplomatic Correspondence, from the 24th of July Until the 5th of August, 1914 45 The Philosopher of History on Modern Ultra-Prag- matism in this World PoHtics — Vital Cause of the War — The Mystery of Diplomacy and Inter- national Politics 47 Further Causes of the Great War— The Nations Are All to Blame and All Are Right from a Certain Point of View 49 Additional Evidence of the Work of the War-Makers 53 Great Britain and Germany — Their Principles and Attitude in the Manly and Peaceful Pursuit of Industry and Progress 54 Causes and the Occasions of the War 54 SECOND CHAPTER— "The Case of Belgium" 57 INTRODUCTION— Belgian Neutrality— Doctor John W. Burgess, Dean of Political Science and Philosophy, Columbia University 59 A "SCRAP OF PAPER"— What the German Chancellor Meant by Thus Describing the Belgian Neutrality Guarantee 59 The English-French-Belgian Position and Their Consequent Attitude 59 The Popular Notion that There Was Still a Belgian Neutrahty to Violate— That the English-French Were Duty-Bound to Protect Belgium 59 Page Making a Fuss Over a Virtue Long Since Surren- dered — Belgian Neutrality a Myth 60 The Heroic Deed of Protecting a Neutrality That Was Not— Good Will and Ability to Protect Belgium ! 67 The Extension of the Entente— The Case of Belgium 70 Colossal Machinations and Intrigue Against the Aus- tro-Hungarian Empire — Consequently Against Germany — Why This Is So 72 The German Position and Her Consequent Attitude 74 Germany's Honorable Proposal to Belgium — Even After Belgium Had Broken Faith with Her Neighbor 74 The Case of Belgium and Other Nations — Neutrality Guarantees — Treaties Made and Broken 75 A Sketch of Belgian History — Belgian Vicissitudes for a Century — Neutrality and International Law 78 Belgium's New Life Since That Nation's Recognized Independence from Holland in 1839 85 The Teutonic Nations and Belgium 91 The Non-Teutonic Nations — Except Bulgaria and Spain 91 "The Case of Belgium" and the United States 91 The Deeper Meaning of the Alignment of Nations in the War 91 THIRD CHAPTER— All the Civilized Nations Vitally Concerned 95 INTRODUCTION — The Big Human Family, Grouped Into Many Large, Vital, National Families — Vital Self-interest— Vital Inter-Relations 95 The Belligerent Nations— Inter-Relation of Bellig- erent Nations — Their Ambitions, Ideas, Ideals, Mutual Interests and Welfare — Life: Competi- tion — Grow or Die ! 97 Great Britain, the "Triple" Entente, and Other Allies 97 Introduction— Why We Are at War— J. Ramsay Mc- Donald, Prominent English Statesman-Scholar.. 97 The Underlying Vital Causes of England's Participa- tion in This Conflict 97 Great Britain in the World War 97 England's Domestic Troubles and Outlook — British Policy and Its Character in the Mak- ing — England, France, Russia — Belgium, Japan, Portugal ' 104 British Principles and Character in Action 110 The Enghsh Nursing Hatred Toward the Kaiser. 115 Enghsh Suspicion and Hatred of the Germans.. 115 British War News — The Press Must Assist Us in Fighting Our Battles 118 Great Britain and International Law 119 Great Britain's Position — Some Remarkable Con- fessions 121 Bits of News on France in the Great War 122 Russia and the "Triple" Entente 126 The Liberation of the Jewish People by Russia.. 127 Great Britain's and Russia's Part in the World War 131 Anglo-Japanese Machinations and American Safety 133 Serbia's Cause, Her Position, and Her Part in the World War 13S Germany, the "Triple" Alliance, and Other Allies- Germany, Austria, Italy — Turkey in the War on Her Own Account — A Bone of Contention : The Dardanelles — The Central Empires and the Neu- trals 137 Introduction — Defending the Fatherland — The Under- lying Causes of the Great War — The Part Ger- many Had in Its Advent — By Rev. Alfred E. Meyer 137 TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Page Germany in the World War 137 The German Government and the German People 139 Attacking and Defending Germany in the Crisis. 143 German Character and the German Cause in the War ISO German Ideals and German Character in Action. . 156 German Militarism and the Evolution of the Empire 165 The German Menace as Seen Through British Eyes 1' 3 The Kaiser— What Great Men Know of His Char- acter, Motives and Ability 182 Germany's Moral and Sacred Trust to Posterity — Patriotism and Duty 186 Germany's Moral and Sacred Trust to Posterity— Her Defense 194 Germany's Moral and Sacred Trust to Posterity- Spiritual Values 199 A Word from Emperor Francis Joseph to His People 201 Italy and the War— An Ally, a Neutral, a Belligerent 201 The Neutral Nations— Their Interests and Rights 203 European Teutonic Nations Loyally Neutral — England Excepted 203 Teutonic Nations Generally Not Firm in Their Neutrality — Some Laudable Exceptions: Spain, Greece, Bulgaria 203 The Official and Popular Neutrality of the United States — Uncle Sam and His Children 207 The Popular Neutrality of the United States in the World War 207 The Official Neutrality of the United States in the World War 217 Neutrality of the United States of a Semi-Popular and Semi-official Nature 228 On the Fence — Nations with Very Vital Interests, in . Relation to the German-Austrian-Italian Alliance —Turkey, Bulgaria, Italy 234 In Regard to the English-French-Russian Alliance — Japan, Portugal, Roumania 234 The Horizon Darkens — The European Situation Has Come to a Crisis 237 Hostile Acts Before a Declaration of War 237 Germany in the Crisis — The Kaiser's Speeches 237 FOURTH CHAPTER— By the Laws of War 241 INTRODUCTION— Germany in the Great War— Count Von Bernstorff, Imperial German Ambassador to the United States 243 WHAT IT MEANS TO WAGE WAR ON SO LARGE ■ A SCALE AGAINST SO MANY ENEMIES— Con- cerning the Use of Weapons in Modern Warfare, Especially the Submarine and Airship — Some Cate- gorical Questions Answered by the Imperial German Ambassador to the United States 243 Evolution By the Law of War — Progress and the First Law of Nature — Life : An Eternal Compe- tition 243 The Western Campaign — Belgium and France the !r. Battleground — Germany's Geographic Position '7'^ Among Her Neighbors — Consequent Strategic ■'^■■'<' Movements of Vast Importance of the German ■*^ Armies ■ 243 ! The First Month of the War— The Dash Into Bel- gium and France 243 With the German Army and the German People in France and Belgium 245 German Atrocity Reports Libelous ; They Are a Most Infamous Crime of Political World Machinations and Intrigue ! 258 France and Her Lost Provinces — Alsace-Lorraine . . 265 How France Has Behaved for a Century 265 The "Entente" Becomes an "Alliance" — Stand or Fall Together! 265 Page Laws of War, Progress, and the First Law of Nature 268 The Sweep Along the Coast — Antwerp 268 Contrary to the Laws of War 268 The Eastern Campaign — Russia — The Second Colossal Military Move, According to the German Strategic Plans— What Will the Coming Century Bring Germany from Russia ! 274 The Central Empires — Germany and Austria — The Seriously Threatening Enemy in the East — Gahcia and East Prussia 278 The Co-Operation of Austria— Turkey in the War on Her Own Account 278 Italy in the Great War— The Street Pulls Italy Off the Fence — Italy's Harvests from Her Sowing as an Ally, a Neutral, a Belligerent 281 Italy Behold the Text: As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Also Reap ! 281 The Bone of Contention — Adriatic Provinces 281 Modern Naval Warfare — Cutting the German Cable and Capturing the Enemy's Merchant Marine — "The German Submarine Will Win the War," An •American General 286 Precedent and Modern Naval Warfare — The Block- . ade and the Submarine 286 [ Naval Warfare — Cruisers and the Enemy's Ship- ping — Neutral Shipping — Naval Battles — Sub- marines — Blockades 286 ; Colonial Campaigns — Eastern Considerations — Japan, India, Persia — Great Britain in Africa — The Boers, Morocco, the Sudan 293 Aerial Warfare — Zeppelins, Aeroplanes, Hydro-Aero- planes — Progress and International Law 295 The Use and Effectiveness of Air-Craft in the War — International Law on the Use of Aerial '. Weapons and Present Necessities 295 Press Room Campaigns at Home and Abroad — With Magnificent First Line Forces and Plenty of Dum-Dums ! 299 . The Pen is Now Indeed Mightier Than the Sword — Especially in England and France ! How Strange ! 299 Press Room Campaigns in England and France — Plenty of Dum-Dums ! 299 The Press Room Campaign in the United States — With Now and Then a Dum-Dum ! 305 FIFTH CHAPTER— On the Philosophy of the War 313 INTRODUCTION— Lessons of the War, Doctor Paul Carus, Editor; The Open Court, Chicago, Illinois 315 WE MAY BE OBLIGED TO EMPLOY FORCE TO PROTECT VIRTUE AND PROGRESS, BUT WOE TO THE NATION THAT WOULD STAY THESE VIRTUES BY FORCE! 315 Peace and War — Interesting and Helpful TiIoughts AND Suggestions on the Philosophy of War — Moral or Immoral, Depends on the Righteous- ness OF the Cause 315 National Ideals — Morality and the Justification of Force — Diplomacy and Politics in the War 325 Sincerity of Purpose of the Nations in the War — The War Spirit 325 It Is Immoral for a Nation to Allow Criminal Neigh- bors to Prostitute Its Sacred Trust — Reasoning on the War 328 No Nation Without Laws ; No Law Without Conflict and Force — Ergo : The Tail-End of Ever}' Law | is a Whip ! 336 • Strategy and Sacrifices of the War 336 Interesting Comment and Speculation Concerning ' Results of the War 342 Victory in the War 342 Results of the War 342 List of Illustrations and Maps ILLUSTRATIONS Page Admiral von Tirpitz 286 Albert, King of Belgium 74 Also a Volunteer — Picture by Courtesy of "Chicago Abendpost" 140 Amazone, An — Picture by Courtesy of the "Chicago Abendpost" 279 A Squadron of the German Staff Under Cover Near Grudusk, Russian Poland — Photograph by the Inter- national News Service 176 Austrian Motor-Battery on the Way — Picture by Courtesy of "Illinois Staats-Zeitung" 280 Before the Days of Militarism — Picture by Courtesy of "Open Court" 125 Bismarck — Picture by Courtesy of "Chicago Abendpost". . 5 Breathing Spell, A — Picture by Courtesy of the "Illinois Staats-Zeitung" 153 Busy Bertha 86 Captured Russian Cannon in Vienna — Picture by Courtesy of "Chicago Abendpost" 201 Count Ferdinand Zeppelin — Picture by Courtesy of "Open Court" ' .295 Cousin to "Busy Bertha" — Picture by Courtesy of "Chi- cago Abendpost" , 202 Dangerous Lookout, A Rather — Picture by Courtesy of the "Chicago Abendpost" 249 Dress Parade, On 187 Duchess of Brunswick, The Kaiser's Only Daughter, The — By Courtesy of the "Open Court" 138 Emperor William II — From "The Chicago Tribune," Oct. 23, 1914 161 First Aid 245 Field Dentist, The — Picture by Courtesy of "Chicago Abendpost" Fort Loucin of Liege — Picture by Courtesy of the "Koel- nische Zeitung" 88 Franz Joseph — Austria-Hungary 278 French Prisoners of War 199 Front, To the 142 Furthering German "Kultur" — Picture by Courtesy of "Chicago Abendpost" 61 Game at "Skat" in the Catacombs at Bandesincourt, A Quiet — Picture by Courtesy of the "Illinois Staats- Zeitung" . . General Von Hindenburg — Photograph by the Inter- national News Service 274 George V., King of Great Britain 105 German Army in Belgium, The — Photograph by the Inter- national News Service 141 German Crown Prince Inspecting His Victorious Regi- ment of Massiges, The — Picture by Courtesy of the "Illinois Staats-Zeitung" 158 German Crown Prince, The Sons of the 195 German Crown Princess, The, to the Right — Picture by Courtesy of the "Open Court" Germans Distributing Food to the Belgians — Picture by Courtesy of the "Open Court" 92 German Emperor, The 141 German Emperor and His Six Sons, The 196 German Ordnance Officers in Poland — Photograph by the International News Service 270 German People, Leaders of the 244 Page German Regiment Crossing Pontoon Bridge, The — Photo- graph by the International News Service 155 German Trenches Against Russia, In the 268 God for Our Fatherland, With ISO Hermann von Eichhorn — Picture by Courtesy of "Illinois Staats-Zeitung" 259 Home, At 156 Home Circle Strategy 330 India Pacata by Verestchagin — Picture by Courtesy of the "Open Court" Ill In the Prisoners' Camp at Ohrdruf — Picture by Courtesy of the "Chicago Abendpost" 179 Iron Cross, The 184 Kaiser Wilhelm Canal, The — Picture by Courtesy of the "World's Work" 190 King Albert in German Uniform — Picture by Courtesy of the "Open Court" n Lincoln — Picture by Courtesy of "Chicago Abendpost" . . . 230 Lord Roberts Inspecting Recruits in Langley Park, England — Picture by Courtesy of the "Open Court". . 100 Loyal Comrades in Arms — Picture by Courtesy of "Chi- cago Abendpost" 278 Lunch Time of the German Army — Photograph by the International News Service 247 Machine-Gun Division in Russian Poland Ready for Ac- tion — Picture by Courtesy of the "IlHnois Staats- Zeitung" 275 Monument of the Battle of Leipsic — Picture by Courtesy of the "Open Court" 17 M. Poincare, President of France — Photo by the Inter- national News Service 123 New Belgian Bank Commission, The — Picture by Courtesy of "Chicago Abendpost" 78 Nicholas II, Czar of Russia 127 Nothing Neglected— Photograph by the International News Service 253 Ouspinski Church as a Stable, The— Picture by Court- esy of the "Open Court" 126 Peace — Picture by Courtesy of the "Open Court" Peter I — King of Servia 135 People Waiting in the Streets of Lodz for Food from the German Army— Photograph by the International News Service 277 Riding Infantry — Picture by Courtesy of "Chicago Abendpost" 147 Ruins of Heidelberg Castle— Picture by Courtesy of the "Open Court" 124 Taking Departure after Recovery— By Courtesy of the "Chicago Abendpost" 343 The German Emperor 237 The Note that Rings True To the Front 238 Uncle Sam's Officers in Germany— Picture by Courtesy of "Chicago Abendpost" 219 Victor Emanuel, King of Italy (Picture) 282 Von Hindenburg and His Staff— Picture by Courtesy of "Chicago Abendpost" 144 William II — Emperor of Germany 182 MAPS CENTRAL EUROPE— From "The Navy," Washington, September, 1914 16 EUROPE — From the Geographic Publishing Corapan)'.. 283 EUROPE AND THE MEDITERRANEAN— From "The Navy," Washington, September, 1914 20 ITALY AND THE ADRIATIC— From the "National Geographic Magazine" 284 KAISER WILHELM CANAL— From "The Navy," Washington, September, 1914 194 NORTHERN EUROPE— From "The Navy," Washing- ton, September, 1914 18 THE DARDANELLES AND THE AEGEAN— From the "National Geographic Magazine" 287 THE EASTERN WAR ZONE— From the "National Geographic Magazine" 276 THE WESTERN WAR ZONE— From the "National Geographic Magazine" 251 THE WORLD AT WAR— From "The Literary Digest," New York, October 17, 1914 293 PREFACE WHAT THIS BOOK IS. "Behold the true warriors; they are not quick to shrink, are not defiant, nor eager for fight, but when they 'are forced to fight, then have a care, they are in earnest." — Luther. (From the Fatherland, New York, April 28, 1915.) War Echoes gives you a systematic presentation and interpretation of Official Documents, Newspaper and Magazine Articles, Addresses, Lectures, Debates, Dis- cussions, Editorials, a thoroughgoing Preface with con- tributions from the Editor, with articles, discussions, comment, etc.; with comment on subject-matter in- cluded — and all, of course, in connection with the pres- ent European conflict, from the time of the assassina- tion of the Archduke and the Duchess of Austria; the book is well illustrated, includes many good Maps, an analytical Table of_ Contents, an alphabetical List of Contributors, showing their choicest articles, and a complete Index. This book is the one, dnd only complete answer to the many questions asked and dis- cussed throughout the civilized world on this subject. HOW THE TASK WAS CONCEIVED. The tremendous power of the American press, cre- ating, and feeding upon popular notions and senti- ments concerning the aims and conduct of certain Euro- pean nations, and, I very much fear, only too often stooping to policies working to the great injury of cer- tain persons and institutions for private gain through the misfortunes of others, which was especially so dur- ing the first months of the present conflict — impelled me to throw all my energies and spirit into the work of defending a people whose reputation and character we well know, in whom we have always had and still cherish a splendid Faith and in which Faith we shall abide until sufficient evidence compels us to give this Faith up as not well founded. I say we advisedly, be- cause I regard my task in this connection as merely that of a collaborator with the many staunch defenders of the same cause and Faith which I cherish and cham- pion. For instance, note what the Chicago Abendpost says of this : "WAR ECHOES or GERMANY AND AUSTRIA IN THE CRISIS should be in the home of every American citizen who still holds to the idea of fair play in politics." — The Abendpost, Chicago, January 23, 1915. It is very simple and clear to me how this task was plainly forced upon us through the overwhelming mass of untruthful, insulting and calumnious reports of a people whom we know too well to accept the hasty, nervous accusations, in the light of the spirit and cir- cumstances of the evidence ! THE MISSION AND PROMISE OF THE BOOK. Its Mission. This suggests the Mission of the book, which is clear, and frankly to defend Germany and Austria in the present crisis, a high privilege and plain duty, as I see my relation to the situation, which has very plainly been forced upon all of us who believe in fair play, honor at home and justice abroad! We cannot escape this duty until every American citizen will be ready to grant to all belligerents the same open and generous hearing alike, and until we will be persuaded to strike a plane of a high moral and spiritual attitude in deal- ing with belligerents now and hereafter. I appreciate the technical position that we cannot very w'ell pass a law now since the trouble is on, that would not work to the inevitable detriment of one of the contestants in the war, which would be equivalent to an ex post facto in common law; I am now appealing for a standing policy for my country in the future. Yet, why could we not do what Jefferson did with England and France, and what President Wilson did with Mexico a year ago? I am not criticizing, I am honestly asking for information. At any rate, we should at least not con- demn a people or a nation until we have given all the witnesses in the case an opportunity to be heard if we must judge and condemn! It is with an open mind, a good conscience, and a glad heart that we are looking forward to the fulfillment of this important Mission of the undertaking! Can you give a clear account of the German-Austrian and Serbian-Russian Balkan Policies, the Principles upon which the present heart-rending calamity was precipitated? Can you discuss the Historical Back- ground of these Policies, the recent European History, especially that of the nations at war, the interests of the several nations that led to the present political alignment in Europe and elsewhere, the attitude of the neutral nations and the so-called neutrals? This book meets this demand absolutely. My Fatherland First My Fatherland First, the only possible meaning of Deutsch- land, Deutschland Ueber Alias. This idea is further well expressed by the beautiful and strikingly patriotic Spirit of the Poem and Song, and also in the evident meaning of — "* * * from the Maas clear to the Memel, from the Etsch on to the Belt * * *" This truth, as the very essence of poetry and song, must be experienced psychologically, not logically. My Fatherland First, is the real meaning of the poem, and I feel certain the author would confirm this conviction. Is there a man so dull as to find fault with his neighbor because of his neighbor's sentiment attached to his family, when he eulogizes the many virtues of the mother of his happy children : "She is the best and most beautiful creature God ever created!" Certainly nobody in his right mind would call him either a fool or a conceited, am- bitious neighbor ! We must know how to make allowances for expressions from so deep a source ! And this is precisely a parallel case, as against the stupid, ugly rendering of this song, which we have seen so often recently, "Germany Above All" ; both of these expressions have their life in spirit and love, the one in the love of Home, the other in the love of Country! PREFACE The Promise. The book was to be ready to be sent on its important Mission soon after May first, but practical problems over which the Editor and Publisher had little con- trol, have prevented this until the latter part of July; and now we cherish the hope that it will meet with a hearty welcome ! For our good German and Austro- Hungarian sympathizers we need no argument to point out the importance of the undertaking; for these of our good citizens, suffice it to say that in this book we meet with the first and only serious attempt to assist the "Fatherland" more by disparaging her enemies less, but also by bringing her side of the story to the good people, the rank and file of Americans in the American Language! Moreover, by going into the various factors of the subject extensively, systemat- ically, and scientifically ! Civilized people cannot sys- tematically believe in vilification, but it's just the best of physicians who use strong medicine at times, when in- temperance and abuse have sent their poison coursing through a body ; the enemy must be met in his own lair by the employment of his own methods and weapons. We do not delight in giving a rascal of his own medi- cine, but sometimes this seems to be the only recourse. Germans, Austro-Hungarians and their sympathizers do not require an argument; all they have been expecting is factSj truths, fair play, justice! Now to those good Americans who sympathize with the European alignment of the opposition, permit me to say this solemn and serious word : the cause of your hearts — and the people in Europe that represent this cause in a last human effort to force their will, have had easily ninety per cent of the attention of American periodicals, England having been in a position to reap the benefit of this, whether it was justly earned or not. Capital and diplomacy go far in such crises, especially so when they can be employed in the language of the country, in a country having similar institutions, having the same political ancestry, etc. Then consider the first offices of the nation that have easily a thousand social-political and family bonds in the United Kingdom to one in Germany or Austria ! How many of German and Austrian birth or near lineage are in our Congress, in the Cabinet? You have the further tremendous advantage in the fact of your faith in democratic ideas and institutions, viewing all types of Socialists with a sense of sympathy, fear, or pity! Money, power, prestige, the popularity of the cause of the democratic alignment, with which you most nat- urally sympathize, the Talleyrand type of diplomacy, the more or less popular or catchy character of demo- cratic literature, and finally, but by no means of less importance, the many things you know (?) and feel of what has happened and still is going on in Europe on the subject in question, which have neither foundation in fact nor truth ! Therefore, let us be considerate and generous, and let us reason with you and appeal to you ! Read at least such portions of the book as deal with the character and honor of the enemy ! Let us show with a genuine pride that we have real chivalry! At least let us read the most excellent articles from Dr. Burgess, Dr. Schevill, Dr. Henderson, Dr. Fullerton, Dr. Sanborn, Judge Grosscup, and many others from equally prominent and worthy American scholars, and then let us talk the question over again, quietly! Read especially Chapter I on the Causes of the War, and look carefully into Germany's recent History. Let us show these nations at war that we Americans can at least show a spirit of Fair Play in an hour so trying to them ! Not one of us would even have his personal enemy maligned or condemned without a fair trial! I venture to say that German sympathizers in America have learned much by having been obliged to content themselves with but a very meager sympathetic atten- tion on the part of the American press, public utter- ances and the public spirit, and that they have had these things constantly before their eyes ; it is not un- likely that you would reap a similar benefit by showing your good will and your spirit of fairness toward this question ! This book promises to meet the requirements of the American public for honor at home and justice abroad, as suggested by Herman Ridder: "The feeling against Germany in this war in the United States is largely sentimental. It had its begin- ning in the violent utterance of British writers against the personality of the Emperor and in the greater pity for Belgium — harped so largely upon by England." — Herman Ridder, in the New-Yorker Staats-Zeitung, Jan. 4, 1915. THE UNITED STATES AND THE WAR. Our Neutrality — Official and Popular. We have been most solemnly enjoined by the Pres- ident to remain neutral during the European conflict, especially in^ that nobler, finer, subtle, spiritual neutral- ity. Accordingly we should refrain from speaking, yea, even from feeling and thinking partially on the subject, while many may be permitted to send munitions of war, when it is evident that only one side of the con- testants can take advantage of such shipments ! And this may be done while our foodstuff, clothing and shelter materials receive but shabby protection on their way to the civiHan population of some of the belliger- ents ! First, an element of the American press, pseudo- democratic and pro-British, did untold damage toward poisoning the innocent heart and mind of the American masses, and then, to cap the climax, we cannot prevent war munitions from going to the very maligners of a people whose case is still in court, and thus use us to add injury to insult to a people who have not yet had a full opportunity to be heard, and that is all they expect from a "Neutral" country I I often wonder if our American newspaper writers have ever read this procla- mation I H they have, they certainly have not taken the President seriously. Of course, to send munitions of war, in the face of this proclamation, is, technically not unneutral, but hardly chivalrous, noble, American ! But, to cap the real climax, that is reserved for an Englishman, a great rhetorician of fantastic figures of speech and a mental gymnast. Hall Caine : this man has the audacity to take it upon himself to reprove the President for his plea for strict neutrality and attempts to show Mr. Wilson, according to the reports of the local papers, how to work for justice, righteousness and humanity, by joining the British fighting forces! It is furthermore my plain duty to state here, now, and in unmistakable terms, that I have not been able to approve of all that individual and collective German- Austrian sympathisers in this country have said or done in connection with the war. I shall speak of the various debatable questions in their proper, respective places in the Preface and also in the notes and in my articles in the book. The People and their Governments. Let us regard it our Moral Duty to try to understand that the People, especially in a non-democratic country, are much less or often very little to blame for govern- mental conduct: this applies especially to the People of Belgium, since I have it on good authority, from several sources, and from my own observations in Bel- gium, that the People were not to blame, for not even the general officials of all the three countries were "let in on the deal" of the secret "conversations." In one, a most flagrant case, not even a member of the British Parliament knew of the obligation to France, much less to Belgium ! Are we surprised, therefore, when we hear of the resignations of high officials ! I feel mor- ally certain that, had it been left to the Belgian People to decide for themselves whether or not they should place their fate into the hands of Great Britain, they would have preferred to continue as they were, or at least consult Germany and Holland in regard to her course. Perhaps the German People would have done likewise, under ordinary circumstances, but once they understood the meaning of the alignment against them, without quibbling or exhortation, the German People would have voted war to a man ! That is the differ- ence ; there is a reason ! PREFACE We Don't Want Germany to Win. One of the strongest reasons why people favor the sending of war materials to Germany's enemies, while dissatisfaction is heard everywhere because of the poor protection American shipments of food supplies for the German civilian population receive, is, as they say, "We don't want Germany to win" ! Of course, they call that neutrality! The poll of the American press can- vassed and reported by the Literary Digest showed the same spirit and results ; it is the spirit of the country and the people, reflected by the press. Here neutrality ends ; I do not want to be found guilty of this spirit and deed. I am merely trying to do justice; this is our plain duty, not to take sides, beyond championing fair play and justice ! Whatever our efforts, then, they must make for honor at home and justice abroad! We would, furthermore, be loyal and responsible citizens, and, therefore, we always wish to be found in a position in which we can support any and every vital government policy without stint, with courage, patriotism, and spirit, without fear or favor. But as there is filial, so is there also parental responsi- bility. A democratic government must certainly expect its people to take part in shaping its policy in such a way that the people may support it loyally, at all times, without question; as a faithful citizen, I want to be in a position to say at any time that nothing will stop me from supporting my country ; that is why I am making sacrifices with this study for our common good ! Is this clear to you? It is American First, and if no declaration is made to the contrary, this policy should always be supported without question ! This partisanship and the private interests at work in this country, making money by feeding the ivar-fire for more victims to the ghastly holocaust, have pro- longed the frightful slaughter, and will continue to do so; many sensible people are now beginning to see that it is becoming more and more urgingly our duty to discontinue this sort of war-fare as neutrals, indi- vidually as zvcll as collectively, since the inevitable re- sult is becoming clearer from day to day! Why Our Position is DifEcult. Let me mention some plain, practical reasons why ~ the people of the United States have generally sym- pathized with the Democratic Alignment; certainly not because of, but assuredly in spite of our repeated dis- appointing experiences with Great Britain ; compare, for instance, our relation with Germany, in history, with that of Great Britain ! Consider the advantage of our common language, and consequently the power of the American press, though this is, in my humble judgment, not the only reason for the conduct of the press! Compare the similarity of our institutions and our governmental ancestry ; in other words, democ- racy, and hence our sympathy, especially for France. But out of this grows also the peculiar democratic faith in numbers, majorities! The statement is general: "Why would so many be against Germany, if she were not wrong?" This is a question often asked in good faith. You know this is no uncommon argument, either in war between nations or political wars within the very borders of democratic countries. Of course, these people never heard of the great American Statesman who preferred to be right to being President! Then comes the natural, practical problem of getting some- thing good for the papers ! The American likes to be with the winning side, being an opportunist, hence here he can make it count, there being much at stake ! Don't shudder because of purely business interests involved, for the press : our domestic political relations, right here at home, are not even free from these consider- ations, how do you expect love to extend beyond na- tional boundaries when we don't even find it at home ; love as charity begins there ! The Difficult Position of the Third Party. The careful manipulation of the series of events on the part of Germany's enemies, to bring her to a place where it was certain she would protest, and that by force, if need be, and to try to make out that she sought war, when she was seeking self-protection and the protection of her ally, only, ought to convince even the most prejudiced ! The situation is always pre- sented by Germany's enemies that Germany could have conciliated the question of Austria's rights and duties, as if to say, we are always ready to compromise or arbitrate any question in dispute with our neighbors. If this were sincere, why did not England call a halt on Russian mobilization ! That would have settled it all, in one stroke, and England could have done this as easily as Germany, dealing with Austria in connec- tion with Serbia, accomplishing the same end. And what offense had Germany committed in comparison to the Russian trick in mobilization ! Or, why did France or Russia not arbitrate? There is one alterna- tive : England's cause for war was just, Germany's not ! Don't say Belgium ! It is now common knowl- edge that England would not remain neutral, by her own admission in the Diplomatic Correspondence, even if Belgian territory were not invaded; and again, as for the respect for Belgian neutrality, which was by this time registered on a mere "scrap of paper," Great Britain made it clear in the famous "Conversations" that her 160,000 troops would land on the continent, Belgium willing, or not, as anyone may see for him- self in Chapter II of this book. What noble or right- eous impulse has urged France into the war, anyway? Revenge ; what more ! And if Germany and Austria do not look after their own interests, which no one can understand better than they do themselves, who would? In short, if there was a lack of willingness to arbitrate the question, then the Allies certainly have enough sweeping to do at their doors ! Why I Defend Germany. From Germany's reply to Grey, as to Germany's motives: "Germany is not figliting to subdue the continent, but for her own independence and the freedom of the seas, and for all nationals who are bulldozed by the English navy." — From the Milwaukee Free Press, who quoted from the Nord Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, March 27, 1915. My defense of the German cause, which is bound up with that of the Austro-Hungarian empire, is very sim- ple, natural and reasonable ; I am first of all a good American and have an honest and deep desire for genuine neutrality, according to the Spirit as well as the Letter of the Law. At least one American manufacturer has made a practical demonstration of his genuine neutrality, when he sets the example by refusing millions to contribute munitions of war. See Stevenson (John J.) — in the Index. This is what Mr. Stevenson says of this change in his life : "The last time we made war munitions was for the United States government about eight years ago. We manufactured about 119,000 shells." Then came the conversion, I take it! "I then joined Andrew Carnegie's Peace Society — and have been an active member ever since. It is so much better to make things that are useful to mankind than to make things that destroy mankind." — Thus speaks one of the American manufacturers, John J. Stevenson, President of the Driggs-Seabury Ordnance Corporation. See also : "Our Neutrality" in this circular. He is the noble President of the Driggs-Seabury Ordnance Corporation. Three cheers for Stevenson ! It's a desire for Fair Play, for Justice! As usual for me, I am with the unpopular cause; and. in this particular I am quite un-American for I glory in championing the maligned, the insulted, the hated person, institution or people, and especially so, when fear, revenge, power, ambition, are the Virtues arrayed against them, when such is the answer to an invitation to natural normal competition between the nations ! What is the use to talk about neutrality when the spirit of the press and people is arrayed against them, even if we try to "toe the mark," according to the letter of the law, at Wash- ington. Germans and Germany are human, however, and I am not defending them in their errors, wrongs or sins : I leave that to the teachers, the government, and the priest: to the world-Tribunal, and their God: and as for pointing them out, I think I could hardly improve upon what has been done during the past eiffht months! It is the palpably one-sided situation in Spirit that is un-American, unfair, un-neutral ! It is this that I deplore and denounce, and this I do as a faith- ful American ! PREFACE This is a move in the right direction; why do not our millions of good Christian people who pompously talk "Humanity" set for themselves the personal, pri- vate, individual task and plain duty to convert more of these individuals to a full' sense of the realisation of what their business in the anvmunition traffic means! The government cannot now well pass a specific en- actment dealing with this question for reasons above stated, but we can make it a private question which will work as far, at least, as it works. A law by the Federal government, indicating the future policy on this point, will certainly be duly considered when the war is over. It is a little inopportune to discuss what we might have done or could do in the future. But very clearly and plainly we must see our present duty and responsibility. A great Mass-Meeting of Sympathizers for Ger- many and Austria in their present critical situation was held in Chicago, at the Auditorium, on the evening of August 5, 1914, for the purpose of calling upon the press and public to suspend judgment with respect to the responsibility for the present war until all the facts were learned. It was apparent that many Americans, through an anti-German press, had become prejudiced and, therefore, believed it was Germany, and especially the German emperor, that stirred up this great con- flict. One of the speakers at this meeting said that the German sympathizers in the United States could best help Germany by spreading the truth concerning the war and its underlying causes among the American people. How was this to be done most effectively? Our book is so far the only satisfactory reply to this question. The meeting voiced the conviction that a book should be prepared in which would be presented articles selected from a mass of literature, choosing only that which would most adequately set forth the facts before our American audience. Unfortunately the German side of the great issue has not been generally understood owing to the fact that a large proportion of the Anglo-American press has given the causes and news of the war almost wholly from the English standpoint. This has been simply the continuation of a campaign of misrepre- sentation extending over many years. As Herman Ridder says, in the New-Yorker Staats- Zeitung: "We should be a great deal better off and a great deal wiser if the press, instead of feeding us with the events and arguments of the moment, had gone back some thirty or forty years and reprinted the hap- penings which have intervened between then and now. The gradual development of Germany as a world power — the coincident and resultant growth of British jealousy — the last phase of Russia's aspirations — the play of French pride and chagrin— are all written therein." The Necessity of Our Efforts With This Book. Our efforts, then, with this undertaking are intended to throw weight into the balance, to even up our rela- tions with the belligerents while at war. It is high time that the average reader have an opportunity to study an unprejudiced, systematic account of the series of events preceding the war as well as of the progress of it. Where would they go to obtain such an analysis if we did not assist them in this plain duty! The Task of Championing an Unpopular Cause. I am by no means unmindful of the seriousness of championing an unpopular cause ! It is all the worse that the very people and nations that have made this cause unpopular are those same people that have been unwilling to see Germany prosper ! But I have also great faith in the fundamental well-meaning of the American people at heart; therefore, I can approach them with perfect confidence in my appeal. What revelations when fact and truth of the case are known ! / champion Germany's cause, moreover, because 1 now feel convinced more than ever that most of the cardinal sins of the calendar are at the bottom of her trials — jealousy, fear, revenge, ambition, conceit; ignor- ance, ignoble spirit, sentimentality, short sightedness, and many others, but first and last jealousy! The ugly politics in tile British-French Press Room Campaigns tltat represent a nation thus forced' to fight for hearth and home as the aggressor, aiming at nothing short of world control, and to present her thus, when isolated and her very existence _ threatened, to ignorant and credulous mobs proclaiming a pseudo-democracy, when she is not in a position to defend herself — will ever be branded in History as among the meanest and dishon- orable acts in International politics! Our Faith. But where is our well-tried faith in Germany? Have the millions of Germans in this country and the thou- sands of American Students and scholars of German life, of German ideas and ideals, of German science and art, deceived us for all these years? Are the Ger- man civic pride, order, cleanliness, righteousness, ef- ficiency only a sham, a make-belief? Are their domestic virility, their love for home and song, their science and philosophy, _ their unity and courage in trying hours, for the nation, their skill and patience in research, all a mere hallucination, a trick of civilization ! If, on the other hand, our faith in the German people is abiding because of the eternal values in their ideas, thoughts and ideals, as we now know them for many generations, cap we imagine that their kin in the father- land are so different! To be sure, I must recognize one vital cause for a difference : owing to the neces- sity of unusual compromises in democratic countries, his more socialistic cousin in Germany has a decided advantage over him, as long as he has the good fortune of competent and honest public servants. Count this against them, if you like, but don't abuse them ; wait until you know them to be worthy only of hate and scorn, by personal experience with them. Where then, is our faith in the honest, the sincere, the industrious, the idealistic, the music-loving, the patient, plodding German? Which do you think will be more abiding, the half-century of vital, real, first-hand experience with Germans and German life, or the reputation Germany's enemies have given her through unspeakably abusive, insulting and even heinous accusations, during the heat of passion, many of which have been found to have been malicious lies, still more inflamed by many hys- terical and fanatical war-news-garblers ? Take your answer to your God ! Therefore, above and beyond all clamor of the press- ing hour, I pray God that I may retain my Faith in Germany, at least until the Historian, all the witnesses, the judge and a God-fearing jury and God, with them all, have passed on her case, instead of her bitterest, most self-interested enemies, and their American con- freres alone! Yet, in the meantime, is it not our plain duty to see to it that they do not get entirely away with the scheme, resorted to at the expense of millions of inno- cent sufferers, of men, women and children! Note what Dr. Burgess has to say of the situation : "This is no time and no subject, when or upon which, one should speak lightly, ignorantly, or with prejudice. It is one of the world's most serious moments and the views and sympathies now formed will determine the course of the world's development for many years to come. Heavy indeed, is the responsibility which he incurs who would assume the role of teacher at this juncture,^ and it is his first duty to present the creden- tials which warrant his temerity." — From the article, "WHY I CHAMPION GERMANY," bv John W. Bur- gess, Ph. D., LL.D., J.U. D. Dean of the Faculties of Political Science, and of Philosophy, Pure Science and Fine Arts at Columbia University. How the Problem of the Working Out of the Idea Was Conceived — What the Object Was. I finally conceived my problem to be the editing — chronologically, systematically, and from point of view PREFACE of the evolution and meaning of important world-events in connection with the present European crisis and the poHtical life related to it, since July 24th, 1914 — that is, from the time of the assassination of the Archduke and the Duchess of the Austro-Hungarian empire — the choicest articles, Editorials, Comment, Reflections of the press, from Social and Political Life, etc. ; also from the Lecture Hall, Debates, including my own articles on various topics. Preface, Notes, Comment, etc., and from every available source — with the one hope of pre- senting the German-Austrian cause, to the end, as out- lined in the preceding paragraph. Our readers will find the European problems pre- sented in War Echoes quite tip-to-date, up to the first week in July — therefore, including the Lusitania Litera- ture, Italy coming into the war, and the other important current events up to that time. The plan of the book is simple and unique. The first part deals with the Causes, the second with Belgium, the third with the Nations, the fourth with the War and the last chapter with Reflections or Philosophy. Expanded we have : The Causes of the War, the Case of Belgium, The Nations Concerned, By the Laws of War, and On the Philosophy of the War. THE MAIN FEATURES AND METHOD OF THE BOOK. The book has a beautiful and most appropriate cover- picture of the Kaiser and Francis Joseph together; it has also a beautiful Frontispiece, a "Barbarian" feed- ing Belgian children; an extensive analytical TaWe of Contents; a special List of Contributors; Subjects indi- cated at top of Pages; a General Table of Contents of parts of War Echoes; a complete Index, hy title, author, and subject or subjects; it is beautifully and exten- sively Illustrated; has plenty of good Maps. There is also a list of sympathetic periodicals listed at the end of the book. The special Features are highly commendable to our patrons for convenience and assistance in the use of the book, and I am certain they will be appreciated. The analytical Table of Contents, for instance, shows at a glance the field covered, the nature of treatment, method and the relative value given to various subjects, etc. The extensive Index may be consulted for reading special topics, or it may be employed for reference pur- poses only. On the other hand, the book contains some of the choicest creative literature by some of the ablest men in the country ; these articles are arranged to assist in carrying out the idea of the book, as made clear in other paragraphs of this circular and leads naturally other paragraphs of this Preface and leads naturally at the top of the pages. In short. War Echoes is a kind of Year-Book on all of the big questions relative to the war since July, 1914. The entire selection and arrangement of Illustrations and Mo^j have been made from the point of view of reinforcing appeals and arguments, and adds to the value of the book as a study and as literature. Many attacks on Germany have appeared in Amer- ican publications of general circulation. A number of the articles dealing with these attacks have been in- cluded in War Echoes, and the reader, referring to footnotes, will be directed to passages in the book which successfully refute these charges. By following these cross references the reader will be assisted in his efforts to clarify many European questions. In regard to responsibility for Facts, Sentiments, Truth, Data, Places, Authorship, Omissions, Additions, etc., the Editor can only speak for his own articles, discussions, notes and comment in War Echoes; outside of this, the responsibility ends with the faith- ful reproduction of articles from others, by giving full credit; and wherever exact reproduction was impracti- cable, he has duly explained any deviations from this principle. HOW TO USE THE INDEX. A word in regard to The Use of The Index may not be amiss here : You may turn to The Index in perfect confidence when in quest of any of the vital topics or questions that have occupied our attention in regard to the war most of the year; follow the alphabetic order strictly. ON THE USE OF WAR ECHOES. Besides serving the evident purposes of a book of this kind, and those already indicated, War Echoes will also serve well as a Reference Book, because of an exceptionally well-worked-out Index and other tabu- lated and analyzed synopses of parts or phrases of the book. There is also much creative and recreative literature in our War Echoes that is simply invaluable, because it could not be produced under any other cir- cumstances, for fame or money, than those under which it came about. The Reader also has a record of cur- rent events of the year, or a year book on the war, as one may say. INDEBTEDNESS. Besides our acknowledged indebtedness in other sec- tions of the book to all special sympathizers with our efforts, such as all the German publishers in the United States or in Europe, whether the publications appear in their native tongue or in the American lan- guage, the Editor of War Echoes is more than pleased with the way his approaches to other publishers for sympathy and co-operation were received. Here are also included all the Irish publications he knows of and the Milwaukee Free Press. Among the magazine pub- lishers, we might especially mention The New Repub- lic, The Literary Digest, Collier's Weekly, The Open Court; among the newspapers. The Chicago Tribune and The Chicago Evening News. The Editor is sorry to state that in many cases publishers failed to respond to his repeated inquiries on this point. Our patrons will render us an especial service by reporting anything in connection with the book that ought to come to our attention for explanation or cor- rection. THE EDITOR, George William Hau, Chicago, Illinois. FIRST CHAPTER CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR POPULAR NOTIONS AS TO THE CAUSE CAUSES MORE REMOTE AND RECENT— SUBTLE AND APPARENT CAUSES OCCASIONS AND CAUSES MORE REMOTE CAUSES THE EARLY DISTINCTION OF PRUSSIA SKETCHING THE EVOLUTION OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE— BISMARK The Balkan Situation — Pan-Slavism Here we find the Crux of the Frightful Cataclysm of the War The Austrian-German Position — The Serbian-Russian Attitude IMMEDIATE CAUSES OF THE WAR From the Time of the Assassination of the Archduke and Duchess of Austria The Real Immediate Causes of the War — The Russian MobiHzation MODERN DIPLOMACY ESPECIALLY "SECRET" DIPLOMACY Discussion of General and Special Diplomatic Correspondence Further Causes — Less Directly Related to the War — Popularly not suspected of being Causes at all Wars are Inevitable on Earth MORE REMOTE CAUSES OF THE WAR Early Distinction of Prussia — Recent History of the German People The Rise of Prussia — The Confederation of the German States THE CENTRAL EMPIRES— AUSTRIA AND GERMANY THEIR BALKAN POLICY The Balkan Policy of many of the Slavonic Peoples in South Central Europe Backed up by Russia — Pan-Slavism Their Policy directly or indirectly supported by Great Britain, France, Japan, Portugal, Italy Also by most of the so-called Democratic World THE ROOT OF THE WORLD WAR Looking Deeper and beyond Casual Appearances for Real Causes of the War INTRODUCTION DOCTOR PAUL ROHRBACH THE ROOT OF THE WOBIiD WAR. Address by Dr. Paul Rohrbach to the Protestant tTnion of Hamburg. The present war has three roots. The one we can despatch quickly, that is the French. For more than forty years France has expressed the desire to renew the combat with us. The national Chauvinism has driven her to war. That is truly very foolish, but not dishonorable. We can not prop- erly harbor hostile feelings against France for this. With regard to Russia and England, we must proceed from two dates, 1890 and 1902. In the year 1890 the trans- fer of Helgoland from England to Germany took place. At that time England entertained no mistrust re- garding Germany's development. The German-English conflict still lay be- yond the horizon. In the year 1902 England formed a treaty with Japan, in order to force Russia out of the Far East and to direct its policy again toward the Orient. As Germany in the meantime became politically engaged in the Orient and in Turkey, her in- terests began to conflict with those of Russia. Germany's interior conditions had during this period undergone radi- cal changes and the development of its foreign trade, which amounted in 1880 to flve and one-half billions — in 1913 to a round twenty-two and a half bil- lions, and as a result of the quality of our industrial productions, which brought in a seven-fold, yes, even an eight-fold proflt, grew at such a rate, that England began to anticipate the time when we would equal or even surpass her. This was unbearable to the English. In the year 1898, when the German emperor was in Jerusalem and gave utterance to the dramatic words regarding his friendship with entire Islam, when German diplomacy supported the plan of the Bagdad rail- way, the chief interest of Germany and England was that the railway cut through Asia Minor, passed over the Taurus, reached AlepiDO, made connec- tion with the Syrian and the Mecca railways and extended to a point within 300-400 kilometers of the Suez Canal and of the crossing of the Red Sea. The English believed that the German emperor desired to establish a basis of attack against England in anterior Asia, which was inevitable as a result of the economic development of Germany. This was a misappre- hension — Germany planned no attack upon England. But in the two particu- lars, the exchange of Helgoland and the promotion of advances to Turkey, our emperor proved himself an excel- lent diplomat. This has been verified by existing conditions. Now began the policy of encircle- ment of Edward VII. France was an apt pupil. A treaty was formed with Russia regarding the division of Per- sia, but the chief feature of which was the liquidation of the Turkish inheri- tance and thereby the completion of England's dominion in the Indian Ocean. The outbreak of the Young Turkish revolution in 1908 prevented the execution of this plan. The pros- pect presented itself to English diplo- mats of leading the Young Turks and new Turkey into the channels of the English policies. But these expecta- tions met with disappointment as the German-Turkish understanding soon assumed a firmer character than for- merly. In 1909 came Russia's attempt to open the Oriental question, through the Servian-Bosnian trouble. But this was a Russian bluff. As Germany placed herself openly by the side of Austria, the Russians pulled in their horns. In 1910 King Edward died and the leadership of the political concert passed into the hands of Russia. Since then two factions have sprung up in England — one advocated the continua- tion of the policy of surrounding Ger- many and aimed at her destruction. The other faction wished for an under- standing with Germany. The one party looked upon the attempt at an understanding with Germany as a trick, as a bait — a sleeping potion for the Germans. The others meant it honestly, honorably. During the Moroccan crisis, the ac- tual acidity of England was induced by a carefully planned French in- trigue. It was reported that Germany intended to establish a naval station on the coast of Morocco, in order to have an opportunity of using her fast cruisers for the purpose of interfering with the course of grain ships, on their way from the Argentine, etc., to Eng- land, thereby cutting off England from this source of food supplies. After the settlement of tiie Moroccan crisis, Eng- land again made decided advances to Germany on her colonial policy. This tone was employed until the summer of 1914. THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR In 1912, Russia succeeded in bring- ing about the Balkan Union. But in- stead of turning against Austria, ttiey turned against Turkey and the result was an incurable enmity between Ser- via and Bulgaria. The object of Rus- sia's policy against Austria was the occupation of Constantinople and the realization of the Pan-Slavic idea — the union of all Slavs under the scep- ter of Russia. An insane idea, but one which is from a political-psycho- logical point of view comprehensible, but which gave evidence of an exag- gerated craze for extension which, by means of public opinion and the crim- inal unscrupulousness of the Russian Government, let loose passions which must lead either to revolution or war. Russia and France had agreed to attack Germany in the spring of 1916. The question as to why the war ar- rived as early as the summer of 1914 is easily answered. In the beginning of August, mobilized Siberian regi- ments were stationed on the German border. When one considers that the transportation of these troops from Siberia must require weeks and that weeks and months were necessary for their mobilization in Siberia, it is quite clear that the order for mobili- zation must have been quite secretly issued as early as May — or in other words, previous to the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, which took place in the middle of June. Shortly after this deed, the Russian Ambassador Hartwig and the Austrian Ambassador in Belgrade met. Soon after, a stroke of apoplexy ended the life of the Russian Ambassador. The suspicion will soon become gen- eral that his death was probably hast- ened by the excitement caused by dis- closures made to him by the Austrian Ambassador, to the effect that not only official Servians, but also officers in Russian circles, were implicated in the murder. What was Russia to gain by this assassination? She had enjoyed a series of good harvests and had in this way fortified her financial condition, but in 1913 a great drop in her paying assets occurred, which in- creased in 1914 and caused fears that the Russian credit would be injured to such an extent that the carrying on of war would be an impossibility. By means of the assassination of the Archduke, Russia hoped to cause a revolution in Servia — a dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian governmental relations, and thereby render mobiliza- tion impossible in that country. Had this taken place, Germany would have cringed and Russia could have fallen upon Austria. But it all turned out differently. Austria did not collapse, her mobilization was a success and her confederate remained faithful to her. But the war had become unavoidable for Russia, for the punishment of Ser- via by Austria would have cost the Czar everything. And now comes England's guilt. She could not participate in the war on account of the Servian assassins. But she believed her last opportunity had arrived to settle her account with Germany. The contemplation of this idea was too much for the makers of English politics. Not that they ever really hesitated to make war ujwn Germany, but because at first, the proper time did not seem to them to have arrived. Therefore they made every effort to prevent the war. Eng- land never prepared for a war as de- cently as she has for this one. She told us repeatedly we could not count upon her neutrality. That was a very plain hint to us. We can only explain England's attitude during the last weeks before the war in this way : that she desired to deter us from entering into war, not on account of political scruples, but because it was to her interest to postpone the day of decision. — From the "Hamburger Fremdenblatt," Hamburg, Germany. German Ideals and Their Realization — Bismark THE IRON CHANCEIjIjOR. Born April 1, 1815. By George Sylvester Viereck. Above the grave where Bismarcb sleeps The ravens screeched with strange alarms. The Saxon Forest in its deeps Shook with the distant clash of arms. The Iron Chancellor stirred. " 'Tis war! Give me my sword to lay them low Who touch my work. Unbar the door I passed an hundred years ago." The angel guardian of the tomb Spake of the law that binds all clay, That neither rose nor oak may bloom Betwixt the night and judgment day. "For no man twice may pass this gate," He said. But Bismarck flashed his eyes: "Nay, at the trumpet call of fate. Like Barbarossa, I shall rise. "In sight of all God's Seraphim I'll place this helmet on my brow, For lo! We Germans fear but Him, And He, I know, is with us now." The dead man stood up in his might, The startled angel said no word. Thru endless spheres of day and night God in his Seventh Heaven heard. And answered thus : "Shall man forget My laws? They were not lightly made. Nor writ for thee to break. And yet I love thee. Thou art not afraid. "Bismarck, from now till morrow's sun Walk as a wraith amid the strife. And if thou find thy work undone Come back, and I shall give thee — life." With stern salute the specter strode Out of the dark into the dawn. From Hamburg to the Caspian road He saw a wall of iron drawn. He saw young men go forth to die Singing the martial songs of yore. Boldly athwart the Flemish sky He saw the German airmen soar. A thousand spears in battle line Had pierced the wayward heart of France, But still above the German Rhine The Walkyrs held their august dance. He saw the sliding submarine Wrest the green trident from the hold Of her whose craven tradesmen lean On yellow men and yellow gold. In labyrinths of blood and sand He watched ten Russian legions drown. Unseen he shook the doughty hand Of Hindenburg near Warsaw town. The living felt his presence when Paternal, blessing, he drew nigh. And all the dead and dying men Saluted him in passing by. But he rode back in silent thought. And from his great heart burst a sigh Of thanks. "The Master Craftsman wrought This mighty edifice, not I. "No hostile hoof shall ever fall Upon my country's sacred sod; Tho seven whirlwinds lash its wall, It stands erect, a rock of God. "I shall return unto my bed. Nor ask of life a second lease. My spirit lives, tho I be dead, My aching bones may rest in peace." Up to his chin he drew the shroud, To wait God's judgment patiently, While high above a blood-red cloud Two eagles screamed of victory. "Trust in God and keep your pow- der dry," is go«d, militant advice, but according to Hudson Maxim this country's supply of powder on hand is less than one-tenth that of any of the great powers now at war, and in case of need we could not get an additional supply for six months, since it takes as long as that for the cannon powder for our big guns to dry. — From "The Boston Globe," September 9, 1914. UNDERLYING CAUSES OF THE WAR BISMARCK (By Courtesy of the "Chicago Abendpost") FRENCH PKISONEKS IN '71. Bismarck may have objected to the taking of prisoners, but his prejudice obviously had no effect in the Franco-German war. According to Moltke, who wrote the official history of the campaign, the French prison- ers reached the extraordinary total of 21,503 officers and 702,048 men. But of these nearly 250,000 were the Paris garrison, who were only nom- inally prisoners, and over 90,000 rep- resented the French troops disarmed and interned in neutral Switzerland. Still, with these deductions, more than 380,000 officers and men were actually imprisoned in Germany, and were released only when peace was declared. — From the London Chron- icle. THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR WHAT WOULD BISMARCK SAY? The Chicago Tribune. George L. Scherger, Ph. D. Professor of History, Armour In- stitute of Technology. Many have wondered what would be the view of the great Iron Chan- cellor regarding the present war if he were still alive. Would this war have occurred if Bismarck had been in charge of the administration of the German Empire? Would he support the Kaiser or would he regard the war as threatening to undo his own mighty achievements? Though Bis- marck died sixteen years ago, many of his utterances throw a. flood of light on the present imbroglio and show his wonderful understanding of European conditions as well as his almost prophetic insight into the future. The following remarks, made as early as 1875, have been fulfilled literally: "Mighty Germany has great tasks; above all, to keep peace in Europe. This is my chief consideration, also in the Oriental crisis. I do not in- tend to interfere if there is any way to avoid it, for such an interference might cause a European conflagra- tion, especially if the interests of Austria and Russia should clash in the Balkans. If I should take the side of one of these powers France would immediately join with the other, and a European war would break out. I am trying to hold two mighty beasts by the collar, in order that they may not tear each other to pieces, and in order that they may not combine against Germany." The fear of Bismarck regarding the Balkans is likewise expressed in this, passage: "What may happen in the Balkans does not concern Germany but only Russia, Italy, Austria and England. It has always been my aim to keep out of this. For this reason we put a stipulation into our treaty with Aus- tria that we are not obligated in any way in Balkan affairs." As regards Russia, Bismarck says again and again that Germany would not have the least interest in waging a war with her nor would Russia with Germany, because neither has any antagnostic interests. Russia's Asiatic interests are not in any way dangerous to Germany, although they are to England. If Russia should defeat Germany she could only take from her a strip of territory along the Baltic which would really be a nuisance to her because its inhabitants are very democratic. Germany, on the other hand, could only hope to increase her undesirable Polish territory. He did not consider the real Russians to be the champions of the Panslavistlc movement, but the Poles living in Russia, who wished to bring about a clash between Teuton and Slav in hopes of taking advantage of the fray to reconstitute an independent Polish kingdom. He believed that the Russian could not get along without the German in Russian affairs, for while the Russian might have intelligence, imagination, manners, and social talents, no Rus- sian would learn in all eternity to work eight hours per day for six days in the week. Bismarck even stated that he would have no objection to Russia's taking Constantinople, and thought that with the possession of this gate to the Black Sea she would be even less dangerous to Germany than at present. Of course, he knows that this would endanger England's pos- session of Egypt and the Suez canal, both of which she needs "as much as her daily bread." Not less striking are his observa- tions concerning France. "If the French are willing to keep peace with us until we attack them," he says, 'then peace is assured for- ever. What should we hope to get from France?' Shall we annex more French territory? I was not even strongly inclined in 1871 to take Metz because of its French popula- tion. I consulted our military au- thorities before I reached a final de- cision. It was Thiers who said to me: 'We will glA^e you your choice between Belfort and Metz; if you in- sist upon both we cannot make peace.' I then asked our war depart- ment whether we could give up our demand for either of these and re- ceived the reply: 'Yes, as regards Belfort, but Metz is worth IQO.OOO troops;' the question is, whether we wish to be weaker by that many men in case we should ever have another war. Thereupon I said: 'We will take Metz.' " Bismarck said that since 1870 the French realized that another war with Germany would not be like a sort of excursion to Berlin. He thought that the stronger Germany is the more unlikely would be an at- tack by France. France would strike only in case she felt certain of win- ning. She would always keep "the sacred fire of revenge burning," ac- cording to the advice of Gambetta: "Do not speak of war, but think of it constantly." If Germany became involved in war with France, it would not be necessary to expect Russia to strike Germany, but if Russia should strike first, France would be sure to join her in attacking Germany — a most remarkable forecast of what has now actually taken place. As early as 1887 he said: "Russia and France will sooner or later at- tack Germany." Concerning England, Bismarck says: "As regards foreign countries, I have had sympathy only for England, and even now am not without this feeling; but those folks do not want to be loved by us." At another time he remarked: "The English are full of anger and jealousy because we fought great battles — and won them. They do not like to see us prosper. We only exist in order to fight their battles for pay. That is the opinion of the entire English gentry. They have never wished us well, but have done all they could to injure us. This is also the position of the crown prin- cess (the Empress Frederick, mother of Kaiser Wilhelm II.). She always thought that she had humiliated her- self by marrying into this country. I remember how she remarked at one time that two or three Liver- pool merchants possessed as much silver as the entire Prussian nobility. 'That may be true, your royal high- ness,' I answered, 'but we value other things much higher than we do silver.' " Bismarck commented upon the tra- ditional English policy of stirring up trouble on the continent, according the principle that when two quarrel the third may be glad. Especially desirous had she been to get Ger- many and Russia embroiled, so that she herself would not need to fight Russia. This is the very game Eng- land has succeeded in playing in the present war. Bismarck acknowl- edges that he would do the same thing if he could find some strong and foolish fellow who would fight for him. Bismarck thought that England, having only a few thousand troops of the line, was, when standing alone, really a negligible power, which, by playing the part of a guardian aunt, had gained a certain artificial infiu- ence, but ought some day to be lim- ited to its proper foundation. If England and France should combine against Germany, the English might destroy the German navy, which at the time was still in its infancy, but Germany would in that case make France pay the bill. No statesman ever realized the seriousness and the horrors of war more than Bismarck. A war should be waged, he said, only for the honor and most vital interest of a nation and not merely for prestige. Any statesman who has looked into the breaking eye of a soldier on the bat- tlefield will hesitate before beginning war. "German rulers,," he said, "are in the habit of leading their armies in war so that they may realize its hor- rors which would haunt them if they should be able to say to themselves, this war I could have avoided with honor. Germany would never begin aggressive wars or wars of conquest, as France so often had done, nor would she bleed a conquered nation as Napoleon had bled Prussia in 1807. "The Germans are like bears in this respect; they do not attack of their own accord, but they fight like mad when they are attacked in their own lairs. An appeal to fear will never find an echo in the German's heart. The German is easily be- trayed by love and sympathy, but never by fear. The Germans will not start the fire. Some other nation may, but let any nation that provokes Germany beware of 'the furor teu- tonicus.' "We Germans fear God, but noth- ing else in the world; and the fear of God Induces us to love and seek peace. Whoever breaks the peace will soon realize that the same pat- riotism which called weak and down- IDEALS AND THEIR REALIZATION trodden little Prussia to the stand- ards in 1813 has today become the common property of united Germany, and that whoever attacks the Ger- man nation will find her presenting a united front, every soldier having in his heart the firm faith: God will be with us." The Germany of today is Bis- marck's Germany, and no one un- derstands her so well as he. The Europe of today is likewise un- changed. BISIMARCK'S VIEW AND THE WAR. This is the eighth article of a series on THE EUROPEAN WAR, which appeared in the October Num- her of THE OPEN COURT, under the title "Bismarck's View," written iy the Editor, Dr. Paul Cams. Consult the INDEX for the com- plete series, and, in order to see where, in the varioiis Chapters of the book, the different articles of this treatise may he found, loolo for EUROPEAN WAR (THE). In this way the reader may read the entire series of articles in their original order, if he chooses to do so. while the present arrange- inent still gives him the advantage of bringing the various articles under their proper, respective Chapter-head- ings of the ioolc. This is a series of exceptionally fine articles on the siibject in ques- tion, and they hear a unique and inv- portant relation to each other. Be sure to read them also in their original order. — Editor, "War Echoes." Bismarck foresaw the origin of the Triple Entente and feared the re- sults of it. Would he have been able to prevent its evil results? Here is a discussion of this topic by Dr. George L. Scherger, professor of History at the Armour Institute of Technology. He quotes some pro- phetic utterances of Bismarck:* "The following remark, made as early as 1875, has been fulfilled liter- ally: " 'Mighty Germany has great tasks; above all, to keep peace in Europe. This is my chief consideration also in the oriental crisis. I do not in- tend to interfere if there is any way to avoid it, for such an interference might cause a European conflagra- tion, especially if the interests of Austria and Russia should clash in the Balkans. If I should take the side of one of these powers Prance would immediately join with the other, and a European war would break out. I am trying to hold two mighty beasts by the collar, in order that they may not tear each other to pieces, and in order that they may not combine against Germany.' "As regards Russia, Bismarck says again and again that Germany would not have the least interest in waging a war with her, nor would Russia with Germany, because neither has any antagonistic interests. • What Would Bismarck Say. See Dr. Scherger's entire article in this book, as well as one on recent German History. — Editor " 'Russia's Asiatic interests are not in any way dangerous to Germany, although they are to England. If Russia should defeat Germany she could only take from her a strip of territory along the Baltic which would really be a nuisance to her be- cause its inhabitants are very demo- cratic. Germany, on the other hand, could only hope to increase her un- desirable Polish territory.' "Bismarck even stated that he would have no objection to Russia's taking Constantinople, and thought that with the possession of this gate to the Black Sea she would be even less dangerous to Germany than at present. Of course he knows that this would endanger England's pos- session of Egypt and the Suez canal, both of which she needs as much as her daily bread. "Not less striking are Bismarck's observations concerning France: " 'If the French are willing to keep peace with us until we attack them,' he says, 'then peace is assured for- ever. What should we hope to get from France? Shall we annex more French territory? I was not even strongly inclined in 1871 to take Metz because of its French population. I consulted our military authorities be- fore I reached a final decision. It was Thiers who said to me: "We will give you your choice between Belfort and Metz; if you insist upon both we cannot make peace." I then asked our war department whether we could give up our demand for either of these and received the reply: "Yes, as regards Belfort, but Metz is worth 100,000 troops; the question is whether we wish to be weaker by that many men in case we should ever have another war." Thereupon I said: "We will take Metz.' " " 'If Germany became involved in war with France, it would not be necessary to expect Russia to strike Germany, but if Russia should strike first, France would be sure to join her in attacking Germany' — a most remarkable forecast of what has now actually taken place. "As early as 1887 he said: 'Russia and France will sooner or later at- tack Germany.' He added that in this case the Germans could put 3,000,000 men into the field within ten days, 1,000,000 on the French border, another 1,000,000 on the Rus- sian, and 1,000,000 reserves. There would be arms and clothes for 4,500,000. The next war would signify that either France or Germany would be wiped out of existence. "Concerning England, Bismarck says: 'As regards foreign countries, I have had sympathy only for Eng- land, and even now am not without this feeling; but those folks do not want to be loved by us.' At another time he remarked: 'The English are full of anger and jealousy because we fought great battles — and won them. They do not like to see us prosper. We only exist in order to fight their battles for pay. That is the opinion of the entire English gentry. They have never wished us well, but have done all they could to injure us.' "Bismarck commented upon the traditional English policy of stirring up trouble on the continent, accord- ing to the principle that when two quarrel the third may be glad. Espe- cially desirous had she been to get Germany and Russia embroiled, so that she herself would not need to fight Russia. This is the very game England has succeeded in playing in the present war. Bismarck acknowl- edges that he would do the same thing if he could find some strong and foolish fellow who would fight for him. "Bismarck thought that England, having only a few thousand troops of the line, was, when standing alone, really a negligible power, which, by playing the part of a guardian aunt, had gained a certain artificial influ- ence, but ought some day to be lim- ited to its proper domain. If Eng- land and France should combine against Germany, the English might destroy the German navy, which at the time was still in its infancy, but Germany would in that case make France pay the bill. "Bismarck said: 'The Germans are like bears in this respect; they do not attack of their own accord, but they fight like mad when they are attacked in their own lairs. An ap- peal to fear will never find an echo in the German's heart. The German is easily betrayed by love and sym- pathy, but never by fear. The Ger- mans will not start the fire. Some other nation may, but let any nation that provokes Germany beware of the furor teutonicus. We Germans fear God, but nothing else in the world; and the fear of God induces us to love and seek peace. Whoever breaks the peace will soon realize that the same patriotism which called weak and downtrodden little Prussia to the standards in 1813 has to-day become the common property of united Ger- many, and that whoever attacks the German nation will find her present- ing a united front, every soldier hav- ing in his heart the firm faith: God will be with us. " 'Our soldiers are worth kissing; every one so fearless of death, so quiet, so obedient, so kindly with empty stomachs, wet clothes, little sleep, torn shoes; friendly to all; no plundering and wanton destruction, they pay for all they can and eat moldy bread. Our people must have a deep fund of religion, otherwise all this could not be as it is.' " It almost seems that the war was unavoidable because the three great powers, Russia, France and England, were determined not to allow Ger- many to grow too big. Perhaps Bis- marck would have been able to pre- vent the Triple Entente. "The Germans, thrice beaten back, have taken refuge in Antwerp. The entire German army, utterly routed, is rapidly retreating to Paris." This is how the Chambermaid's Own on Herald Square, will no doubt chron- icle the victory of the German army. — From "The Fatherland," New York, Aug. 20, 1914. According to Paris, the German war party has corrupted Europe's morals. Should be pronounced Krupp-ted. THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR What this ConfHct Means to Germany Coming into its Highest National Life and International Importance WHY I CHAMPION GERMANY. The Boston Evening Transcript. John W. Burgess, Ph. D., IiL. D., J. U. D., Dean of the Faculties of Political Science and Philosophy, Pure Science and Fine Arts At Columbia University. This is no time and no subject when, or upon which, one should speak lightly, ignorantly, or with prejudice. It Is one of the world's most serious moments and the views and sympathies now formed will determine the course of the world's development for many years to come. Heavy indeed is the responsi- bility which he incurs who would as- sume the role of teacher at this junc- ture, and it is his first duty to present the credentials which warrant his te- merity. First of all, I am an Anglo-American of the earliest stock and the most pro- nounced type. I have existed here, po- tentially or actually, since the year 1638 and my European cousins of today are squires and curates in Dorsetshire. Moreover, I admire and revere Eng- land, not only because of what she has done for liberty and self-government at home, but because she has borne the white man's burden throughout the world and borne it true and well. On the other hand, what I possess of higher learning has been won In Ger- many. I have studied in her famous universities and bear their degrees and in three of them have occupied the teacher's chair. I have lived ten years of my life among her people and enjoy a circle of valued friendships which ex- tends from Koenlgsberg to Strassburg, from Hamburg to Munich and from Osnabruck to Berchtesgarten, and which reaches through all classes of so- ciety from the occupant of the throne to the dweller in the humble cottage. I have known four generations of HohenzoUerns, and of the three gener- ations now extant have been brought into rather close contact with the members of two of them. While as to the men of science, and letters, and politics who have made the Germany of the last half century, I have known them nearly all and have sat, as stu- dent, at the feet of many of them. I must concede that, of English descent though I am, still I feel somewhat less at home in- the motherland than in the fatherland. Nevertheless, I am con- scious of the impulse to treat each with fairness in any account I may attempt to give of their motives and purposes. The Real Purpose of Germany. It was in the year 1S71, in the midst of the Franco-Prussian war, that I first trod the soil of Germania, and It was from and with those who fought that war on the German side that I first learned the politics and diplo- macy of Europe. Almost from the first day that I took my seat in the lecture room of the university I imbibed the doctrine that the great national, inter- national and world purpose of the newly created German Empire was to protect and defend the Teutonic civil- ization of Continental Europe against the Oriental Slavic quasi-civilization on one side, and the decaying Latin civilization on the other. After a little I began to hear of the "Pan- Slavic policy" of Russia and the "Re- vanche policy" of Prance. For a while the latter, the policy of France for re- taking Alsace-Lorraine, occupied the chief attention. But in 1S76, with the Itussian attack upon the Turks, the Pan-Slavic policy of Russia — the policy of uniting the Slavs in the German Empire, the Austro-Hungariau Empire and in the Turkish Empire, with and under the sway of Russia — was moved into the foreground. All Western Europe recognized the peril to modern civilization and the jwwers of Europe assembled at Berlin in 1S7S to meet and master it. The astute British premier. Lord Beaconsfield, supported by the blunt and masterful Bismarck, directed the work of the congress, and the Pan-Slavic policy of Russia was given a severe setback. Russia was allowed to take a little almost worth- less territory in Europe, and territory of greater value in Asia; Roumanla, Servia and Montenegro were made in- dependent States ; Bulgaria was given an autonomous administration with a European Christian prince, but under the nominal suzerainty of the Turkish Sultan; and the Turkish provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, then almost free zones Infested by bandits, were placed under Austro-Huugarlan admin- istration, also subject to the nominal suzerainty of the Sultan. The Slav Peril of the 70's. With this the much-respected and dreaded activities of Russia were di- rected towards Asia, and Russia was now for more than twenty years, and the Austro-Huugarlan Empire from 18S0 to 1902, occupied chiefly with the extension of her empire in the Orient. The German Empire was delivered for the moment from this great peril and enabled to pur- sue the line of peaceable development and progress. The greater security to the eastern borders of these great States thus established also helped to reduce the force of the French spirit of revenge, as the prospect of its satisfac- tion became more distant. It was during this period, however, that Germany developed from an agri- cultural to a manufacturing and com- mercial community — that is, became a competitor of Great Britain and France, especially of Great Britain, in world in- dustry. Her marvelous growth in this direction excited soon the jealousy, the envy, and then the hostility of Great Britain. We in the United States, how- ever, reaped great advantage from the industrial and commercial competition between the two great powers, and we were amused at the pettishness of Great Britain in representing it as something unfair and illegitimate. King Edward as a "Peacemaker." When Edward VII. came to the throne in the year 1901, he saw Great Britain's interests in the Orient threatened by Russia's policy of exten- sion in Asia and her commercial inter- ests throughout the world threatened by the active and intelligent competi- tion of the Germans. He, as all rulers at the moment of accession, felt the am- bition to do something to relieve the disadvantages, to say the least, under which in these respects his country was laboring. He began that course of di- plomacy for which he won the title of peace-lover. The first element of it was the approach to Japan and the encour- agement to Japan to resist the advance of Russia. This movement culminated In the war between Russia and Japan of the years 1904-1905, in which Russia was worsted and checked in the realiza- tion of her Asiatic policy and thrown back upon Europe. The next element in the diplomacy of the peace-loving king was the fanning into flame again of the "revanche" spirit of France by the arrangement of the quasl-alllance, called the Entente, between Great Brit- ain, France and Russia, aimed dis- tinctly and avowedly against what was known as the Triple Alliance of Ger- many, Austria and Italy, which had for thirtj' years kept the peace of Europe. The third and last element of this pa- cific programme was the seduction of Italy from the Triple Alliance, by rous- ing the Irredentist hopes for winning from Austria the Trent district in South Tyrol, which Italy covets. It is hardly necessary for me to call attention to the extreme peril involved in this so-called peaceful di- plomacy to the German and Austro- Hungarlan empires. I myself became first fully aware of it on the day of June 27, 1905. On that day I had an extended interview with a distin- guished British statesman in the House of Commons in London. I was on my way to Wilhelmshoehe to meet his majesty, the German em- peror, to arrange with his majesty, the cartel of exchange of edu- cators between uhlversities in the two countries. When I revealed this fact to my host the conversation im- mediately took a turn which made me distinctly feel that a grave crisis was Impending in the relations of Great Britain to Germany. I was so firmly impressed by it, that I felt compelled to call my host's attention to the fact that the great number of American citizens of German extraction, the friendliness of the German States to the cause of the Union during our Civil War, and the virtual control of American universities by men edu- cated at German universities, would all make for close and continuing friendship between Germany and the United States. When I arrived in Germany, I asked in high quarters for the explanation of my London ex- perience and was told that it was the moment of greatest tension in the Morocco affair, when all feared that at Britain's instigation, France would grasp the sword. The Slav Peril Now. The larger part of the next two years 1 spent in Germany as exchange IDEALS AND THEIR REALIZATION professor in the three universities of Berlin, Bonn and Leipzig; also, as lecturer before the Bar Association at Vienna. Naturally I formed a really vast circle of acquaintances among the leading men of both em- pires, and the constant topic of con- versation everywhere, at all times and among all classes, was the grow- ing peril to Germany and Austro- Hungary of the revived Pan-Slavic policy and programme of Russia, the re-inflamed "Revanche" of France and Great Britain's intense commer- cial jealousy. In the month of August, 1907, I was again at "Wilhelmshoehe. The imperial family were at the Castle and somewhere about the tenth of the month it became known that King Edward would make the em- peror a visit or rather a call, for it was nothing more cordial than that, on the fourteenth. On the afternoon of the 13th, the day before the arrival of the king, I received a summons to go to the Castle and remain for dinner with the emperor. When I presented my- self, I found the emperor surrounded by his highest officials. Prince Bue- 'low, the chancellor of the empire, Prince Hohenlohe, the imperial gov- ernor of Alsace-Lorraine; Prince Ra- dolin, the German ambassador to France, Escellency von Luoanus, the chief of the emperor's civil cabinet; General Count von Huelsen Haesel- ler, the chief of the emperor's mili- tary cabinet; Fieldmarshal von Pies- sen, chief court marshal. Count zu Eulenburg; lord high chamberlain. Baron von dem Knesebeck; and the Oherstallmeister, Baron von Rei- schach. The dinner was on the open terrace of the Castle looking toward the Hercules Heights. At its close the empress and the ladies withdrew into the Castle and the emperor with the gentlemen remained outside. His majesty rose from his seat in the middle of the table, and went to one end of it followed by Prince Buelow, Prince Hohenlohe, Prince Radolin and Excellency von Lucanus. Roosevelt as Mediator. His majesty directed me to join the group and, so soon as we were seated, the chief of the civil cabinet turned to me and said that he was afraid that our good friend. Presi- dent Roosevelt, unwittingly did Eu- rope an injury in mediating between Russia and Japan, since this had turned the whole force of the Pan- Slavic programme of Russia back upon Europe. All present spoke of the great peril to Middle Europe of this change. Then both the Ger- man ambassador to France and the governor of Alsace-Lorraine spoke discouragingly of the great increase of hostile feeling on the part of the French towards Germany, and, fin- ally, the part that Great Britain had played and was playing in bringing about both of these movements was dwelt upon with great seriousness mingled with evidences of much un- easiness. King Edward came the next morn- ing at about ten o'clock and took his departure at about three in the af- ternoon. Whether any remon- strances were made to his majesty in regard to the great peril which he wittingly or unwittingly was hop- ing to bring upon Middle Europe, I have never known. It seemed to me, however, that after that date he mod- ified considerably his diplomatic ac- tivity. But he had sown the seed in well prepared ground and the harv- est was bound to come. The three great forces making for universal war in Europe, viz.: the Pan-Slavic programme of Russia, "the Re- vanche" of France and Great Brit- ain's commercial jealousy of Ger- many had been by his efforts brought together. It could not fail to pro- duce the catastrophe. It was only a question of time. Turkey Brings a Torch to the Burn- ing. The following year, the year 1908, saw the revolt of the young Turkish party in Constantinople, which forced from the sultan the constitution of July, 1908. According to this consti- tution all the peoples under the sov- ereignty of the sultan were called upon to send representatives to the Turkish Parliament. Both Bulgaria and Bosnia-Herzegovina were nomin- ally subject to tkat sovereignity, ac- cording to the provisions of the Ber- lin congress of the Powers of 1878. For thirty years Bulgaria had been practically an independent State, and during thirty years Austro-Hungary had poured millions upon millions into Bosnia-Herzegovina, building roads, railroads, hotels, hospitals and schools, establishing the reign of law and order, and changing the popula- tion from a swarm of loafers, beg- gars and bandits to a body of hard- working, frugal and prosperous citi- zens. What now were Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary to do? Were they to sit quiet and allow the restoration of the actual sovereignty and govern- ment of Turkey in and over Bulgaria and Bosnia-Herzegovina? Could any rational human being in the world have expected or desired that? They simply, on the self-same day, viz.: Oct. 5, 1908, renounced the nominal suzerainty of the Sultan, Bulgaria becoming thereby an in- dependent State, and Bosnia-Herze- govina remaining what it had ac- tually been since 1878, only with no further nominal relation to the Turkish Government. Some Ameri- can newspapers have called this the robbery of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Austro-Hungary, and have made out Austro-Hungary to be an aggressor. I have not seen, however, the slight- est indication that any of these have had the faintest conception of what actually took place. Europe ac- quiesced in it without much ado. It was said that Russia expressed dis- satisfaction, but that Germany paci- fied her. Four more years of peace rolled by, during which, in spite of the facts that Austro-Hungary gave a local constitution with representative in- stitutions to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Alsace-Lorraine was admitted to rep- resentation in the Federal Council, as well as the Reichstag, of the Ger- man Empire, that is, was made sub- stantially a State of the Empire, the Pan-Slavic schemes of Russia, the French spirit of revenge and the British commercial jealousy grew and developed and became welded together, until the Triple Entente be- came virtually a Triple Alliance di- rected against the two great States of Middle Europe. Windtog the Alarm-Clock. Russia had now recovered from the losses of the Japanese War and the internal anarchy which followed it; France had perfected her military organization; Turkey was now driv- en by the allied Balkan States out of the calculation as an anti-Russian Power; Bulgaria, Austro-Hungary's ally, was now completely exhausted by the war with Turkey, and that with her Balkan allies, now become enemies; and Great Britain was in dire need of an opportunity to divert the mind of her people away from the internal questions which were threat- ening to disrupt her constitution. The practical ear could discern the buzz of the machinery lifting the hammer to strike the hour of Armageddon. And it struck. The foul murder of the heir of the Hapsburgers set the civilized world in horror and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in mourn- ing. In tracing the ramifications of the treacherous plot, the lines were found to run to Belgrade. And when Austro-Hungary demanded inquiry and action by a tribunal in which representatives from Austro-Hun- gary should sit, Servia repelled the demand as inconsistent with her dig- nity. Believing that inquiry and ac- tion by Servia alone would be no in- quiry and no action, Austro-Hungary felt obliged to take the chastisement of the criminals and their abettors into its own hands. Then Russia in- tervened to stay the hand of Aus- tro-Hungary and asked the German Emperor to mediate between Austro- Hungary and Servia. The Emperor undertook the task, hut while in the midst of it he learned that Russia was mobilizing troops upon his own border. He im- mediately demanded of Russia that this should cease, but without avail or even reply. He protested again with like results. Finally, at mid- night on the 31st of July, his am- bassador at St. Petersburg laid the demand before the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs that the Russian mobilization must cease within twelve hours, otherwise Germany would be obliged to mobilize. At the same time the emperor directed his ambassador in Paris to inquire of the French Government whether, in case of war between Germany and Russia, France would remain neutral? The Case of Belgium. As France could move faster than Russia, the Germans turned the force of their arms upon her. They under- took to reach her by way of what they supposed to be the lines of least resistance. These lay through the neutral States of Belgium and Lux- emburg. They claimed that France had already violated the neutrality of both by invasion and by the flying of their war air-ships over them, and they marched their columns into both. THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR . Belgium resisted. The Germans offered to guarantee the indepen- dence and integrity of Belgium and indemnify her for all loss or injury if she would not further resist the pas- sage of German troops over her soil. She still refused and turned to Great Britain. Great Britain now inter- vened and in the negotiations with Germany, demanded as the price of her neutrality that Germany should not use her navy against either France or Russia, and should desist from her military movements through Belgium, and when the Ger- mans asked to he assured that Great Britain herself would respect the neutrality of Belgium throughout the entire war on the basis of the ful- filment of her requirements by Ger- many, the British Government made no reply, but declared war on Ger- many. And so we have the alignment, Germany, Austria and probably Bul- garia on one side; Russia, Servia, Montenegro, Belgium, France and England on the other, and rivers of blood have already flowed. And we stand gaping at each other, and each is asking the others who did it. Whose is the responsibility, and what will be the outcome? Now if I have not already answered the former question, I shall not try to answer it. I shall leave each one in view of the account 1 have given, to settle that question with his own judgment and conscience. I will only say that, as Burns, the Man of Letters and the Man of Labor, that they have rent the veil of diplomatic hypocrisy and have washed their hands clean from the stain of this blunder-crime. What Will Come of It? Finally, as to the outcome, not much can yet be said. There is noth- ing so idle as prophecy and I do not like to indulge in it. Whether the giant of middle Europe will be able to break the bonds which in the last ten years have been wound about him and under whose smarting cut he is now writhing, or the fetters will be riveted tighter, cannot easily be fore- told. But assuming the one or the other, we may speculate with some- thing more of probable accuracy re- garding the political situation which will result. The triumph of Ger- many-Austro-Hungary-Bulgaria can never be so complete as to make any changes in the present map of Eu- rope. All that that could effect would be the momentary abandon- ment of the Russian Pan-Slavic pro- gramme, the relegation to dormancy of the French "Revanche," and the stay of Great Britain's hand from the destruction of German commerce. On the other hand, the triumph of Great Britain-Russia-France cannot fail to give Russia the mastery of the Continent of Europe and restore Great Britain to her sovereignty over the seas. These two great Powers, who now already between them pos- sess almost the half of the whole world, would then, indeed, control the destinies of the earth. Is More MiUtarism Coining? Well may we draw back in dismay before such a consummation. The "rattle of the sabre" would then be music to our ears in comparison with the crack of the Cossack's knout and the clanking of Siberian chains, while the burden of taxation which we would be obliged to suffer in order to create and maintain the vast navy and army necessary for the defense of our territory and commerce throughout the world against these gigantic powers, with their Oriental ally, Japan, would sap our wealth, endanger our prosperity and threaten the very existence of republican in- stitutions. This is not time for shallow thought or flippant speech, in a pub- lic sense it is the most serious mo- ment of our lives. Let us not be swayed in our judgment by prejudice or minor considerations. Men and women like ourselves are suffering and dying for what they believe to be the right and the world is in tears. Let us wait and watch patiently and hope sincerely that all this agony is a great labor-pain of history and that there shall be born through it a new era of prosperity, happiness, and righteousness for all mankind."* GERMANY'S STRUGGLE FOB EXISTENCE. H. C. G. Von Jagemann, Professor of German Philology at Harvard University. *"The Fatherland," New TorJc, luhich in its issues of September 7 and IJi, also reprinted this article, inalces the following coinment in the numier corresponding September I4, wherein it was concluded: "We publish hereicith the concUid- ing part of Prof. John Burgess's states- manlihe analysis of the great war against civilisation waged hy England and her allies. Lilce Ex-President Eliot, Prof. Burgess is an Anglo-Ainer- ican. Unlike Eliot, he has a clear grasp of the underlying factors of Ger- many's gigantic struggle against Pan Slavism." — Editor, War Echoes. "BUT THIS WAS TO BE A WHITE MAN'S WAR." On page 42, of chapter 4, of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famous book "The Great Boer War" (Revised and enlarged edition printed in December, 1902), we read this: << * * * From all the men of many hues, who make up the British Empire, from Hindoo Rajahs, from West African Houssas, from Malay police, from Western Indians, there came offers of service. But this was to be a white man's war, and if the British could not work their o\va sal- vation then it were well that the em- pire should pass from such a race." "The magnificent Indian army of 150,000 soldiers, many of them sea- soned veterans, was for the same reason left untouched. England has claimed no credit or consideration for such abstention, but an irrespon- sible writer may well ask how many of those foreign critics whose respect for our public morality appears to be as limited as their knowledge of our principles and history would have advocated with self-denial, had their own countries been placed in the same position." It is estimated that 5,750,000 men are fighting in Europe, of whom to date only 7,456,678 have been killed, wounded or captured. — From the "Boston Evening Transcript," September 15, 1914. The Outlook. Popular imagination demands for every great historical event a hero or a villain. So it has tried to fix the responsibility for the present cruel war upon one man; and, in view of a particular sequence of events, the German Emperor has been singled out as the scapegoat. No student of history or of politics, however, be- lieves that any one man nowadays could cause such a clashing of forces as is going on at present in Europe, or that such a war could be due to anything but deep underlying causes, altogether beyond the control of or- dinary statesmanship. The real causes of the war are three: France's desire to win back her military pres- tige and the provinces lost to Ger- many in 1870; Russia's desire to eliminate Germany as the ally of Aus- tria, her opponent on the way to Constantinople; England's jealousy of Germany's growth as a commercial and naval power. Let us consider these three causes in the order indi- cated. Prance and Germany. In 1870 France, in order to pre- vent further unification and internal strengthening of Germany, used a slight pretext to declare war against the North German Federation, hop- ing thereby to extend her own terri- tory by the conquest of the left bank of the Rhine. France was defeated, the new German Empire established, and Alsace and a part of Lorraine an- nexed. France has never forgiven Germany for this defeat. American sympathy has generally been with Germany in this matter; only Ger- many's annexation of Alsace and Lor- raine is often criticised in this coun- try, and, in view of certain wrong im- pressions concerning it, requires ex- planation. These provinces belonged to Germany from the time of di- vision of Charlemagne's Empire in 843 to 1648, when Germany, ex- hausted by the Thirty Years' War and torn by internal dissensions, was forced to cede the greater part of them to France; Strassburg and the surrounding territory was seized by Louis XIV in time of peace in 1681. The people of Alsace are almost en- tirely of German stock, belonging to the Alemannian tribe, from the name of which the French name for Ger- many, AUemagne, is derived. That their native speech is German will appear even to the uninitiated from such names as Mulhausen, Breisach, Strassburg, Weissenburg, Saarburg, etc. Similarly the population of Lor- raine is for the most part closely re- lated to that of the adjoining part of Prussia. For a hundred years after their forcible annexation to France, the population, especially of Alsace, remained essentially German in char- acter, speech, customs, and intellec- tual sympathies. No proof of this is needed for any one who is familiar with the story of Goethe's student IDEALS AND PRACTICAL ISSUES time in Strassburg in 1770 to 1771, and of his love for Priederike, the parson's daughter, of Sesenheim near Strassburg, with whom he sang the old German folk-songs of the neigh- borhood. Politically the provinces then were under the rule of France; in every other respect they were a part of Germany. Political sense and national feeling, however, were in- significant among the population, as they then were all over Germany. Not until the French Revolution, more than a hundred years after their annexation to France, did Alsace and Lorraine be- come French in feeling to any con- siderable extent ; then the great wave of national enthusiasm proceeding from Paris swept over the two prov- vinces and separated them from Ger- many, where the national spirit was not aroused till much later. Germany had not forgotten her just claims to these provinces ; but even after the terrible effort to shaking off the Napoleonic dominion in 1813-15 she was still too disunited and weak to win them back. So they remained with France until 1S70, and during this long period their political attachment to France became very strong, while nevertheless the great mass of the pop- ulation retained its old German speech. France during this period looked upon the provinces with the superiority of the conqueror ; the Alsatian speaking his German patois was regarded as far inferior to the genuine French- man. After her victory in 1870 Germany exacted the return of the lost prov- inces. She did this partly for mili- tary reasons, in order to erect a bul- wark between herself and France, which had for centuries taken every opportunity to interfere in German's affairs and to disrupt Germany's unity ; partly for the sentimental reason that these provinces belonged originally to Germany, that their population was of German stock, and that, even though the sympathies of the people at the time were largely with the French, it was hoped to win them back to Ger- many, to which they naturally belonged. In this last, endeavor, it is admitted. Germany has only partially succeeded; but, if it be remembered that it took over a hundred years and the French Revolution to Gallicize the provinces, Germany has no reason to be ashamed of what she accomplished in forty- three years. The jingo press of Paris and London inveighs against the so- called German tyranmy in Alsace-Lor- raine; but what are the facts? The regrettable Zabern incident, greatly exaggerated as it was by a sensation- loving press, has been absolutely uniciue during an occupation of more than four decades ; compared with what has oc- curred in Ireland in the way of mur- ders, land riots, evictions, etc., during this period, all the clashes between the authorities and the people in Alsace- Lorraine fade into insignificance. Un- der a really tyrannical government the people generally emigrate as fast as they can, as they did from Ireland for many years ; in Alsace Lorraine the an- nexation was immediately followed by an Increase in emigration, but this in- crease ceased in a few years, when the rate of emigration fell below that of the neighboring states. It is true that a good many Alsatians might be found in Paris, but so there might be in Ber- lin, as everywhere in the world the population from agricultural and mountain districts has flocked to the large cities. Between 1875 and 1905 the population of the provinces in- creased from 1,531,000 to 1,814,000, or 18.4 per cent, while during the same period that of France increased by only 6.4 per cent; from 1885 to 1905 the population of the industrial city of Mulhausen increased from 69,759 to 94,488 — that is 35 per cent. The growth in material wealth has been sim- ilar ; and what the German Government has done in the provinces for education may be inferred from the fact that after the definite annexation of the provinces almost the first thing was the re-es- tablishment of the famous old Uni- versity of Strassburg, which has since taken its place among the prominent centers of learning in the world, and to which numerous American students have resorted. Furthermore, Germany has allowed the provinces an amount of autonomy which Ireland even now does not enjoy ; for several years their affairs have been administered by a Governor-General appointed by the Emperor, and a Diet elected by uni- versal suffrage ; for years many of the civil offices, including some of the high- est, have been filled by natives of the provinces, who thus showed their wil- lingness to co-operate with the new government. A large part of the popu- lation was content to abide by the re- sults of 1870, and the sentiment was overwhelmingly against another war over the possession of the provinces, from which these would naturally be the worst sufferers. If it had not been for the continuous agitation by the Paris jingo press we should probably have heard little about German ty- ranny in Alsace, for there was no sub- stantial basis for the assertion. But France was not content to abide by the decision of 1870, and not only the jingo press, but the most infiuential public men, with few exceptions, have more or less frankly encouraged the popular demand for another trial of strength with Germany. For this pur- pose the armaments were carried to an extent in proportion far beyond those of Germany, and in 1912 the time of active compulsory service was raised from two to three years, while at the same time the recruits of the follow- ing year were called to the colors, thus practically doubling the army at one stroke. For this same purpose the alliance with Russia was more and more firmly cemented, France lending Russia billions of money to reorganize and vastly increase her army after her defeat by Japan. It was only a ques- tion of time when France and Russia would find an opportunity to strike at Germany, and it was an open secret in military and diplomatic circles that such an opportunity would occur in 1914 or 1915, when both French and Russian armaments would be complete. Kussia and Germany. Germany has long recognized Russia as a most powerful neighbor with whom she had to be on good terms for her own sake. The two nations have not seriously clashed for a hundred and fifty years, for Prussia's participation in Napoleon's campaign in 1812 was compulsory, and the very next year Prussia and Russia fought side by side against Napoleon at Leipzig. Since then Germany has made every effort, especially in recent years, by com- mercial sacrifices to retain Russia's good will, and the two nations might be at peace now if it were not for Rus- sia's hostility to Germany's friend and ally, Austria. Russia's ambition for more than a century has been to extend her dominion over the Balkans and to win Constantinople. She might prob- ably have done so long ago had this been in accordance with the designs of England and France. In order to win Constantinople, Russia must first dom- inate the southern Slavic states, Servia and Bulgaria, and she has for a long time arrogated to herself the part of their patron and protector. That Rus- sia has a prior right to this position Austria does not admit, for she too is a great Slavic power, and her com- mercial interests demand an open route to the sea and to the Orient as much as Russia's. Indirectly Germany's com- mercial interests are at stake, for through Austria lies Germany's land route to the Orient, and it is an im- perative necessity for her to keep this route open ; neither Austria nor Ger- many can afford to have it blocked by an unfriendly Power. This is so clear that prominent Russian writers have stated in recent years that Russia's way to Constantinople lies through Germany. As it cannot be to England's or France's interest to have Russia in possession of Constantinople, except under conditions to which Russia would never submit. It seems as if the present alliance between these Powers could only serve the immediate purpose of eliminating Germany from European affairs. England and Germany. Until the Franco-German War the re- lations between Germany and England were generally friendly. The two na- tions had never seriously clashed, and on the field of Waterloo the English and Prussian armies fought side by side. The English view of the German people, as it crops out in the literature before 1870, is that of a people, given largely to sentimentalism, philosophy, music, and beer-drinking; beyond that, the Germans might be useful in keep- ing France in check, which England then still regarded as her chief enemy, but otherwise they were a negligible quantity. Germany's inferiority to England in engineering, manufacturing, and commercial enterprise was so great that as late as 1880 water works, gas works and street railways in many German cities were constructed and run by English engineering skill and Eng- lish capital, while the steamships of the two feeble German transatlantic lines were built in England and Scot- land. But now a rapid change took place. In 1876 the German Commis- sioner to the Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia reported to his Govern- ment as his verdict concerning the pro- ducts of German industries there ex- hibited, "Cheap and inferior;" twelve years later, "Made in Germany" had become a badge of excellence for a great variety of Industrial products; a few years later again, Germany built ships which for size, swiftness, and comfort surpassed those of the great English transatlantic lines, and which carried German products to all parts of THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR the globe. Then England suddenly recognized Germany as a dangerous competitor for tlie world's trade, and her feeling toward her changed from friendly condescension to jealousy and hate. The matter was aggravated when Germany began to strengthen her navy in order to protect her coasts, trade routes and outlying possessions. Other nations likewise greatly strengthened their navies — the United States, France, Russia, Italy, Japan — but only German's efCorts in this direction were frowned down by England, although Germany never attempted to build a fleet anywhere near the size of the English fleet, while even if she had done so England's superior geograph- ical position and her dominions and naval bases all over the globe would always have assured her an incompar- able advantage over Germany. The reason for this was that England had begun to look upon Germany, of all countries, as her chief rival in trade; and her policy from the time of her own rise as a commercial and mari- time power had always been to con- centrate all her efforts on the elimi- nation of her foreinost commercial rival — a. policy which had resulted suc- cessively in the destruction of the maritime power of Spain, Holland and Prance. Germany had before her the example' of these countries ; she remembered the bombardment of Copenhagen, in which the British destroyed the Danish fleet ; and she also remembered that when, in 1849, a single warship was built in Germany by i)opular subscription. Lord Palmerston, then Prime Minister of England, declared that if such a ship dared to show on the high seas the German flag he would order it to be treated as a pirate ship. Under these circumstances modern Germany had to choose between leaving its growing maritime trade to the tender mercies of England till the latter should take an opportunity to wipe it off the globe, and arming herself to protect it; and Germany chose the latter course. Since then England has taken every opportunity to thwart the efforts of Germany at legitimate growth and ex- tension of her influence, and she has done this with an air as if she were fighting for a moral principle. She herself might conquer the Transvaal and sacrifice in the effort the lives of myriads of brave Boer farmers and of her own soldiers ; she might enter into an arrangement with France ac- cording to which England retained Egypt and France took Morocco ; she might enter into an arrangement with Russia, dividing Persia into spheres of English and Russian influence, to the utter disregard of the rights of Persia ; Italy might grab Tripoli ; Japan and Russia might quarrel about Manchuria, and settle the matter be- tween them ; all this was legitimate and in the interests of civilization. But let Germany .say as much as that she too had commercial interests in Morocco, or that she would like to purchase a coaling station within a certain sphere where England and her allies had a dozen, then a howl went up about "intolerable German ag- gression" and "unwarrantable en- croachment on English interests." Even such a strictly non-political commercial enterprise as the build- ing by German capital of the Bagdad Railway was not permitted except after years of negotiations, and after English capital had been allowed to participate and the terminals ar- ranged to suit English interests. Germany has submitted to this in- justice for a number of years, but it is clear that a nation of 65,000,000 people needing employment and means of support could not forever endure such a thwarting of its legiti- mate aspirations. Could the War Have Been Avoided? So it appears that each one of these three great Powers now mak- ing war on Germany had her own reasons for wishing to crush her; Germany, on the other hand, had no corresponding designs against them. She wanted no French territory, knowing well that it could not be Germanized for a long period, and would only weaken her. Nor was she so foolish as to think that she could wrest anything from the Rus- sian colossus. Her geographical posi- tion, the relative weakness of her navy, and her lack of naval bases and coaling stations made it incon- ceivable that she could inflict very serious damage upon England's fleet or her world-wide dominion. Noth- ing more absurd than the assertion that Germany aimed to rule Europe as France did in the time of Napo- leon. The only thing Germany de- sired was to be treated by the other nations on an equal footing, and not to be constantly shut out by their combinations from newly arising op- portunities for expansion and for the extension of her cornmercial influence — opportunities such as the other na- tions have seized in recent years time and again. This was not only her right, but a physical necessity in view of her rapidly growing population. She has submitted to many a slight and has suffered one setback after another. If she has struck now, it is because she felt sure that she could not later defend herself against the mighty combination of her oppo- nents with the slightest chance of success. When the Kaiser, in order to preserve the peace of Europe, offered to mediate between Austria and Ser- via, and Russia nevertheless ordered the mobilization of her giant army, the whole German people realized what was in store for them. Ger- many was in the position of a man who sees a deadly enemy reach for his pistol, and whose only possible salvation lies in shooting first. The war could have been avoided if France had foregone her desire for revenge and for the reconquest of Alsace-Lorraine, which she did not need in view of her almost stationary population and her own wealth and that of her extensive colonies. The war could have been avoided if Rus- sia had been content with her vast and undeveloped empire, and had curbed her desire to strike down Aus- tria as an obstacle on her route to Constantinople. The war could have been avoided if England had been more generous to Germany and had allowed her the same share as the other nations in new opportunities for colonization and for extension and protection of commerce. Finally, the war could have been avoided if Germany had been willing to sit back and let these three great Powers di- vide up Europe, Asia, and Africa be- tween them, and content herself with the crumbs from their table. GERMANY IN SOCIAL-POLITICAL EVOLUTION A More Extensive Account of the Evolution of Germany since Luther Present Situation of the Empire THE EVOLUTION OP THE GER- MAN EMPIRE. Copyrighted by George L. 1915. Scherger. By. Dr. George Ii. Scherger. Professor of History and Politics, Armour Institute of Technology. The German people are not of yesterday. Their authentic history covers a period of almost two thou- sand years. During this long inter- val of time they accomplished won- derful things. They overthrew the Roman Empire of the West, A. D. 476 and established Teutonic king- doms throughout Western and Cen- tral Europe from the Desert of Sa- hara to Scotland, from the Atlantic to the Vistula River. They worked their way out of barbarism to the highest type of civilization. They evolved the Holy Roman Empire and the Reformation. They gave to the world Charlemagne and Otto the Great; Luther and Bismarck; Goethe and Schiller; Bach and Beethoven; Kant and Fichte; Leibnitz and Helm- holtz. Why was such a people so slow in achieving unification? Why is the German Empire the youngest of the great nations of Europe? It shall be my purpose to show briefly what agencies hindered the Germans from forming a united empire, as well as to explain why this unifica- tion resulted in the end, after so long a delay. The Holy Roman Empire. Though the early Teutons were separated into many different tribes which could only with the greatest difficulty be induced to combine in a common undertaking, they were nevertheless held together loosely by the bond of a common language, re- ligion, race, and customs. Charle- magne was the first to form a great Teutonic empire, having received the crown as Roman Emperor of the West from the Pope in 800 A. D. While this was supposed at the time to be merely a restoration of the old Roman Empire that had gone to pieces in 476 A. D., it was really a new creation which, after another century, came to be called the Holy Roman Empire and which lasted un- til 1806, covering a period of over a thousand years. Louis the Pious, the son of Charlemagne, tried to keep the vast Empire together, but his sons, after a long quarrel, divided this territory among themselves in the famous Treaty of Verdun of 843. Charles the Bald received the western por- tion, soon after called France; Louis the German took the countries on the east of the Rhine which came to be known as Germany; while Lo- thair received the crown as Emperor together with Italy and the "Middle Kingdom," the latter consisting of the narrow strip between the king- doms of his two brothers and ex- tending from Italy to the North Sea. This treaty thus marks the beginning of the three nations: France, Ger- many, and Italy. After the death of Lothair strife arose concerning his lands which be- came the bone of contention between the French and the Germans from that day to this. Lothair's name sur- vives in the name Lorraine (Ger- man: Lothringen). Charles the Bald held Lorraine for a few years after Lothair's death, but Louis the German obtained Alsace, Treves, Metz, Friesland, and Lorraine in the Treaty of Mersen, 870, and still more of Lothair's lands nine years later in the Treaty of Verdun-Ribe- mont. Alsace-Lorraine remained under German rule for seven hun- dred years, until France, taking ad- vantage of Germany's weakness aftei- the Thirty Years' war, between 1648 and 1681 appropriated this sec- tion. In 1871 the Germans recov- ered Alsace-Lorraine, maintaining that they simply took back what was rightfully theirs. Not only the lands of Lorraine eventually passed under German control but also the imperial crown. King Otto I. of Germany conquered Italy and was crowned Emperor by the Pope at Rome, in the year 962, thus instituting the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. For the next few centuries Otto's suc- cessors regularly, after having been elected king of Germany by the nobles, made .the trip across the Alps, to add to their German crown the crown of king of Italy and the imperial crown which latter could be conferred only by the Pope at Rome. This union of Germany and Italy proved detrimental to the interests of each country. It meant to the Ger- man King only an increase of glory rather than of power. It encour- aged disorder in both countries and contributed much to their eventual disintegration. When the Emperor was in Italy his nobles in Germany would seize the occasion to rebel; when he was in Germany the Italian cities would start a revolt. Had the German rulers remained at home they might have kept their nobles under control and instituted a strong cen- tral government as did the kings of England and France. By attempt- ing to hold together a vast realm .with many diverse nationalities that could not be assimilated, the emper- ors eventually became rulers in name only. Many of them such as the three Ottos, Frederick Barba- rossa, and Frederick II. were men of extraordinary ability, but the forces that made for disunion were too strong to be overcome even by them. The strongest of the disintegrat- ing forces with which the German rulers had to contend was the tribal division of the German people. The Bavarian felt that he was first a Ba- varian and only secondarily a Ger- man. The same was true of the other tribes. Local patriotism mili- tated against national patriotism in the same manner as among the Greek cities, among the various In- dian tribes in America, and among the American colonies. This partic- ularism has not been entirely over- come to this day and tended to pre- vent the unification of Germany more than any other infiuence. It was intensified by the spirit of Indi- vidualism which has always charac- terized the Germans, as well as by the separate political organization of each tribe. The kings of France and England found the task of consoli- dation so much easier, because their subjects were more homogeneous. Disunion was likewise fostered in Germany by the feudal system, es- pecially since the great fiefs came to coincide with the old tribal divisions. The German nobles had a golden op- portunity of wresting privilege after privilege from the king, all the more so because they had the power to elect a new king and might condi- tion their support of his candidacy upon his making concessions to them. The kings of France and England ruled by hereditary right and were therefore far less dependent upon the nobles. For all these reasons Germany became more and more hopelessly disintegrated, while in England and France strong central- ized governments developed as early as the twelfth and thirteenth cen- turies. The Rule of the Hapsburgs. During the Interregnum (1250- 1273) foreign princes without influ- ence contested the imperial title which now seemed almost worthless. The Interregnum was brought to an end by the election of Rudolph of Hapsburg who wisely refrained from mixing in Italian affairs and curbed the German nobles with an iron hand. Rudolph had been chosen king because he seemed the least formidable of all candidates, for his family at that time had only small possessions in Alsace and Switzer- land. Rudolph's great energy and ability proved a surprise to the nobles who became uneasy at the growing power of the Hapsburgs and therefore preferred, after his death, to elect their rulers from the Luxemburg family. After the year 1437, however, the Hapsburgs once more came into power and remained in control from that time until the overthrow of the Holy Roman Em- pire in 1806. Realizing that the imperial crown conferred but little actual power, since the German princes had now become almost independent of the emperor and regarded him merely as a sort of over-lord who was ruler in name only, the Hapsburg rulers now began to make conquests out- side of the Empire in Hungary, Aus- tria, Styria, and elsewhere, thus building up what they called their house-lands. Here they could do as THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR they pleased for these possessions were under their immediate rule. They conquered more and more terri- tory from Slavs, Magyars, Chechs and other nationalities, until their authority and power in the house- lands far exceeded that within the Empire. Thus they became untrue to their trust as German rulers and Germany suffered from their neglect and became more and more hope- lessly split up into petty principali- ties, secular and ecclestiastical, the heads of which did practically what they pleased. The tragic effects of this condition manifested themselves especially during the period of the Reforma- tion, in the early part of the six- teenth century. This movement was the greatest of all the products of the German spirit. It shook the Ger- man nation as that nation had never . been shaken before. The eyes of the world were now centered upon Ger- many. The monk of Wittenberg be- came the greatest German of all times. Under proper leadership the Germans might then have become a united nation and might have ac- complished what did not take place until 1871. But, unluckily, Ger- many was ruled at that time by a man who did not understand the German people, because he was more of a Spaniard than a German, and because Germany was only one of the many lands under his scepter. The Emperor Charles V. built up a great empire and became the most famous of all the Hapsburg rulers, but Germany lost an opportunity that was not to present itself again until over three hundred years later, simply because Charles failed to see this opportunity. He ruled over Spain, the Netherlands, most of Italy, as well as over Austria and Germany. Had he been a German ruler exclu- sively, he would have placed himself at the head of the nation, over- thrown the princes and nobles, and successfully completed the union of the German principalities into one great state. Unfortunately, the policy which Charles V. adopted, instead of uni- fying Germany, split her up still fur- ther by adding to the other forces of disunion that of religious division. Some of the states became Lutheran or Calvinist, while th^ rest remained Catholic. During the terrible Thirty Years' War Germany became the battling ground of all Europe. The disastrous effects of this long war were not overcome for one hundred and fifty years. After the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the map of Ger- many looked like a crazy quilt made of hundreds of different patches. Some of these German principalities were almost microscopic in size. Yet in each one the power of the prince was practically absolute. The Em- pire had become a farce, although the name was kept up until 1806. Napoleon rendered one undeniable service to Germany: he simplified her map. He rewarded his faithful vassals among the German princes by giving them every now and then ad- ditional patches of territory. The House of Hapsburg was either too powerless or too indifferent to pre- vent these changes. Whenever de- feated by Napoleon, the Hapsburgs preferred to sacrifice German terri- tory rather than their house-lands. The changes made in Germany by Napoleon were so numerous that the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved. In 1806 the Roman Emperor Francis II. dropped his old title and called himself Francis I., Emperor of Aus- tria. Germany was now a conglom- eration of many principalities, with- out a real head. Austria still main- tained a certain leadership over the German states, but her own em- pire represented such a chaotic mix- ture of nationalities that her influ- ence became more and more in- jurious and hindered any tendency toward unification in Germany. In the very nature of the case the di- verse interests of Austria made her unfit to be the champion of German interests. If the German states were ever to be united some other leader must appear. Clearly this had to be a state whose interests were purely German. There was no other so fit to play this part as Prussia. The Rise of Prussia. The nucleus from which the King- dom of Prussia developed was the Duchy of Brandenburg which, under House of Hohenzollern, had since the able rule of the princes of the the tenth century, through steady additions of territory and the hus- banding of its limited resources, be- come more and more prominent. The duke of Brandenburg was one of the seven electors to whom since the twelfth century belonged the right of choosing the Emperor. Prus- sia was originally a small territory along the Baltic, conquered by the Teutonic Knights in the thirteenth century and by them won for Chris- tianity and Germanic culture. The Introduction of the Reformation into Prussia had led to the dissolution of the order of Teutonic Knights. In 1618 Prussia came under the rule of the House of Hohenzollern. It was at that time separated from Branden- burg by a broad expanse of territory. The Great Elector Frederick Wil- liam, by securing Pomerania in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, and by winning additional territory from the Swedes in 1675, rounded out his lands and made his territory con- tinuous. Through great internal re- forms and the perfection of his army, the Elector Frederick William laid the foundations of a great state and mapped out a policy which his sue- ' cessors followed with singular ten- acity and success. In 1702 his son, Frederick I, took the title King of Prussia. When Frederick the Second, afterwards called "the Great," as- cended the throne in 1740, he found himself at the head of a compact and prosperous state with a well-filled treasury and an army second to none In Europe. Under the rule of Frederick the Great, Prussia became one of the five great powers of Europe and dur- ing the Seven Years' War, from 1756-63, was able to hold her own against the combined powers of Rus- sia, France, Austria, and Saxony which had formed a conspiracy to dismember her. It was by her mili- tary strength alone that Prussia es- caped the fate of Poland. Open on all sides to invasion and surrounded by jealous foes, she could save her- self from destruction and work out her destiny only by the maintenance of a strong army. Not only as a general but also as a statesman Frederick the Great ranks with the greatest men in his- tory. The reforms he instituted were widely praised and imitated. He became the type of a benevolent despot. His statement, "The King is the first servant of the State," shows his devotion to the welfare of Prus. sia.* But while he did everything with an eye to the good of the people, his system was paternal. He did not give the people a share in the govern- ment. Though he believed in liberty of thought and in religious freedom, he did not believe in democracy. There was no other state, however, in which the people were so well cared for as in Prussia. It was Napoleon who brought upon Prussia the greatest reverse she ever experienced. When his at- tempts to make her his ally were un- successful, he determined to cripple her so that he would not need to fear her. He goaded her into war, and after his great victories at Jena, Eylau, and Friedland imposed upon her in 1809 the crushing terms of the peace of Tilsit. He took from her half her territory, forced her to pay an enormous war contribution of 150,000,000 francs, but really pressed out of the people two bil- lions, and would not permit her to have an army of more than 40,000 men. Indeed, Napoleon would have annexed Prussia entirely, had it not been for the intervention of Czar Alexander who had been the ally of Frederick William III and whom Napoleon was at that time anxious to please in order that he might form an alliance with him. Prussia never forgot the bleeding which Napoleon administered to her. Certainly no conquered nation had ever suffered greater Injury from the iron fist of the conqueror than she did from that of Napoleon. Yet Prussia was never so great as in the days of her deepest humilia- tion. Phoenixlike, a regenerated Prussia emerged from the ashes of the Napoleonic conflagration. The very greatness of Frederick the Great's system was the cause of Prussia's debacle after his death. Prussia was like a complicated ma- chine that only the great engineer Frederick could operate. Benevo- lent despotism broke down under a mediocre king. It was necessary to call on the people to help regenerate Prussia. Momentous reforms were now instituted by Frederick William III in the interval between 1809 and 1813, the king being advised and as- sisted by such men as Baron vom Stein, Hardenberg, Boyen, Scharn- *Emphasized by the Editor of War Echoes. GERMANY IN SOCIAL-POLITICAL EVOLUTION horst, Gneisenau and others. Serfdom was abolished. In the municipalities government was put in the hands of the people. Above all, the army was now reformed and made a thoroughly democratic institution by Boyen and Scharnhorst who became the fathers of the German military system of today. Compulsory military service made the army the nation in arms. The peasant's son now served along- side of the son of the prince. No one able to serve was exempt. Ability, knowledge, and bravery were made the only titles to advance- ment. All the able-bodied men were trained. While there could not be more than 40,000 men in the army at any one time, because Napoleon so ordered, each installment was drilled night and day and then dis- missed to make room for new re- cruits. As in the days of the Great Elector, of Frederick William I, and of Frederick the Great, there was a deep conviction that Prussia's wel- fare depended upon her army. When the moment came to strike she was ready. A storm of patriotic enthusi- asm swept through Prussia after Na- poleon's defeat in Russia. The Prus- sia of 1813 seemed a radically dif- erent state from the Prussia of 1807. This transformation was due to the popularization of her institutions, es- pecially of her army. This was the birth of Prussian militarism. It was the people of Prussia that backed the movement. It was Prussian militarism which in large measure brought about the overthrow of Na- poleon and won the battle of Water- loo. In that great battle England furnished the general, but Prussia furnished the men. Anti-Macchiavelliism and the New Civilization How will the Historian Settle Accounts with the Nations at War BY THE EDITOR OF WAR ECHOES The remainder of Dr. Scherger's excellent sketch of the vital incidents in Prussia and Germany in the Making, follows immediately after this discus- sion on Diplomacy as adopted and practiced by the rising Prussia under i'rederick the Great, bringing out " more in detail some of the important events sketched by Dr. Scherger. I am especially interested in a bet- ter understanding of this changed or- der of things in European politics as later exemplified by the notoriously infamous MacchiavelU and Talley- rand statecraft, dating very definitely all the vFay back to the ardent ad- mirer of the reformers, especially liuther — the Election of Saxony, Frederick "The Wise" — ^who prom- ised protection to Iiuther when he was threatened to be given to the flames, to meet the fate of his col- leagues in France, England, Spain, Italy and elsewhere! That the great- est German and the one who has had more to do with a modern interpreta- tion of Christianity than perhaps any other reformer, was not given to the flames as were his associates, we owe to the early Prussian principle of common sense and directness in di- plomacy and universal, practical edu- cation! That these principles Were cherished by the young Elector was not an accident, but was to be ex- pected from the leaders of the Ger- man people, in view of their leader- ship and in new thought and prog- ress long before the time of liUther. This also accounts for the magnifi- cent record of the Teutonic peoples in regard to Anarchy, Rebellion, Re- ligious and other Persecution, and Revolution. No European nation has such a record on this score as Ger- many and the other Germanic peo- ples. Take for illustration the Dutch at the hands of Spain! The "Heret- ics" that went up in flames in Eng- land, France and Italy! I promise my good readers that I shall analyse in a future effort this most glaring parallel between the present European struggle, following the breaking down of autocracy and a pseudo-democracy in ignorance, of some of the nations at war, the masses sympathising with the ivrong alignment, as usual, and as history proves to us from the time of the Reformation; well-meaning, but ig- norant, and slavishly directed, they opposed the marvelous thought and work of the Reformers, at that time — and later, the results of their la- bors, by force; at that time it was a question of an understanding of Christianity in the light of a mod- em, a New Civilization, approjdmately from the years of 1450 to 1550, when the work of the Reformers be- gan to bear fruit in some of the Eu- ropean countries, but it is very note- worthy that precious meagre was this harvest among non-Teutonic peoples, where the most courageous of the Reformers were generally given to the flames without mercy. Now it is a question of fighting for stupid, inefficient, self-seeking pseudo-democracy and commerce, as against an intelligent, efficient, dis- interested, centralized, socialistic government, of which Germany is un- questionably the leading exponent, an understanding and appreciation of which in behalf of Progress, the mil- lions upon millions of her enemies are as innocent as the average Rus- sian or Turco now fighting Germany is of Civilization! Should it come to the worst for Germany, after all, which does not seem likely at present, I assure you that we shall see another (rusto/vus Adolphus coming to the rescue of the New Principle to be defended by force in the SOth Century, if need be, as was the New Principle of a Mod- ern Interpretation of the Great Chris- tian Idealism in the 16th Century finally defended by force by the same Teutonic Europe, leading to Victory on the field as well as at home, mak- ing for greater justice, equity, and speedier progress! — The Editor of War Echoes. ANTI-MACGHIAVEIiliUSM AND THE WAR. This is the seventh article of a series on THE EUROPEAN WAR, which a-ppea/red in the October num- ber of THE OPEN COURT, imder the title "Anti-MacchiavelU," written dy the Editor, Dr. Paul CarUs. Consult the INDEX for the cowr plete series, and, in order to see where, in the various Chapters of the took, the different articles of this treatise may 6e found, IboTc for EUROPEAN WAR (THE). In this way the reader m,wy read the entire series of articles in their original order, if he chooses to do so, while the present arrange- ment still gives him the advantage of bringing the various articles under their proper, respective Chapter-head- ings of the book. This is a series of exceptionally fine articles on the subject in question, and they bear a unique and im/portant re- lation to each other. Be sure to read them also in their original order. — Editor, "War Echoes." Some centuries ago statecraft was deemed an intricate and profound science and was assumed to have an ethics of its own. The men in power were either voluptuaries by God's grace or crafty intriguers, and the principles which guided the latter, the successful princes, were pre- sented by Macchiavelli (1469-1527) in a book entitled "II Principe," which has been, and in certain circles is still regarded as the primer of statecraft, and every statesman was expected to follow its precepts. According to Macchiavelli a prince should keep up quarrels between the factions of his own state in order to preserve his dominion, and he should also stir up war between other states in order to profit by the difficulties and perplexities thus caused; or as the Latin formula runs : Divide et impera, that is to say. Cause dis- sensions and keep the balance of power. A piece of practical statecraft in perfect agreement with Macchiavelli's unscrupulous maxims, is preserved in the testament of Peter the Great* from which we will here reproduce a few specimens to show our readers what it means to support Russia and how little any one can rely on RuS- •1725.t tSee Jourdaln in the Index for the complete Reference. — Editor. THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR sian faith. The clauses 9-11 read thus: "Clause 9. — Russia must inces- santly extend herself toward the north along the Baltic Sea, and to- ward the south along the Black Sea. Our kingdom must advance as far as possible toward Constantinople and the East Indies. Whoever shall reign here will be the true master of the world. Therefore we must ex- cite continual wars, sometimes with Turkey; sometimes with Persia; cre- ate dockyards on the Black Sea; take possession, little by little, of that sea, as well as of the Baltic, which is a point doubly necessary for the suc- cess of the project; we must hasten the downfall of Persia; penetrate as far as the Persian Gulf; re-establish, if possible, the ancient commerce of the Levant through Syria; and ad- vance as far as the Indies, which is the emporium of the world. When once there we can do without the gold of England. "Clause 10. — Russia must carefully seek and keep up the alliance with Austria; apparently second her de- sign for future domination over Ger- many; and we must excite underhand against her a jealousy of the princes. We must incite each and all of these to seek succor from Russia, and exer- cise a sort of protection over the country, which may prepare our future domination. "Clause 11. — ^We must interest the House of Austra in the expulsion of the Turk from Europe, and neutral- ize her jealousy after the conquest of the conquest, to retake it from a war between her and the old states of Europe, or by giving up her part of the conquest, to retake it from her afterward." The last will and testament of Peter the Great, proposing the plan to expand Russian influence, to Rus- sify the whole world, and make the Czar supreme on earth, is Russia's sacred heirloom, but Russia accepted also the Triple Entente, not with ain idea of benefiting England or Prance, but because she discovered a plan of thus using France and England for the enhancement of the grand Rus- sian ideal. How shortsighted was Edward VII not to understand the situation, nor to suspect that he gave Russia a chance to further the Czar's ambitions! Russian policy has been and will continue to be directed mainly against England, and the English know it; but the recent fear of grow- ing Germany caused Edward VII to form the Triple Entente, a coalition based on Macchiavelli's principles of statecraft. English people are hon- est, but they do not seem to realize that the English government is guided by the policy of Macchiavelli, that they are befriending a dangerous enemy with which they will later have to reckon. In the thirties of the eighteenth century, a new view of statecraft, first proclaimed anonymously under the title "Anti-Macchiavelli," proposed the principle that a prince would hold his own best if he performed his duty, if he made himself indispensa- ble to his subjects by giving them the best possible service, and soon the secret leaked out that the author of the tract was Frederick, the brilliant young crown prince of Prussia. The news created a sensation in the Euro- pean courts, for Prussia, a small up- start state of Germany, had just aroused wide-spread suspicion on ac- count of its vigorous militarism. But now all fear was allayed; the world became convinced that the Prussian crown prince was a visionary; he loved art and science and manifested literary — especially French literary — ■ interests; he believed in honesty in politics; he wished to be honest to other states and also to his own sub- jects, and indeed, in his later life as a king, he regarded himself as the first servant of the state, "le premier domestique de V6tat. How silly that principle must have appeared to the admirers of the grand and pompous Louis XIV, who is reported to have said "L'itat c'est moif" It is noteworthy, however, that Frederick's principle of honesty in statecraft included militarism in the proper sense of the term, i. e., the obligation to keep a country in a state of strong defense and to be prepared to fight enemies who might grudge its growth and attack it. The first act of his government consisted in maintaining his claim to Silesia in two wars against Austria. In 1756 Austria, Russia, France and the German empire united to crush him and wipe Prussia from the face of the earth. The situation seemed absolutely hopeless for the young king. How could he defend himself against the whole world? At that time Saxony was implicated in the alliance, and so Frederick broke the neutrality of Saxony be- cause he saw the necessity of an- ticipating the crushing onslaught of his enemies. The result is known. He remained victor, and history honors him by calling him Frederick the Great. There is no need to tell the story of his life, his difficulties, his occasional defeats and his final triumph. The spirit of Frederick the Great has not yet died out; on the con- trary it has grown; it spread all over Germany; it founded the German empire and it animates the German people of to-day. It Is Frederick's spirit which is now branded by the enemies of Germany as "militarism." The Kaiser's idea that he is king of Prussia and emperor of Germany by God's grace may be based on an antiquated and superstitious notion of his divine dignity, but we must grant he interprets it in the sense that as king and emperor he is re- sponsible to God for his government and even the Social Democrats do not doubt that he acts according to his conscience. Anti-Macchiavelli. And here is Mr. Jourdain's reply to the Editor's discussion of this subject. — Editor of War Echoes, The Editor quotes a few clauses from the testament of Peter the Great, who ruled from 1689 to 1725, "to show our readers what it means to support Rus- sia and how little any one can rely on Russian faith."= The dates alone make this contention precarious ; one could as soon attribute to M. Poincarg the ruling ideas of Louis XIV, or to King George V the methods and aims of James II. To counterbalance Peter the Great's "testament" the Editor draws attention to Frederick the Great's "Anti-]\Iacchiavelll,"' issued by Voltaire at the Hague in 1740, and con- taining not Frederick's own ideas but a reflection of the generous French philosophy of the eighteenth century respecting the duty of sovereigns, which may be summed up in the sentence: "The prince is not the absolute master but only the first servant of the peo- ple." It is however worthy of note that the great Frederick who joined in the partition of Poland was no believer in honesty in politics. Of statecraft popularly called Macchiavelllan I have found the most remarkable expressions in German authors such as Bernhardl, who in speaking of Germany's future' war with France, says "As soon as we are ready to fight, our statesmen must so shuffle the cards that France shall appear to be the aggressor,'" — a sen- tence that might have been written by the ingenious author of "II Principe." pub- »"Ibid," p. 620.' '"Ibid.," p. 621. ^ "Germany and the Next War,' llshed in 1911. "■•Ibid.," p. 280. ■• See Jourdain in Index for complete Reference. — Editor. The E\x)lution of the Oerman Empire, Continued, Germany and the Holy Alliance. The government of Prussia did not keep faith with the people after the overthrow of Napoleon by granting constitutional government, but it joined Austria and Russia as a mem- ber of the infamous Holy Alliance and thereby entered upon a policy of reaction. Metternich, the Austrian minister of foreign affairs, was the moving spirit of the Holy Alliance and as such became the evil genius of Europe for the next thirty years. Especially baneful was his influence over the princes of the German states who readily adopted his system. The darkness of the Middle Ages seemed to have settled down upon Germany after 1815. The press was placed under the strictest" censorship. Even the universities which had always prized their Lehrfreiheit and Lerrv- freiheit were supervised, because the liberal ideas had taken hold especial- ly of the sudent organizations or Bur- schenschaften. Every manifestation of liberalism in Germany was at once crushed. Thus the people were cheated out of the promise which had been made by the Articles of Confederation of 1815, that consti- tutions should be granted as soon as practicable to the various German states which had in that year formed a loose union. Karl August of Wei- mar, the friend and patron of Goethe GofeboF'/rt, GOTUCnd iLAND 'h^ (^ A Gof 3 BORNHOLM ^_,,-,.~^<3nz/9 ^fi^'jf^ \ ^ „.._,/> Lodz CENTRAL EUROPE (From "The Navy," Waahington, September. 1914) GERMANY IN SOCIAL- POLITICAL EVOLUTION MONUMENT OF THE BATTLE OF LEIPSIC (By Courtesy of the "Open Court") and Schiller, had granted constitu- tional government to his people in 1816; Baden and Bavaria in 1818; Wiirtemberg in 1819; but Prussia would not imitate their example and thus failed to seize the opportunity of placing herself at the head of the reform movement. Only very slowly, as a result of the revolutionary movements of 1830 and 1848, did Prussia and the other German states gradually yield to the liberal move- ment. In 1851 the new Prussian constitution went into effect. That state was now prepared to take up its mission of bringing about a unifi- cation of the German states under her leadership. Austria, however, blocked the way. Even after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, in 1806, the German princes looked to Austria as their leader. The national uprising which had re- sulted in the overthrow of Napoleon had everywhere in Europe kindled a new patriotism and a new interest in the history of each nation. Nowhere was this growth of the historical spirit or the interest in the past stronger than in Germany. It is not to be wondered at that the people took up the unification idea with as much enthusiasm as they made the demand for liberal government. The leader in this movement for the for- mation of a strong and united Ger- many was the famous Baron vom Stein. However, nothing came of this save the formation of a loose Confederation of the German states, known as the Deutsche Bund, with an organization somewhat like that of the American Confederation before 1787. Each state retained its sov- ereignty. The Parliament meeting at Frankfort had little authority to enforce its decrees. There were 38 members of the union. Austria was the chairman. They were separated by tariff walls. The entire creation had feet of clay. The revolutionary movement of 1848 took hold of the German states and led to the calling of a National Assembly the members of which were elected by the people and met in the Paulskirche at Frankfort, May 18, 1848. Archduke John of Austria was chosen imperial regent and ap- pointed a ministry to carry on the administration. A declaration of rights and a constitution were dis- cussed which gave the theorists a fine opportunity to waste much time discussing abstract principles. The new political structure was to have as its cornerstone the principle of the sovereignty of the people. Provi- sion was made for the vesting of the executive in an hereditary emperor, and this office was tendered to King Frederick William IV. Though a great scholar, the Prussian king was weak and conservative. He dis- trusted popular movements and doubted whether the National As- sembly really possessed the authority to confer power upon him. More- over, he was averse to offending Austria, so he refused the offer and declared against the new constitu- tion. The whole unification move- ment thus came to naught for the time being. Once more Austria had her way. The old diet was again instituted and the system of Metter- nich was re-established, though only for a moment. This much progress had, however, been made: Prussia had obtained a constitution in 1851 and she was from this time on re- garded as the nucleus of all future hopes in the unification movement. The Customs Union. In the meantime Prussia had taken important steps in bringing about an economic union which did much to prepare the way for an ulti- mate political unification. In 1828 a customs union was entered into with Hessen-Darmstadt, also in 1829 with Bavaria and Wiirtemberg. Jan- uary 1, 1834, the German Zollverein went into effect which secured free trade to all its members, so that there were no duties levied on goods passing from one state of the Union to another. The advantages of this arrangement were so apparent that state after state entered it. This gave a great impetus to the move- ment for political unification. Inas- much as Prussia had taken the lead, the smaller states began more and more to look to her as their head. Accession of William I. A new era in Prussia began with the regency of Prince William who took charge of affairs when his bro- ther, Frederick William IV, became insane in 1858, and who became king in 1861 at the death of his brother. The new king was not as brilliant a scholar as his predecessor but he was a practical statesman. He had spent many years in the army. He was not a doctrinaire but combined pli- ability and steadfastness of char- acter. Never attempting the impos- sible, never chasing after phantoms, he knew how to adapt himself to a change of conditions. Besides, he possessed a deep insight into human nature and was very quick to detect ability in others and thus select the right men to help him carry out his plans. THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR Especially Important was, in Sep- tember, 1862, his selection of Bis- marck as minister-president of Prus- sia. His choice was violently criti- cized at the time, for Bismarck was almost universally misjudged. Most people considered him a reactionary of the most pronounced type. Even the great historian Max Duncker called him a gambler who was stak- ing the very existence of Prussia. Never did a man suffer greater criti- cism and opposition than Bismarck did throughout his career. The greatest statesman Germany ever produced could not have maintained himself for a moment had he been dependent upon the support of the people. It was only the unfaltering support of King William I that held him in power and enabled him to carry to completion his wonderful work. The friendship between the king and Bismarck was as beautiful as that of Damon and Pythias or of Epaminondas and Pelopidas. Bismarck's Program. Bismarck's political program was laid out from the beginning of his career as a statesman, and he never faltered in his undertaking or swerved from his course. He aimed at bringing about the unification of the German states under Prussian leadership. Austria had shown for centuries that she was unable to uni- fy Germany; in fact, it was only too evident that she had tried to keep Germany weak and to subordinate her to her other dynastic interests. Austria must therefore be forced out of German affairs in order that Prus- sia's way might be clear. Bismarck knew that this question could not be settled by treaties or persuasion but only by "blood and iron." He deemed the blessings to be attained to be worth the cost. Just as the American republic could not come in- to existence without the War of the Revolution; and just as it could not be saved from disruption without the Civil War, Bismarck realized that the opposition against the formation of a German Empire under Prussian leadership necessitated war. And for this war Prussia must be ready. Never did a statesman have a more complicated problem to solve than did Bismarck. With wonderful clearness of vision he was able to comprehend this problem in all its phases. He knew not only what should be done but also understood how to do it. His strength of will was as great as his insight. Only a man of titanic might could become the smith who was able to weld the many states into one great empire. Prussian Militarism. For the fourth time in Prussian history the necessity of military pre- paredness became evident, if the vi- tal interests of the state were to be furthered. As the Great Elector knew that the disjecta membra of his dominions, scattered between the Rhine and the Vistula, could become a real state and thus be delivered from the misery of constant friction only by building up a strong army; as Frederick William I and Frederick the Great realized that Prussia, sur- rounded on all sides by jealous and rapacious neighbors waiting, like hungry wolves, for an opportunity to fall upon their prey, could save her- self only by means of her army; as Frederick William III realized that Prussia could throw off the iron yoke of Napoleon only by regenerating her army; so now again, William I in- stinctively felt that the interests of Prussia were bound up with those of all Germany and that these interests could be furthered only by a reorgan- ization of the army. Not only Aus- tria but all Europe would sooner or later oppose the formation of a strong German Empire, for they had for centuries profited from her weak- ness and made her the battle ground of Europe. It may be said in this connection in the light of present occurrences that for a fifth time, if the Germans are to be saved, it will be because of their army. The fore- sight of William I and Bismarck not only pertained to the period from 1861 to 1871, but it has been justi- fied by the occurrences of 1914. As the neighbors of Germany tried to keep her divided for ages, so today, realizing what an irresistible power has come to her through her unifica- tion, they have combined to crush her. Without her army she would have to beg for mercy. Today she is able to accept the challenge of the most formidable combination that has ever been entered into against any state. If ever military prepared- ness has been justified by its fruits it is ill Germany. Anywhere else so- called "militarism" would have had no other purpose save that of aggres- sion. For Germany it has consti- tuted to this day the only possibility of existence. Today every German realizes what his country owes to the army and is prepared to bring any sacrifice to maintain its efficiency. It is not a thing set against himself but something of which he is a part. When Bismarck in 18 62 undertook to reorganize the Prussian army nobody but he and the king realized what a blessing this army was destined to be. Bismarck could strengthen the army only by opposing the Prussian Parliament and by making himself guilty of a breach of the constitution by raising a loan on his own initia- tive. The fury of the attack launched against him by his antagonists was unbounded. He was the most un- popular man in Prussia. The SchlesAvig-HoIstein Aflfair. Bismarck had to wait only two years to see his policy bear fruit and to receive at least a small measure of praise for his foresight. In 1864 war was declared by the Confeder- ation of German states against Den- mark for trying to absorb the two German provinces of Schleswig and Holstein to which she had no right, having been bound to them only in a personal union as Hannover had been bound to England since the days of George I. Prussia joined hands with Austria in attacking Denmark. The war was short. The Prussian army distinguished itself at Diippel and Alsen. Denmark sued for peace by relinquishing Schleswig- Holstein. The Seven Weeks' War W^ith Austria. Bismarck's plan of getting Austria and Prussia to co-operate in the Schleswig-Holstein affair was a mas- ter-stroke of diplomacy. His hope that it would lead to difficulties and thereby necessitate a final under- standing with Austria regarding Prussia's German policy was fully realized. In the Treaty of Gastein it was agreed that the newly liber- ated provinces should be jointly ad- ministered by both powers, Prussia taking charge of the affairs of Schles- wig, while Austria took in hand the administration of Holstein. Discord was bound to come out of this ar- rangement. The two systems were so different that misunderstandings were inevitable. Austria began to work against Prussia. While Aus- tria had no desire to annex any of this territory, she did not want Prus- sia to have it either and therefore began to think of turning over the provinces to the Prince of Augusten- burg to whom Prussia was much op- posed. Prussia insisted that, inas- much as Schleswig-Holstein was con- tiguous to her own territory, she must safeguard her own interests since the Prince of Augustenburg was anti-Prussian in sentiment. Both sides now prepared for war. The Emperor Napoleon III prom- ised to permit Austria and Prussia to fight the matter out without the in- terference of France, intimating that France would expect Prussia to allow her to appropriate Belgium or some other territory on the left bank of the Rhine as a reward for his neutrality. No definite agreement, however, was made on this point and subsequently Bismarck was able to say truthfully that he had made no promise. Cer- tainly Bismarck here outwitted Na- poleon, who regarded himself as the greatest diplomat in Europe, and not only secured an open hand in the reckoning with Austria but also saved Belgium from being swallowed up by France. At the same time Bismarck nego- tiated a treaty with Italy who was carrying out the unification of her territory. According to this treaty Italy was to win Venetia from Aus- tria whilst Prussia was to attack Austria from the north. Italy was beaten but Bismarck was true to his ally and insisted that Austria cede Venetia to her. The smaller German states all helped Austria. Prussia was there- fore fighting against great odds, since the population of the states arrayed against her was three times as great as her own. So excellent, however, was the reorganized Prus- sian army that a brilliant campaign of only seven weeks brought the smaller German states and Austria to terms. The genius of von Moltke, who was chief of the Prussian gen- eral staff, proved itself in this war. The great battle of Sadowa or Koniggratz, fought on the third of July, 1866, opened the way to Vienna and was soon followed by the Treaty of Prague. The terms imposed upon Austria were very moderate. Bismarck only wished to have Austria step out of NORTHERN EUROPE (From "The Navy," Washington, September, 1914) GERMANY IN SOCIAL-POLITICAL EVOLUTION Germany and allow Prussia to have her way in carrying out her German program. He took none of her lands from her but simply made her pay the expenses of the war. She was also required to cede Venetia to Italy. Austria had every reason to be thankful for the self-restraint and generosity which Prussia had shown and after a few years had so far for- gotten her animosity that she was ready to form an alliance with Ger- many. The North-Gei-man Confederation. Again Bismarck's policy had tri- umphed. A great stride was now taken in the direction of German uni- fication. Prussia in 1867 gathered around her all the German states north of the Main River. This union, already bound together by the eco- nomic freedom of the ZoUverein, in- cluded 21 states. It was called the North German Confederation and added a population of over five mil- lions to that of Prussia. While each state was to retain control over its state affairs, there was instituted a Bundesrat or upper house, presided over by the Chancellor of the Con- federation, and a second legislative chamber, the Reichstag, the mem- bers of which were elected by the people by universal and direct suff- rage. The army of the Bund was under the supreme command of the King of Prussia. This union was compact and well organized. All that was needed to have it cover all Germany was the inclusion of the South German states, which still held aloof. It was only a question of time when they might also be ex- pected to join in the unification movement. The advantages they would have, especially along eco- nomic lines, were too evident to es- cape them. The consolidation of all the German states was hastened by the Franco-Prussian war. The Franco-Prussian War. The Emperor Napoleon III. of France had viewed with alarm the rise of a great power on the east of France. He had been outwitted at every turn by the brilliant states- manship of Bismarck. As a last re- sort he hoped that the south German states would form a confederation under his protectorate. He now be- gan to seek a pretext for war with Prussia and counted on the support of the south German states as well as upon that of Austria and Italy. He expected to strike Prussia before she was ready and believed that the new- ly invented Chassepot gun and the mitrailleuse would prove superior to the Prussian needle gun. Never did a ruler rush so blindly to his own doom or force a war upon a more trivial excuse. The issue Napoleon III. was seek- ing was found when the Spanish people, having driven out the vicious Queen Isabella, tendered the crown of Spain to Leopold of HohenzoUern, a distant relative of King William I. of Prussia, whose brother Karl had a few years before been chosen King of Roumania. Being a Catholic and related on his mother's side to the Bonapartists, one would have thought that I^eopold would prove acceptable to Napoleon III. The latter, however, believed that this was a plan to increase the prestige of Prussia by enabling her to play a part in European affairs similar to that of the Hapsburgs and the Bour- bons in a former age. He therefore instructed his ambassador Benedetti to call on King William I. at Ems and insist that he command Leopold to withdraw. The King replied that he had no authority to do this since Leopold was only his relative, not one of his subjects, and might act as he chose. When Leopold heard of the trouble his candidacy was caus- ing, he withdrew of his own accord. Everybody thought this would end the matter. Even Napoleon had pre, viously declared that nothing save the withdrawal of Leopold would prevent war. Now, however, he de- termined to push the matter still further and thereby either humiliate Prussia so that she would be dis- graced before the world, especially before the south German states, or else to goad her into war. Gramont, his minister of foreign affairs, de- manded of von Werther, the Prus- sian ambassador at Paris, that King William write a letter begging the pardon of the Emperor Napoleon, in which he would state that it had not been his intention to insult the em- peror and France. Benedetti was also instructed to demand a second audience with King William and se- cure his promise that he fully agreed with the withdrawal of Prince Leo- pold and would not sanction a re- newal of the candidacy of a Hohen- zoUern prince. Benedetti presented this demand on the morning of July 13 th when he met the King at the public pro- menade before the springs at Ems and received the firm but courteous reply, that the King had fully ex- pressed himself in this matter an(} that any further information might be obtained from his ministry. Then came the demand for a written letter which had been sent from Paris through the Prussian ambassador. "Who ever heard of such insolence?" wrote King William to his wife. He refused Benedetti's request for a third audience. France thereupon considered this an insult and de- clared war on the 19th of July, 1870. Napoleon urged on by the war party at Paris, had committed a fatal blunder. Retribution for this unwarranted attack on the honor of another state came with the greatest rapidity. Bismarck had followed closely the machinations at Paris. Von Moltke and von Roon, who were in charge of the Prussian army, assured him that if France desired war at any price she would find Prussia ready. Bismarck and von Moltke were dis- cussing matters in Berlin when a dis- patch had been written by Abeken, one of Bismarck's subordinates, at the suggestion of King William and empowered Bismarck to give the news to the press in case he saw fit to do so. The Chancellor had full authority in this matter. The origi- nal dispatch was lengthly and poorly expressed. It reads as follows: "His Majesty writes me: 'Count Benedetti stopped me at the prome- nade, and demanded in a very pre- sumptuous manner, that I authorize him to telegraph immediately, that I obligate myself for all time, never again to give my consent if the HohenzoUern resumed their candi- dacy. I finally rather earnestly re- fused since one must not or can not ever enter into such obligations. Of course I told him that I had not yet received anything and that since he had been notified by way of Paris and Madrid sooner than I, my gov- ernment was again not involved.' His majesty has since then obtainecj a letter from the prince. Inasmuch as His Majesty told Count Benedetti that he is expecting news from the prince, the King decided, in reference to the above demand and the report of Count Eulenburg and myself, not to receive Count Benedetti again, but to inform him through an adjutant, that His Majesty has now received from the Prince the confirmation of the news which Benedetti had al- ready received from Paris and has nothing further to say to the ambas- sador. His Majesty leaves it to your excellency to decide whether or not you will inform the press of this new demand of Benedetti's and its re- fusal." It will be seen from this that Bis- marck alone had the power ancl right to put this information into the newspapers in any manner he chose. He decided to shorten the dispatch without changing its meaning, so that it was given to the papers in the following form: "After the news concerning the withdrawal of the Prince of Hohen- zoUern was sent to the imperial French government by the royal Spanish government, the French am- bassador demanded of His Majesty the King at Ems that he be author- ized to telegraph to Paris that His Majesty the King obligate himself for the future never to consent to a re- newal of the HohenzoUern candidacy. His Majesty the King thereupon re- fused to receive the French ambassa- dor again and informed him through an adjutant of the service, that His Majesty had nothing further to say to the ambassador." A storm of indignation at the in- solence of France swept not only through Prussia but through all the German states, even those of south Germany, and all of them placed their armies at the disposal of the Prussian king. France had put her- self in the wrong and had thereby hastened the unification of all the German states^the very thing Na- poleon had been most anxious to prevent. All of Napoleon's plans miscar- ried. France was wholly unprepared for war. Austria and Italy waited to see which side would win the first victories. When news came of the great German victories at Worth, Gravelotte, Metz, and Sedan they de- termined to remain neutral. When the bombardment of Paris began the outcome of the war could no longer be doubtful. Proclamation of the New German Empire. January 18, 1871, while the bom-, bardment of Paris was still in pro- 20 THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR gress, an event of world importance took place at Versailles, when the princes of the various German states, headed by the King of Bavaria, of- fered to King William of Prussia the crown as German Emperor. The proclamation of the new German em- pire marks the consummation of the struggle for unification which had been the dream of centuries and which had now been realized by the combination of many favorable cir- cumstances among which the most important were the brilliant states- manship of Bismarck, the enthusiasm of the German people, and the won- derful efficiency of the German army. CARLiYliE'S ESTIMATE OF BIS- MARCK. (From the "Questions and Answers" Column in the "New Yorker Staats-Zeitung" of October 21, 1914.) D. O. M. Can you give me Car- lyle's estimate of Bismarck? In a letter to The Times, Carlyle wrote, under date of November 11th, 1870, the following words: "Consid- erable misconception as to Herr von Bismarck is still prevalent in Eng- land. The English newspapers, nearly all of them, seem to me to be getting towards a true knowledge of Bis- marck, but not yet to it * * * Bis- marck, as I read him, is not a person of 'Napoleonic' ideas, but of ideas quite superior to Napoleonic; shows no invincible 'lust of territory,' nor is tormented with 'vulgar ambitions,' etc.; but has aims very far beyond that sphere; and in fact seems to me to be striving with strong faculty, by patient, grand and successful steps, towards an object beneficial to Ger- mans and to all other men. That noble, patient, deep, pious and solid Germany should be at length welded into a nation, and become Queen of the Continent, instead of vapouring, vainglorious, .gesticulating, quarrel- some, restless and over-sensitive Prance, seems to me the hopefulest public fact that has occurred in my time." The Great European Problem of the Twentieth Century — Pan-Slavism All Europe Concerned THE EUROPEAN WAR. PAN-SIiAVISM AND THE WAR. This is the first article of a series on THE EUROPEAN WAR, which appeared in the October Numher of THE OPEN COURT, under the title "Pan-Slavism," written iy the Editor, Dr. Paul Cams. Consult the INDEX for the com- plete series, and, in order to see where, in the various Chapters of the hook, the different articles of this treatise may be found, loolc for EUROPEAN WAR (THE). In this way the reader may read the entire series of articles in their original order, if he chooses to do so, while the present arrange- ment still gives him the advantage of bringing the various articles under their proper, respective Chapter-head- ings of the booli. This is a series of exceptionally fine articles on the subject in ques- tion, and they bear a unique and im- portant relation to each other. Be sure to read them also in the original order. — Editor, "War Echoes." War, a most terrible war, is now raging in Europe, and the most powerful nations have combined to break Germany's ascendency. Ger- many is threatened by Russia from the east, by France from the west, and her extended commerce on the seas in all parts of the world has be- come a prey to Great Britain and Japan. And why? What is the cause ot the war? Because a short time ago the heir apparent to the throne of Austria and his wife were assassin- ated by a Servian with arms from the Servian arsenal. Germany had nothing to do with the incident that occasioned the war, but we must know that this particu- lar occurrence is a symptom only of the real reason. The assassination of a prince and his wife might have passed by and be forgotten if there did not exist a condition which made the war an unavoidable neces- sity. Though the occasion is an in- cident of secondary importance, it throws light on the political situa- tion of Europe. Austria-Hungary is a dual state represented by a double headed eagle as its coat of arms, and the Austrian emperor, formerly a Roman emperor of German nationality, is the mon- arch. In addition to the German Austrians and the Hungarians, the Magyars, there are a number of other nationalities most of which are Slavic: the Czechs in Bohemia, the Slavonians south of Hungary, then the Bosnians, the inhabitants of Her- zegovina, the Poles in Galicia, and also some Servians. The Saxons of Transylvania again are Teutons sur- rounded by Hungarians, Slavs and Rumanians. It would be easy enough to solve the problem of the races if they lived in separate communities, but the trouble is that they live in the same countries and cities, and there are for instance about as many Ger- man Bohemians as Czechs living in Bohemia, and the Saxon Transylvan- ian farmers employ as farm hands Slavs and other races, among them also Gypsies. Austria is about as large as Ger- many and France, but it is weak on account of its lack of internal unity and the hatred among the different races. The Austrian army can not develop the efficiency which other armies possess where the same lan- guage is spoken by all the troops. The race problem in Austria is a calamity but it becomes worse by the propaganda of Panslavism, which means that all the Slavs should be united under the most powerful Slavic state, Russia. Panslavism would ul- timately lead to the ruin of Austria and to the suppression of the Ger- man elements now sprinkled over all the Austrian dominions. Panslavism has been advocated mainly by Rus- sia, whose agents have been at work all over the world, also in non-Slavic countries, in Persia, Afghanistan, Tibet, India, China, and even in the United States. The rise of Slavism is proclaimed by them as the power to come; such is at least the inten- tion of Russia, and Peter the Great, the founder of modern Russia, has sketched in his last will and testa- ment a plan to expand Russia and make her the mistress of the world — a bequest holy to the patriotic Rus- sian and a danger to European civil- ization. The Slavs are upon the whole a hot-blooded and excitable race. They are good-natured but often thought- less; they live in the present and trouble little about the future. Their money affairs are usually in great disorder; they do not save and are quite irresponsible. The most nu- merous of them are the Russians, and we may fairly well say that among the Slavs, the Poles are the most in- telligent, while the Balkan Slavs are least civilized. The Russians are easy going and lack judgment. They are mostly extremists, either slavishly submissive to authority or nihilists and anarchists, unamenable to law and order. The leaders of Russia, that clique which ■ runs the govern- ment of which the Czar is a helpless tool, are unscrupulous. They are descendants of Germanic invaders, but Russified, and their helpers mostly recruit themselves from Ger- man immigrants. The Poles are not friends of the Russians. They know the government too well. The Poles live in those por- tions of Europe which were formerly inhabited by the Goths and it is more than probable that the common peo- ple are the remnant of the old Gothic population. We begin to understand the migratory movement of Europe better now than before and it seems that these expeditions of conquest were never what historians formerly thought them to be — emigrations of whole peoples. It appears that the emigrants sold the acres which they owned, and the others who remained were too weak in number to resist Invaders. The aristocracy of Poland is a well-built brunette race, Slavic in temper and rather small in stature, like the French in character, also jolly, amiable and especially shift- less, while the common people are blue-eyed, blond, tall and often EUROPE AND THE MEDITERRANEAN (From "The Navy," WashinBton, September, 1914) PAN-SLAVISM— THE MENACE OF EUROPE thrifty. Are we justified in drawing conclusions from these facts? Are the two classes of different descent? When Poland became Russian, the Poles became acquainted with Rus- sian rule; their treatment has been approximately the same as the Irish have received from the English. Though Slavs themselves, they could never become enthusiastic over the Panslavic ideal. The Finlanders and Germans of the Baltic provinces, perhaps also the intellectual classes of the Russians proper, have plenty of experience with broken promises of the Russian government, and Russian intrigues have done much harm even in the countries of Russia's friends. Think, for instance, of the Dreyfus-Esterhazy imbroglio in Prance, which impli- cates Russia, not Germany, in the spy system, and also of the Russian attempts to alienate Asiatics from England. If Austria breaks down, Germany will be surrounded by enemies on all sides. If the German portion of Austria together with Hungary should become a part of the Panslavic em- pire, the German race would have little chance of survival, especially as France has not forgotten her defeat of 1870-71, and is constantly clamor- ing for revenge. Under these condi- tions it is but a policy of self-preser- vation that the Germans are deter- mined to support Austria against the Panslavism of Russia. The triumph of Panslavism implies the downfall of Germany. The horrible death of the archduke and his wife was not due to the deed of a fanatic individual, it expresses the sentiment of the Servian nation which seems to have been supported by the Servian authorities. Yea, there are indications that these meth- ods of procedure have been instigated by Russian agents and Austria in- sisted that investigations should bring out the truth. The conspiracy was well supplied with money and can not have been limited to a few private individuals. The report reads: "So well laid was the plot that there was little chance of escape. Had the pistol shots failed to take effect, another bomb was ready to be thrown in the next block, while under the table at which the archduke was to lunch two others were discovered. In the chimney of the Duchess of Hohen- berg's apartments still another bomb was found, while the railway over which it was expected the imperial party would leave Sarayevo was lit- erally mined with dynamite." The roots of the conspiracy spread into Servia, and Austria insisted that an investigation should bring out the truth. Servia promised an investigation, but since Austria did not trust the Servians to be impartial, Austria issued an ultimatum demanding Aus- trian representatives in court. This, however, was indignantly refused, and the refusal strengthened the sus- picion that both the Servian and Russian governments were co-guilty of the criminal conspiracy. While Germany recognized the justice of the Austrian demand, Russia supported the Servian cause and the result was war — a war of the Slav against the Teuton, the object being the Pan- slavic ideal of Russia, and in this war Russia was supported by France and England, according to the Triple Entente. According to the British White Book, Sir Edward Grey sided with Servia in its refusal of Number Five of the Austrian ultimatum saying that it "would be hardly consistent with the maintenance of Servia's independent sovereignty if it (Aus- tria's demand) were to mean that Austria-Hungary was to be invested with the right to appoint officials who would have authority within the fron- tiers of Servia." That sounds very fair, but would Sir Edward use the same argument if the Prince of Wales had been as- sassinated and some little nationality on the moral level of Servia were for good reasons suspected of having helped in the deed and plotting re- newals of the crime so as to en- danger the British government and its royal family? That would have been different. How can anyone defend Russia's protection of assassins, or who can glance over the history of these events without suspecting the leaders of Panslavism of having instigated the deed? But that England rushed at once to the support of the methods of Panslavism is incomprehensible except on the assumption that Eng- land favored the plan of a most stu- pendous war in which Germany's prosperity, her manhood, her civil- ization, would be buried under the armies of the invading Russ. Panslavism and the Russian Czar are to be helped by the French, and both are to be supported by the Brit- ish fleet. The ruinous march of the Gallic foe in the time of Napoleon the First, about one hundred and nine years ago, is to be repeated but is being made more effective by the Slavic ally. What reason have the English for joining such a war? They will rid themselves of an incon- venient competitor; and they feel safe in undertaking the war, for they believe success can be gained without much risk to Albion. The Kaiser is a peaceful man. If any one deserves the Nobel peace prize, it is he. Since his ascent to the throne he has preserved the peace of Europe, often under the most dif- ficult conditions. The bellicose party of Germany has often been disgusted with the Kaiser's policy and called him William the Pacific. If he de- clares war, war must be inevitable — ■ and what a war! He has to face the most powerful nation, Russia, with its army of uncounted and almost un- countable numbers, of enormous re- sources, unexhausted and inexhaust- ible. In Russia human lives are not only plentiful but cheap, and Russia is supported as a matter of course by France with her well-drilled impetu- ous men, both in turn being encour- aged by England, the undisputed mis- tress of the seas! Germany is supported by Austria- Hungary whose weakness is well known. Who can believe that Ger- many wanted a war of such dimen- sions, that she has provoked it, or ventured into it for lust of fame or with an expectation of conquest? What can she gain and how can she be benefited even if she keeps her enemies out of the fatherland? And yet her enemies blame the emperor for being responsible for the war! Germany has been cut off from the rest of the world. America has not received any news of the war ex- cept from London, Paris, Petrograd (the new name of St. Petersburg) and Rome. We are informed that the Germans are beaten, and yet they advance. There is some news from Berlin, via Copenhagen or Rotter- dam, of recent date, which shows the progress of the war in a very dif- ferent light. The murder of the archduke is not the real or only reason of the war; it is the symptom of Panslavism, and Panslavism is the reason why Russia has gone to war. But there are two other reasons: one is the French lust for revenge, the other England's de- termination not to allow Germany to appear in the field of commerce as her rival, which from the English standpoint means that Germany is England's "first and immediate en- emy." Great Britain has declared war on the ground that Germany would not respect the neutrality of Belgium, but the real reason lies deeper and appears in the anti-German policy of the British government which has es- tablished the principle that for every keel the emperor lays down, England will lay down two, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle says: "The first fruit of the new German fleet was the En- tente Cordiale." AN ANSAVEB TO THE "EtlKOPEAN WAR.'" By M. Jourdain. And here is Mr. Jourdain's reply to the Editor's discussion of this subject. — Editor, War Echoes. One of the leading characteristics of The Open Court is that it is really open to discussion, and it is in keeping with the very liberal views of Dr. Paul Car- us, a German by birth and sympathies, that I am allowed to discuss and dis- sent from his views upon the European war published in the October number of The Open Court and with other articles in the same number. Dr. Carus's article (pp. 596-646) deals by sections with questions that have arisen in connection with the war ; and fol- lowing his arrangement, I propose to summarize his arguments and, so far as they seem to me misleading, to question them. The first section is : PANSLAVISM. References referring to points in this article may be found by consulting the Index for Jourdain, Carus, "Open Court." War, European War. This is Mr. Jour- dain's reply to the Editor's discussion of the subject, Panslavism. — ^Editor of War Echoes. 1 We publish this article from England as the most comprehensive reply to the editorial position that we have received. — Editor, The Open Court. THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR After a summary of the character- istics of the Slav races and the well- Ivnown disunion of the Austro-Hungar- iau empire, the Editor turns to the in- cident of the assassination of the heir- apparent to the throne of Austria and his wife at Sarajevo, on June 23. 1914. There was, he says, no public sympathy throughout Europe for the crime ; and yet we read : "No crime has ever aroused deeper or more general horror throughout Europe ; none has ever been less justified. Sympathy for Austria was universal. Both the governments and the public opinion of Europe were ready to support her in many measures, however severe, which she might think it necessary to take for the punish- ment of the murderer and his accom- plices."^ The opinion of the Russian, French and German governments was that the Servian government was not to blame for the crime, but that Servia must in- vestigate and put an end to the propa- ganda which had apparently led to it. Sir Edward Grey advised Servia to show herself moderate and concilia- tory.^ Unless it were proved that the Servian government had connived at or incited to the crime ; or unless the Ser- vian government were to conduct an investigation in such a way as to screen the con.spiracy, there was no reason for declaration of war, or a punitive ex- pedition against Servia. A declaration of war on Austria's part on the ground that she "did not trust the Servians to be impartial"' is absurd. The first open step on Austria's part was an ultimatum delivered at Bel- grade, requiring an answer in forty- eight hours. The ten demands involved the suppression of anti-Austrian news- papers, literature and propaganda, the suppression of nationalist societies such as the Narodna Odbrana ; the dis- missal of officers and functionaries "guilty of propaganda against the Austro-Hungarian monarchy whose names and deeds the Austro-Hungarian government reserve to themselves the right of communicating to the royal government" (of Servia), participation of Austrian officials in judicial proceed- ings in Servia, the fl.rrest of two indi- viduals compromised by the results of the magisterial inquiry at Sarajevo ; the prevention of illicit traffic in arms across the frontier, an explanation of anti-Austrian utterances by high Ser- vian ofiBclals, and finally the immediate notification of the enforcement of these measures. In addition, a prescribed statement was to be published by the Servian government in the official jour- nal, condemning anti-Austrian propa- ganda and regretting the participation of Servian officers and functionaries therein." A summary of the secret trial at Sarajevo was annexed to the ultimatum, giving the bare findings, with no corroborative evidence. = Throughout this article I have used for convenience sake the cheap reprint of the English White Paper (which also includes Sir Edward Grey's speech of August 3, and other matter) entitled "Great Britain and the European Crisis," London, 1914. I shall refer to this as "G, B. and the E. C." Here the reference is to the intro- ductory narrative of events, p. iii.* ' "Ibid," p. iv. * "Open Court" for October, 1914, p. 599. In future the letters "O. C." will denote that issue of "The Open Court." •"G. B. and the E. C" pp. 3-9. • See Jourdain in Index for complete Reference. — Editor. As Sir Edward Grey wrote to Sir Maurice de Bunseu," he had "never before seen one state address to an- other independent state a document of so formidable a character." The de- mand tor the participation of Austrian officials in judicial proceedings in Ser- via was "hardly consistent with the maintenance of Servia's independent sovereignty if it were to mean, as it seemed that it might, that Austria- Hungary was to be invested with the right to appoint officials who would have authority within the frontiers of Servia." The Editor admits that this "sounds very fair.'" It is, in fact, unanswer- able ; and no other line of action would be possible even in the imaginary ease he adduces, "if the Prince of Wales had been assassinated and some little nationality on the moral level of Ser- via were for good reasons suspected of having helped in the deed, plotting renewals of the crime so as to endanger the British government and its royal family." I do not think that an Eng- lishman would have his sense of jus- tice warped by national considera- tions. Before the expiration of the time- limit of the ultimatum, Servia returned to Austria a reply amounting to an ac- ceptance of all the demands," subject on certain points to the delays neces- sary for passing new laws and amend- ing her constitution, and subject to Austria-Hungary's explanation as to her wishes with regard to the participa- tion of Austro-Hungarian officials in Servian judicial proceedings. "The Royal Government must confess that they do not clearly grasp the mean- ing or the scope of the demand made by the Imperial and Royal Government that Servia shall undertake to accept the collaboration of the organs of the Imperial and Royal Government upon their territory, but they declare they will admit such collaboration as agrees with the principles of international law, with criminal procedure, and with good neighborly relations."" This reply went beyond anything which any power — Germany not ex- cepted — thought probable.'" This was the more remarkable as the time-limit of the ultimatum was as unnecessary as insolent. The impression left upon the mind of Sir Maurice de Bunsen was that the note was "so drawn up as to make war inevitable." "This country," he writes, "has gone wild with joy at the prospect of war with Servia and its postponement or prevention would undoubtedly be a great disappoint- ment." '■ In this temporary blindness of a peo- ple, the Austrian ministers were borne " British ambassador at Vienna. '"O. C," p. 599. « "G. B. and the E. C," pp. 22-27. ""G. B. and the E. C," p. 25. Servia concluded by proposing, in case the Aus- tro-Hungarian government were not satis- fled with the reply, "to accept a pacific understanding, either by referring this question to the decision of the interna- tional tribunal of The Hague, or to the great powers which took part in the draw- ing up of the declaration made by the Servian government on March 31, 1909." '° "German secretary of state has him- self said that there were some things in the Austrian note that Servia could hardly be expected to accept." "G. B. and the E. C," p. 29. > "G. B. and the E. C," p. 27. along on a wave of violent enthusiasm, in which they said themselves that they would be dislodged from power if they did not accede to the popular demand for the punishment of Servia.- As Servia consented to dismiss and prosecute those officers who could be clearly proved to be guilty and had already arrested the officer referred to in the Austro-Hungarian note, it is not correct to speak of "Russia's protection of assassins."' Equally incorrect is the statement by the Editor: "That England rushed at once to the support of the methods of Panslavism is incomprehensible except on the assumption that England favor- ed the plan of a most stupendous war in which Germany's prosperity, her manhood, her civilization, would be buried under the armies of the invad- ing Russ."* The British government's attitude was that she had no interest in the Bal- kans except the consolidation and progressive government of the Balkan states. Sir Edward Grey's concern in the Austro-Hungarian note and the re- ply of Servia was "simply and solely from the point of view of the peace of Europe. The merits of the dispute be- t^veen Austria and Servia were not the coi'cern of His Majesty's government."" Sir George Buchanan, British ambas- sador at St. Petersburg, telegraphed (on July 24) that "direct British in- terests in Servia were nil, and a war on behalf of that country would never be sanctioned by British public opin- ion."" British intervention in the European crisis only followed Ger- many's violation of Belgian neutrality on August 3. As the Austro-Hungarian note was presented to Servia on July 23, and war was declared by England on Germany on August 4, England's in- tervention cannot be described as hur- ried or determined by the action of Russia. The Editor proceeds to praise the German emperor as the prince of peace. "The Kaiser," he writes, "is a peaceful man. If any one deserves the Nobel peace prize it is he. Since his ascent to the throne he has preserved the peace of Europe, often under the most difficult conditions. The bellicose party of Germany has often been disgusted with the Kaiser's policy and called him William the Pacific.'" It is perhaps premature to assume that the German emperor is the sole cause of Germany's attitude f but turning to his acts and utterances, is it peace that he proclaim- ed so loudly in the days before the war? Was the author of those won- derful Wardour Street phrases of "the mailed fist" and "shining armour" so pacific? In a speech of his delivered = "Ibid.," p. vii. ' "O. C," p. 599. * "Ibid." '■ "G. B. and the B. C," p. 9. ""Ibid.," p. 10. '"O. C," p. 600. 'In December, 1910, he sent his portrait to the minister of education with the sig- nificant motto, Si volo, sic jubeo. The words of the minister completed the quo- tation. On May 4, 1S91, at a Rhenish banquet, he said : "There is but one mas- ter In the country ; it is I, and I will bear no other." In a speech at Konigsberg, , May 25, 1910, he wrote: "Considering myself as the instrument of the Lord, without heeding the views and opinions of the day I go my way" — an attitude which might lead to breaches of the peace. PAN-SLAVISM— THE MENACE OF EUROPE 2a on March 1, 1900, on the completion of a fort, he said : "I christen thee Fort Haeseler. Thou wilt be called upon to defend the conquests of Germany over the western foes." Seven months later, in celebrating Moltke's birthday, he expressed a desire that "thy staff may lead Germany to further victories." The man who could proclaim that "nothing must be settled in this world without the intervention of Germany and the German emperor," cannot be the most pacific of European sovereigns. That the English people had some just cause for uneasiness in the past may be seen from a very courageous and temperate article in the "Frankfurter Zeitung," December 29, 1911: "We shall be obliged to admit that the dis- trust on the other side of the English Channel is not altogether unfounded. If we had to listen to such utterances from the mouth of a foreign sovereign, we too would become restive and take thought for the strengthening of our line of defense. At present we can only ask England not to take so seri- ously the utterances in question, since we have long ago had the experience that great words are not followed by great deeds. We know that the Kruger telegram, the challenge to the yellow races, the speech at Damascus, the trip to Tangier, the sending of the "Panther," and so on, were only out- ward gestures which remained without any corresponding consequences. This is one of the weakest points of our foreign policy. We say to England again and again : 'The German nation is absolutely peaceably-minded, and wishes to live on terms of peace and friendship with England just as much as with all other nations.' This makes no impression on them, since they answer us : 'We are glad to believe that the German nation is peaceably-mind- ed, but the German nation does not make German policy. Her policy is made in a quarter which is absolute, irresponsible, and incalculable; and for that reason we attach merely a Platonic, and never a practical, value to the national professions of peace.' Wliat answer are we to make to that?" "Who can believe," writes the Edi- tor," "that Germany wanted a war of such dimensions, that she provoked it or ventured into it for lust of fame or with an expectation of conquest? What can she gain?" The answer to this is twofold : Firstly, there has existed an aggressive war literature in Germany which has no parallel in any other country. Von Treitschke condemns per- petual peace as the "dream of weary, spiritless, and exhausted ages," while Bernhardi, echoing Treitschke, speaks of war as "an indispensable factor of culture, in which a truly civilized na- tion fiinds the highest experience." In the latter author's works war with France and Russia simultaneously is hopefully anticipated, for "in one way or another we must square our account with France. . . .This is the first and foremost condition of a sound German policy. . . . France must be so com- pletely crushed that she can never again come across our path. A pacific agreement with England is, after all, a will-o'-the-wisp which no serious Ger- man statesman would trouble to fol- low. We must always keep the possi- bility of war with England before our eyes and arrange our political and mili- tary plans accordingly." As B,ernhardi (who died in 1913) was a prominent German general, high up in the gen- eral staff, his aspirations have a cer- tain degree of authority. And apart from militarist writers, every traveler in Germany has come face to face with what Sir Walter Raleigh aptly calls "the cheerful brutality of their polit- ical talk.'"" "I remember meeting," he adds, "with a Prussian nobleman, a well-bred and pleasant man, who was fond of expounding the Prussian creed. He was said to be a political agent, but he certainly learned nothing in conver- sation. . . .The error of the Germans, we were told, was always that they are too humane; their dislike of cruelty amounts to a weakness in them. They let France escape with a paltry fine; next time France must be beaten to the dust. Always with a pleasant out- ward courtesy, he passed on to Eng- land. England was decadent and pow- erless, her rule must pass to the Ger- mans. 'But we shall treat England rather less severely than France,' said this bland apostle of Prussian culture. . . .The grossness of the whole thing was in curious contrast with the polite and quiet voice with which he uttered his insolences." It is possible not to draw the conclusion that war with Russia and France was expected, one might say desired, by an influential party in Germany. That she did not de- sire a "war of such dimensions" is quite evident from the bids for English neutrality.' Yet she inevitably drew England into the war by her violation of the neutrality of Belgium ; and both Austria and Germany were quite aware of the fact that the note to Servia might lead to a European war. The German White Book informs us that the Austrian government informed the German government of their "concep- tion" of the situation and asked their opinion. The White Book comments as follows : "With all our heart we were able to agree with our ally's estimate of the situation, and assure him that any ac- tion considered necessary to end the movement in Servia directed against the conservation' of monarchy would meet with our approval. "We were perfectly aware that a possible warlike attitude of Austria- Hungary against Servia might bring Russia upon the field, and that it might, therefore, involve us in a war, in accordance with our duty as al- lies."^ In the second place, Germany showed no wish to work for peace when the key of the situation lay with Berlin. While Russia, France and England in- itiated and supported peaceful meas- ures, the German chancellor claimed that none should intervene between Austria and Servia.' The remaining arguments of the Ed- itor that the causes of the war are "the French lust for revenge'" and "England's determination not to allow Germany to appear on the field of com- ■ merce as her rival,'" and "the anti- German policy of the British govern- ment"" are more conveniently treated of under the sections on the "Foes of Germany" and the "English Point of View." The statement that "Germany has been cut off from the rest of the world" is hardly correct, as the Ger- man official wireless is sent out and is published daily in the English news- papers, while German newspapers can be easily obtained. = "0. C." p. 600.* * See Jourdain in Index for complete Reference. — Editor. '» "Might is Right." Oxford pamphlets, 1914, p. 12. ' "G. B. and the E. C, ' German White Boolt, ' "G. B. and the B. C, '"O. C," p. 600. > "Ibid." ■ "Ibid." p. 45. Playing the Greatest Game of World Politics Ever Played Great Britain and the Entente ON WHOSE SIDE IS GOD? From "The Fatherland," New York, November 11, 1914. With bovine humor, the Anti-Ger- man editor of the Times* objects to the telegram sent by Emperor Fran- cis Joseph to Emperor William: "God is with you." The Times,* as "*New York. — The Publisher of "War Echoes." authoritative spokesman for God, says He could really not be on the side of Zeppelin airships, Krupp guns or Taube aeroplanes. The Times* argues that God is on the side of: The pagan Japanese, who massa- cred the Chinese at Port Arthur. The British, whose General Kitch- ener massacred Boer women and children with English artillery at the battle of the Modder River. The Indian Sikhs, whom the British shot from the mouths of cannon, be- cause they massacred English women and children during the Indian mutiny. In permitting 70,000 of its troops to be captured perhaps it was the shrewd plan of the Russian General Staff to exhaust the German com- missariat. — From the "Washingtoa Post. 24 THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR THE ENGLISH POINT OF VIEW AND THE WAR. Thli is the third article of a series on THE EVROPEAy WAR, which ap- peared in. the October Number of THE OPEN COURT, imder the title -'The English Point of View," written by the Editor, Dr. Paul Garus. Consult the INDEX for the com- plete series, and in order to see where, in the various Chapters of the booh, the different articles of this treatise marl be found, loolc for EUROPEAN WAR (THE). In this loay the reader may read the entire series of articles in their original order, if he chooses to do so, while the present arrange- ment still gives him the advantage of bringing the various articles under their proper, respective Chapter-headings of the book. This is a series of exceptionally fine articles on the subject in question, and they bear a unique and important relar- tion to each other. Be sure to read them also in their original order. — Edi- tor; "War Echoes." The English people remained strictly neutral during the war be- tween the French and the Germans in 1870-71, and if there was any sympathy in Albion it was rather on the side of the- Germans, not only be- cause the English and the Germans are closely akin in blood, in civiliza- tion and in religion, but also because the two ruling houses are intimately related. The present Kaiser is the grandson of Queen Victoria. In the nineteenth century a war between the two nations would have seemed impossible, but the sentiment has 'changed in the twentieth century, not because either the English or the Ger- man people are much different from what they formerly were, but be- cause a propaganda has been started to sow the seeds of hatred, of jeal- ousy, of envy and discord in Eng- land and to denounce Germany's growing power as a menace to England. This propaganda had its origin and impetus in influen- tial circles, and may have started in the government itself. One thing is certain: it took a firm hold on King Edward VII who favored the anti-German policy and prepared the way for a war of extermination to be carried out by Russia, France and England. The English propaganda found an echo in Germany, and old Bismarck after his discharge sounded the alarm. The anti-German policy in England was first proposed in articles that ap- peared in the English "Saturday Re- view" in 1897, and it has made head- way ever since. In order to repre- sent the English tendency that has led to the war through the policy of the anti-German party of England we have republished the article "Eng- land and Germany" from the "Satur- day Review" (London) of September 11, 1897. It is apparently inspired by the British government and its tendency has gradually become the guiding principle of English policy. Official representatives of the Brit- ish government enunciated this plan again and again until the public be- came accustomed to it, and now it has brought on the war. We need not mention that "the wise man of Europe," referred to in the mooted article is Bismarck in his advanced age. Bismarck foresaw the British danger and warned the Ger- mans. On the other hand, we learn from the "Saturday Review" article that while in February, 1896, the idea of regarding Germany as "the first and immediate enemy of England" was considered "an eccentricity," the propaganda against the Germans spread quickly, so that a month later the German flag was hissed at in Lon- don. Afterwards the anti-German movement led to the Triple Entente, formulating the program for the present war. True, Germany has become a com- petitor of England. German indus- try has gradually developed into a rival of English industry, yea, has even outdone it in many branches, and the Germans have built up a navy which is intended to protect their trade. The German navy is nearly half as strong as the English navy and if it continues to grow it may by and by be equal to it. The Brit- ish government, backed by public opinion, decided that that must be prevented, for the British have so far lived up to their popular hymn, "Britannia, Rule the Waves," which is the indispensable condition of a dominion over the world. Now Ger- many comes in as a rival trying to gain her share of the world market. That is a sin and should not be tol- erated. Therefore German progress must be checked in time in order to preserve Britannia's monopoly in commerce. England still rules the waves and England can fight Ger- many, as our English author trusts, "without tremendous risk, and with- out doubt of the issue." This means in plain language that the English own the world of com- merce and will not share its domin- ion with anybody. Our author de- clares that "If Germany were extin- guished tomorrow, the day after to- morrow there is not an Englishman in the world who would not be the richer." This policy is not only egotistical and barbarous, not only unfair and narrow, but it is also stupid. It is the logic of a villain and the error that so often props up the arguments of a criminal. Public opinion in England today finds no fault with Germany as a center of art and science. The Ger- many of Goethe and Schiller in the days of her political weakness was harmless, but modern Germany in its political strength, Prussianism, mili- tarism, imperialism, is most objec- tionable. Nor should Germany build up industries and increase her com- merce. Germany would be quite de- lightful if it had no army, if it were without a navy, in short, if it were defenseless. But do not let us for- get that Germany has learned by long and bitter experience that she needs Prussian leadership, she needs an army. Undoubtedly she would abol- ish her militarism if her neighbors, the French and the Russians, would disarm, and if the English would sell their navy as old iron. The English want their navy to be bigger than any two other navies together, but Germany should remain defenseless. We grant that Germany's progress is a danger to England. So far Eng- land has enjoyed an undisputed dom- inance in the world of commerce, and she has gained her advantages by her progressive methods and by unrivaled energy; but in her safe control of the seas she has become self-suflicient and stagnant. England is at present conspicuously unprogressive. The proper method of combating rivals in the field of industry and commerce does not consist in the extermination of new competitors but by beating them with their own weapons. Eng- land should have raised herself from her lethargy, should have followed the example of Germany, should have built schools or reformed her anti- quated system of education in order to fit her citizens to compete with Ger- man industry. That, however, would be too much to expect from the Eng- lish. They want leisure and prefer their traditional stagnancy, still be- lieving that the best policy is not to aspire to surpass a rival, not to excel him, but to call him an "enemy" and to conquer him by exterminating him. Our English author knows that the issue between England and Germany is a commercial question. He says: "Nations have fought for years over a city or a right of succession; must they not fight for two hundred mil- lion pounds of commerce?" According to Dr. Richet, statisti- cian of the University of Paris, Ger- many has an annual export of $331,- 684,212, and an import of $188,963,- 071; Austria an export of $23,320,- 696, and an import of $19,192,414. All this is stopped and will remain stopped through the war so long as Great Britain has command of the seas. But British trade does not suf- fer any direct interference. That is a great advantage for England; but is it really so great as to involve the world in a most tremendous war and risk serious reverses? The Italian senator. Count San Martino, was present at a dinner on July 22 where he met Sir Edward Grey and Sir William Edward Goschen and heard the remark made that a civil war could not be avoided except through a war with Germany. The statement was published recently in the "Giornale d'ltalia" and similar contentions have been made in other papers. Did the Count let the cat out of the bag? Let us hope that even if there be an element of truth in the statement, the ministers merely noted a convenient coincidence, and did not follow a preconceived plan. THE ENGLISH POINT OF VIEW. Here follows Mr. Jourdain's reply to Dr. Carus. — Editor. There has been a commercial conflict between England and Germany,' two gre.nt manufacturing countries; just as there has been a struggle for markets between England and America. But the latter struggle has not led to war, and the relations between the two countries have never been better. Commercial rivalry is not, therefore, the only cause •"O. C," p. 607. • * See Jourdain in Index for complet* Reference. — Editor. BRITISH WAR POLITICS TO DATE 25 of our recent alienation from Germany ; but, as the Editor rightly points out, "propaganda." But while he draws at- tention to the anti-German propaganda in England (relatively small) he omits to refer to the enormous and Influen- tial anti-English propaganda in Ger- many. The Editor points to an article in the "Saturday Review," September 11, 1S97,' as the first expression of anti- German policy in England, but the vio- lently anti-English utterances of Treit- schke date as early as 1S74. Later, the German professor Karl Lamprecht seized upon the Boer war to demon- strate to Holland that England is the enemy ; and Bernhardi is also anti-Eng- lish. Now while in Germany the feel- ing against England has raised in the past a crop of aggressive i^rofessors, lectures and books, in England the feel- ing against Germany did not lead to dreams of conquest but to fear of in- vasion ; of the "German peril." In- stead of "Germany and the Next War," we had "The Englishman's Home." Even today, in the midst of war, the English press references to Germany are temperate when compared with German references to England. A third factor in the creation of na- tional hostility was the matter of arma- ments, especially the navy. The Eng- lish case for a predominant navy is (': England's insular position, which ren- !" ders her liable to starvation directly she loses command of the sea ; the im- mensely larger size of her mercantile marine, which needs protection; her colonies, and the fact that she main- tains but a small army. In the com- petition in armaments it is worth not- ing that on the eve of the Hague con- ference of ISSS, Mr. Goschen announced that if the other naval powers should be prepared to diminish their programs of ship-building, we should be prepared on our side to meet such a procedure by modifying ours ; the German govern- ment replied, by Colonel von Schwarz- hoff, their delegate at the conference, with a scornful speech. At the second Hague conference in 1907, the British proposal to consider a concerted arrest of armaments was politely shelved, the German delegate. Baron Marschall von Bieberstein refusing to discuss it. The question of total disarmament has not been raised, and we cannot tell whether she would "abolish her militarism if her neighbors, the French and the Rus- sians, would disarm, and if the English would sell their navy as old iron,'" but she has certainly refused on several occasions the invitation to slacken com- petition in armaments. 'Reprinted in "O. C," pp. 577-579. There is, however, no reason to suppose with the Editor that the article was "in- spired bv the Britisli government" ("O. C," p. 607). '"O. C," p. 60S.* * See Jourdain in Index for complete Reference. — Editor. DR. ElilOT'S LETTER. A letter sent to the "New York Times," comniented upon. New Yorker Staats-Zeltung, New York. Herman Ridder. Under recent date. Dr. Charles W. Eliot, President Emeritus of Harvard University, in a letter to the Times, gives an able exposition of the point of view of those. Americans whose sym- pathies are confined to the cause of the Allies and who are grieved by the mis- conduct of Germany and Austria. I say "grieved" because they all take great pains to emphasize their admira- tion for the achievements of the Ger- manic people and defend their present renunciation of sympathy with Ger- many on the ground that after forty years of unparalleled development in the arts and sciences the nation has, in an hour as it were, thrown away the ideals of the past and gone off after the false gods of bloodlust aud con- quest. The claim of Dr. Eliot to an audi- ence on almost any subject of abstract thought is recognized. In dealing with concrete facts, howev«r, he has not shown, in the letter under reference, equal ability or openness of mind. As a foremost thinker of a neutral nation, writing for a neutral reading public, a greater distinction between "American sympathies" and his own sympathies might rightly be expected from Dr. Eliot's pen. A greater importance might equally well have been given to things as they are and not as the sen- timentalist would have them. Affirming the "immense obligations under which Germany has placed all the rest of the world," Dr. Eliot now feels "that the German nation has been going wrong in theoretical and practi- cal politics for more than 100 years and is today reaping the consequences of her own wrong-thinking aud wrong- doing." It is very hard to take these conclu- sions of the eminent Doctor seriously. They are neither derived logically from his premises nor defensible by compari- son with the political history of other countries in Europe during the last century. Onl.v the great respect which I entertain for Dr. Eliot's accomplish- ments restrains me from dismissing them without comment. The "political and social history of the American people and its govern- mental philosophy and practice" is the standard by which Dr. Eliot .iudges Germany. In this test Germany, from the point of view of Dr. Eliot, is found wanting. I do not question the pro- priety of such a comparison nor the justness of Dr. Eliot's judgment in the premises. The point I wish to make is this : Why should Germany alone, of the eight powers now engaged in ' this world war, be measured by this standard? Why should her departure from our methods of government and lines of thought alone be proclaimed to the American people and the inference given that her enemies are one with ourselves in these things? The same argument would condemn France and Russia, England, Servia, Belgium and Japan. They have all differed from our standai'ds ; four of them more than Germany, two of them not less. They have all "been going wrong" these hundred years and must now be "reap- ing the consequences." if we are to carry Dr. Eliot's reasoning to its logical conclusion. If I may presume for myself some right to an opinion on the world's history, I would not say that Germany has been "wrong- thinking and wrong-doing for over 100 years." I would not even allow my sympathy with German ideals and their concrete attainments to lead me into saying that any one of her present armed foes had been doing so. They have all differed from us, but they have all differed one from another ; they have all made mistakes, and so have we ; and they are all striving, each according to the light that has heen given it, for the same end. It is ungenerous and unfair to single out Germany and attempt to make her support a blame which should attach to all Europe. Dr. Eliot goes into great detail to show the "many important matters concerning which American sympathy is strongly with Germany," and his presentation of such points is masterly. The value of his tributes to German greatness is lessened, however, by the suspicion that he has advanced them only to safeguard his reputation for fairness, and to lend strength to his subsequent arraignment of the Ger- many of today. "The German practices which do not conform to American standards in the conduct of public affairs" are enumerated in seven para- graphs, and I will take them up seriatim. A. The objection is to "Germany's permanent executive and secret diplo- macy." As an American, I say : "Ob- jection sustained." I would extend it, however, to cover England. Russia, Servin, Belgium, Japan and France, the executives of the first five of which are quite as permanent as that of Ger- many, unless we make allowance for Russian anarchy and Servian regicide the "secret diplomacy" of all of whom has shown itself far more dan- gerous to the peace of Europe than that of Berlin. B. The objection is to Germany's mobilization by executive order. Again, as an American, I say : "Objection sus- tained." I would ask Dr. Eliot, how- ever, what about Russia and Japan? Were their armies mobilized and their fleets assembled by order of Duma and Diet? What of England's "warlike preparations" five days before war was declared? Where were the Deputies when President Poincare ordered the French mobilization on the strength of a Cabinet consultation? C. The objection, in greater detail, is to the "secrecy of European diplomatic intercourse and of iuternational under- standings and terms of alliance in Eu- rope." Again, as an American, I say : "Objection sustained." But is it not true that so far as we can judge from the facts that have been made public, Englaud at the outbreak of the present war had more secret alliances than any other country in the world? And is it not equally true that so far as we know Germany and Austria were the only countries in Europe which had none? The terms of the Triple Alliance and of the Austro-German Alliance had been public property for years. On the other hand. Sir Edward Grey was compelled to acknowledge before Parliament that he had entered into undertakings with France unknown to that body. On more occasions than one in previous years he had made technical denial of the exis- tence of the web of diplomatic intrigue which he had silently and secretly woven about the English people. D. The objection is to "German re- liance on military force as the founda- tion of true national greatness." If the implication could be defended. I would 26 THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR ,say again, as an American : "Objection sustained." But it cannot be. Dr. Eliot bas been reading too much of Co- uan Doyle, H. G. Wells and Antbony Hope, and tbe privilege had not been his at the time he wrote, to see Vis- count Bryce's frank dismissal of Bern- bardi as a spokesman for Germany. The German people have suffered from mili- tarism, and no one realizes it more than they themselves, but they have suffered not from choice but from necessity. Surrounded by armed foes, vs'hat could Germany do but arm herself? And af- ter all. who has suffered most? A large percentage of the male population of Germany have had to do from one to two years of army service, a large per- centage of the males in Russia have to do from two to four years similar serv- ice, and in France the same percentage has been forced to three years of serv- ice. England alone has escaped from excessive armament on land — and has paid for it by maintaining a two-nation standard on the water. The "wooden walls" of England have been to her what the "ring of bayonets" has been to Germany — an unpleasant necessity, equally oppressive. E. The objection is to "the extension of national territory by force contrary to the wishes of the population con- cerned." Again, as an American, I say : "Objection sustained" — but I cannot re- frain from extending to those in the Courtroom the iirivilege of Homeric laughter. Will Dr. Eliot tell us, in a future letter wherein the allusion lies? Has Germany through forty years ex- tended her territory one foot in Europe? Has she in the present conflict of na- tions given us reason to believe that she even desires to do so? On the other hand, is not the one reason for France's entrance into the war the "extension of national territory?" Is it not the spirit of the "revanche" — the desire to seize once more upon Alsace and Lorraine, that were Germany's until she was robbed of them by Louis XIV., that has moved France to her disastrous policy? The best minds of England told the world in 1S70 that Germany was not only to be absolved from the charge of land theft, but was to be congratulated upon her decision to retain these recon- quered provinces. I suggest for Dr. Eliot's Five Foot Shelf of Universal I^earning the addition of a few volumes dealing in this connection with England in Africa, China and Venezuela, with Russia in China and Persia, with Servia in the Balkans and with Japan in Corea and Manchuria. F. The objection is "to the violation of treaties for no reason whatsoever." Again, as an American, I say : "Objec- tion sustained." Perhaps Dr. Eliot refers to the "scrap of paper." But to be fair and neutral he should have called attention to the Sand River Con- vention and to the Italian scissors which clipped large clauses from the Treaty of 18S2, on which the Triple Al- liance was based. He could also have added to his collection of paleolithic Treaties those conventions for the ob- servance of the territorial Integrity and neutrality of China to which both Eng- land and her Oriental Ally were parties and which both have now thrown to the winds of the East. I do not believe any nation tears up a treaty "for no reason whatsoever." Germany had the best .reason in the world for violating Bel- gian soil and the world is coming to see it. G. The objection is to the "German conduct of war." I shall not sustain this objection, in view of Dr. Eliot's subsequent remark that "all experienced readers on this side of the Atlantic are well aware that nine-tenths of all the reports they get about the war come from English and French sources, and this knowledge makes them careful not to form a judgment about details." When the London Times and writers of no less note than Jerome K. Jerome are warning England not to believe all they hear of German atrocities we need not on this side of the water give much heed to Belgian tales of German inhu- manity and barbarism. I regret that the times have called forth conditions which require me to cross pens occasionally with many an old friend. But neither Dr. Eliot nor myself nor anyone of the other Ameri- cans who have been called upon to dis- cuss the events now taking place in Europe ,was given a voice in their mak- ing. We are, equally with the victims of the war on the Continent, innocent sacrifices on an altar erected by others. I would not say one word in disparage- ment of the doyen of Harvard. I am compelled, however, by a desire not to see Germany painted in misconceived colors, to ask if all he has said of Ger- many could not have been said with truth of the aggregate of the allies now combined against her? If, in other words, what is sauce for the goose is not equally good enough to be sauce for the gander? THE UNDERLYING CAUSE THAT FORCED THE KAISER'S HAND. The Boston Herald. Professor Kuno Francke, Harvard University. It is easy to see why American public opinion should have con- demned by an overwhelming major- ity the diplomatic acts of Austria and Germany which have been the immediate occasion of the terrific ex- plosion which now shakes the foun- dations of the whole civilized world. Austria's break with Servia and Germany's violation of Belgian neu- trality — the one leading to war be- tween Russia and Germany, the other bringing England into the fray — must appear to the uninitiated as reckless and indefensible provoca- tions and as wanton attacks upon the laws of nations. The thoughtful observer, however, should look beyond the immediate occasion of this world conflict and try to understand Its underlying causes. By doing so he will, I be- lieve, come to the conclusion that fundamental justice is to be found on the German side and that Ger- many has been forced to fight for her life. It is an unquestionable fact that the unification of Germany and the establishment of a strong German empire half a century ago were brought about against the bitter op- position of France, and that the de- feat incurred by France in 1870, in her attempt to prevent German unifi- cation, is at the bottom of the con- stant irritation that has agitated Eu- rope during the last 43 years. Ger- many's policy toward France during these 43 years has been one of ut- most restraint and forbearance, and has been dictated by the one desire of making her forget the loss of the two provinces, German until the 17th century and inhabited largely by German stock, which were won back from France in 1870. Whether the acquisition of these provinces was a fortunate thing for Germany may be doubted. The possession of Alsace- Lorraine has certainly robbed Ger- many of the undivided sympathy of the world, which she otherwise would have had. But it is probably true that, from the military point of view, Alsace-Lorraine was needed by Ger- many as a bulwark against the repe- tition of the many wanton French in- vasions from which Germany has had to suffer since the time of the Thirty Years' War and the age of Louis XIV. However this may be, Germany has done her best during the last four decades to heal the wounds struck by her to French national pride. She abetted French colonial expansion in Cochin-China, Madagascar, Tunis. She yielded to France her own well- founded claims to political influence in Morocco. In Alsace-Lorraine itself she introduced an amount of local self-government and home rule such as England has not accorded even now to Ireland. While Ireland still is waiting for a Parliament at Dub- lin, Strassburg has been for several years the seat of the Alsace-Lorraine Diet, a provincial Parliament based on universal suffrage. And even in spite of the incessant and inflamma- tory French propaganda which last year led to such unhappy counter- strokes as the deplorable Zabern affair, there can be no reasonable doubt that the people of Alsace-Lor- raine have been gradually settling down to willing co-operation with the German administration which insures them order, justice and prosperity. Nothing is a clearer indication of the peaceable trend which affairs have lately taken in Alsace-Lorraine than the fact that Nationalists, that is, the French party in the Strassburg Diet has never been able to rise above insignificance; and that, on the other hand, a considerable number of re- sponsible offices in the civil adminis- tration, including the highest gov- ernment positions, have been occu- pied by native Alsatians. While Germany has thus repeat- edly shown her willingness and de- sire to end the ancient feud, France has remained irreconcilable; and particularly the intellectual class of France cannot escape the charge that they have persistently and willingly kept alive the fiame of discord. It surely cannot be said that the restor- ation of Alsace-Lorraine is a vital necessity to France. Without Alsace- Lorraine, France during the last gen- eration has recovered her prosperity and her prestige in a manner that has been the admiration of the world. It is a mere illusion to think that the reconquest of Alsace-Lorraine would add to her glory. It would have been a demand of patriotism for the intel- lectual class to combat this illusion. BRITISH WAR POLITICS TO DATE Instead of this, every French writer, every French scholar, every French orator, except the Socialists, year in and year out has been dinning into the popular ear the one word re- venge. And there can be little doubt that Prof. Gustave Lanson, the dis- tinguished literary historian, voiced the sentiments of the vast majority of his countrymen when in a lecture delivered some years ago at Harvard he stated that France could not and would not recognize the peace of Frankfort as a final settlement, and that the one aim of the French policy of the last 40 years had been to force Germany to reopen the Alsace-Lor- raine question. If there were people in Germany inclined to overlook or to minimize this constantly growing menace from France, their eyes must have been opened when, in 1912, the French government, having previously abol- ished the one-year volunteers, raised the duration of active military serv- ice for every Frenchman from two years to three and in addition to this called out in the autumn of 1913 the recruits, not only of the year whose turn had come, namely, the recruits born in 1892, but also those born in 18 93. This was a measure nearly identical with mobilization; it was a measure which clearly showed that France would not delay much longer striking the deadly blow. For no nation could possibly stand for any length of time this terrific strain of holding under the colors its entire male population from the 2 0th to the 23d year. No wonder that the Paris papers were speaking as long ago as the summer of 1912 of the regiments stationed in the eastern departments as the "vanguard of our glorious army" and were advocating double pay for them as being practically in contact with the enemy. The second foe now threatening the destruction of Germany is Eng- land. Can it truly be said that Eng- land's hostility has been brought about by German aggression? True, Germany has built a powerful navy; but so have Japan, the United States, France and even Italy. Has England felt any menace from these? Why, then, is the German navy singled out as a specially sinister threat to Eng- land? Has German diplomacy dur- ing the last generation been particu- larly menacing to England? Ger- many has acquired some colonies in Africa and in the far east. But what are Kamerun and Dar-es-Salaam and Kiaochau compared with the colonies of the other great powers? Where has Germany pursued a colonial ag- gressiveness that could in any way be compared with the British subjuga- tion of the SoMth African republics or the Italian conquest of Tripoli or the French expansion in Algiers, Tunis and Morocco? Wherever Germany has made her influence felt on the globe she has stood for the principle of the open door. Wherever she has engaged in colonial enterprises she has been willing to make compro- mises with other nations and to ac- cept their co-operation, notably so in the Bagdad railway undertaking. And yet the colonial expansion of every other nation is hailed by Eng- land as "beneficial to mankind," as "work for civilization"; the slightest attempt of Germany to take part in this expansion is denounced as "in- tolerable aggression," as evidence of the "bullying tendencies of the War Lord." What is the reason for this singu- lar unfairness of England toward Germany; of this incessant attempt to check her and hem her in? Not so much the existence of a large Ger- man navy as the encroachment upon English commerce by the rapidly growing commerce of Germany has made Germany hateful to England. The navy has simply added to this hate of Germany, the dread of Ger- many. But if there had been no Ger- man navy, and consequently no dread of Germany, this hate of Germany might have come to an explosion be- fore now. For the history of the last 300 years proves that England has habitually considered as her mortal enemy any nation which dared to contest her commercial and indus- trial supremacy — first Spain, then Holland, then France, and now Ger- many. As long as German firms, by the manufacture of artificial indigo, keep on ruining the English impor- tation of indigo from India, and as long as the Hamburg-American Line and the North German Lloyd keep on outstripping the prestige of the Cun- ard and White Star, there can be no real friendship between England and Germany. Although England has re- peatedly proposed to Germany naval agreements, these agreements were avowedly meant to perpetuate the overwhelming preponderance of Eng- land's fighting power, so that she would at any moment be in a position to crush German commercial rivalry for all time. She apparently thinks that this moment has now come. That Germany's third implacable enemy, Russia, is clearly the aggres- sor, and not the defender of her own national existence, need hardly be demonstrated. She poses as the guardian of the Balkan States. But is there any case on record where Russia has really protected the in- dependence of smaller neighboring countries? Has she not crushed out provincial and racial individuality wherever she has extended her power? Is it not the sole aim of her national policy to Russianize forcibly every nationality under her sway? In Finland she has gone back on her solemnly pledged word to maintain the Finnish constitution, and is ruth- lessly reducing one of her most highly developed provinces to the dead level of autocratic rule. In her Baltic provinces she is trying to de- stroy root and branch whatever there is left of German culture. Wher- ever the Russian church holds domin- ion, intellectual blight is sure to fol- low. To think, therefore, that Russia would promote the free development of a number of independent Balkan States under her protectorate, is to shut one's eyes to the whole history of Russian expansion. No, Russian expansion in the Balkans means nothing less than the extinction of all local independence and the estab- lishment of Russian despotism from the Black Sea to the Adriatic. Not Russia, but Austria, is the natural protector of the equilibrium between the existing states on the Balkan peninsula, and their natural guardian against Russian domination. Austria is their nearest neighbor; in- deed, the possession of Bosnia and Herzogovina makes her a Balkan State herself. Being herself more than half of Slavic stock, she has every reason for living on good terms with the various Slav kingdoms south of her. Being herself forced, through the conglomerateness of her popula- tion, to constant compromises in her internal affairs between conflicting nationalities within her borders, she would not possibly absorb a large ad- ditional amount of foreign territory. She is bound to respect the existing lines of political demarcation in the Balkans, and her sole object can be through commercial treaties and tar- iff legislation, to open up what used to be European Turkey to her trade and her civilizing influence. In this she must clearly be supported by Ger- many. For only if Austria is left free to exercise her natural protecto- rate over the Balkan States can there be passage between Germany and the near Orient, one of the most import- ant routes of German commerce. Russia's unwillingness, then, to allow Austria a free hand in her dealings with Servia was an open menace to Germany, a challenge which had to be accepted, unless Germany was prepared to abdicate all her influence in the near Orient and to allow Russia to override the legitimate claims and aspirations of her only firm and faithful ally. This formidable coalition of the three greatest European powers, threatening the very existence of Ger- many, has now been joined by Japan, openly and boldly for the purpose of snatching from Germany her one Asiatic possession. If any additional proof has been needed to make it clear that if Germany wanted to re- tain the slightest chance of extricat- ing herself from this world-wide con- spiracy against her, she had to strike the first blow, even at the risk of offending against international good manners; this stab in the back by Japan would furnish such proof. ANOTHER STORY. From "The Fatherland," New York, October 14, 1914. Cleveland, O., Sept. 12, 1914. To the Editors of "The Fatherland:" We hear a great deal of unreason- ing criticism of the actions of the German army. Let "The Fatherland," through its editorial columns, chal- lenge the American press to defend the' barbarism of the Colorado State Militia in shooting down helpless women and children in the recent strikes in that state. When they have done this, but not until they have done it, are they qualified to speak on "cruelty" perpetrated by German soldiers. Very truly yours, Roger B. Buettell. To the amateur strategist the war looks like a race to see whether the Germans can get to Paris before the Russians get to Berlin. 28 THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR GERMANY'S "INFAMOUS PROPOSAL." On July 31, 1914, Sir Edward Grey told the German Ambassador at Lon- don (see English White Paper, Docu- ment No. 119) that Great Britain should be drawn into it if Germany and France became involved in war. Why? Why should it follow as a necessity that Great Britain should be drawn into it if Germany and France became involved in war? Nothing in the na- ture of things demanded such an ac- tion on Great Britain's part, for she had remained neutral in a former war between these two countries (1870-71) and in the present case France was supposed to be in a better position than in the struggle forty-three years ago. As a matter of fact there existed no necessity for the British people to go to war because Germany and France had fallen out and gone to war, for Germany was willing to promise to Great Britain — (1) Not to take one foot of French soil, (a) neither on the European Con- tinent, (b) nor in the French colonies. (2) Not to violate the neutrality of Belgium at all, if Great Britain would obligate herself to remain neutraL (This was called by Asquith, the British Prime Minister, in open Parlia- ment, "an infamous proposal ty Ger- many!") (3) Any reasonable conditions which Great Britain might formulate (British White Paper, Document No. 123). To any reasonable being it would seem that there was not one excuse left for Great Britain to enter into war, for to (1) secure the neutrality of Belgium absolutely, (2) to secure the status quo of France and her col- onies, (3) and thus to secure herself against obtaining Germany as a neigh- bor across the channel, she had only to declare her own neutrality. Think of it, think of the awful amount of misery which Great Britain could have saved Belgium alone, and herself also, by simply giving to an honest question an honest answer, by saying to Germany in a straightfor- ward manner : "We shall remain neu- tral as long as you uphold the letter and the spirit of your promises." Why did not Great Britain through the mouth of her servant (or had we better say, master) Sir Edward Grey give such a straightforward reply, who instead rejected all overtures of Ger- many to come to a peaceful under- standing, and insisted on keeping every- body in the dark with regard to Great Britain's attitude and her intentions, by saying : "Our hands are still free and we are considering what our atti- tude shall be." Does not that sound very queer, in fact insincere? Was it worthy of a great nation to prevaricate like did Sir Edward Grey in this case, and to pretend to be undecided as to what to do in case of war between Germany and France, after he had assured France positively (British White Paper, Document No. 119) that in case of war between Germany and France Great Britain would join France against Gei'many? After promising Prance Great Bri- tain's help in case of war with Ger- many, Sir Edward Grey told this cold- blooded, ghastly untruth to the Ger- man Ambassador : "Our hands are still free and we are considering what our attitude shall be." (British White Paper, Document No. 123.) Was there ever told by the foreign minister of a great nation a more criminal untruth than was told by Sir Edward Grey on that occasion? An untruth, which cost Great Britain untold treasure in gold and in lives, which caused tens of thou- sands of widows and orphans to weep in Great Britain and Germany ! An untruth so atrocious that the Prime Minister dared not lay the whole of it before Parliament, because the House of Commons, as MacDonald, a member of Parliament said, otherwise never could have been persuaded to declare war against Germany, who was willing to fulfill all reasonable condi- tions which England might ask. Arthur Ponsonby, another Member of Parlia- ment, in an open letter dated August ISth, published in the London "Nation" of August 22, 1914, says, that behind the backs of the people secret but bind- ing engagements had been made by the British Foreign Office, but that later on during the negotiations with Ger- many Sir Edward Grey declared in the most explicit way. that Great Britain was unfettered in the event of war ! You see, gentle reader, it is not neces- sary for Germany to assert that Sir Ed- ward Grey, the representative of Great Britain, prevaricated and thereby in- volved his fatherland in a gruesome and indefensible war, for Englishmen have arisen and told him so to his face, among others, MacDonald and Pon- sonby, Members of the British Parlia- ment, who spoke in sorrow and shame, and Bernard Shaw, England's great- est playwright, who spoke in disgust and contempt. Have any Germans in Germany arisen and accused the Kaiser or Beth- mann-HoIlweg of bad faith, of willful perversion of facts, of the telling of falsehoods? Has there been a dozen, or six, or two, or even one? No, not one — of all the sixty-seven millions of Germans in the fatherland not one had to hide his head in shame, had to turn away in disgust, because he had to acknowledge that the man who repre- sented Germany had been unfaithful to the country which had called him to his high place, had failed in putting the welfare of his country above his personal ambition. A career not of statesmanship but of political adventure had so perverted Sir Edward Grey's ideas of right and wrong, that Germany's honest endeavor to keep England out of the war by granting all her reasonable conditions, was characterized by him, or the Prime Minister, as "an infamous proposal" and the negotiations between the two countries were presented by them to Parliament in such a garbled and un- true manner, that war resulted, while peace would have been assured if they had given a truthful and complete ac- count of the negotiations with Ger- many. — The Crucible. Let us pray for peace, but let us also insure it by building battle- ships. A Reply to Jacob H. Schiff. In the New York "Times" of Novem- ber 22, 1914, there appeared an inter- view granted by Jacob S. SchifE to that paper's representative. As Mr. Schiff is occupying quite a prominent position and this interview has been widely discussed, it seems to us that Mr. Schiff's attention should be called to two points, concerning which, by reason of "Mehr Lieht," he might change his opinion. We know nothing about Mr. Schiff personally, but it stands to reason that certainly with regard to high finance, he must be. of an originating, independ- ent mind, to have attained the high place which he now occupies. He does not, however, show any independence of mind in his view of the question of the so-called Belgian neutrality, but is satisfied with a most superficial con- sideration of the subject. It has been proved by unimpeachable evidence that Belgium had entered, long before the war, into an alliance with France and England, and that hers was therefore a fradulent neutrality, in other words null and void — non-existing. But even if, for argument's sake, we say that Belgium's neutrality was genuine, still Germany did not commit, as Mr. SchifC asserts, a most unjustifiable action, for the Supreme Court of the United States has decided, "That while it would al- ways be a matter of the utmost grav- ity and delicacy to refuse to execute a treaty, the power to do so was a prerogative of which no nation could be deprived without deeply affecting its independence." This decision is to be found on page 600, vol. 130 of the United States Re- ports, and appeals so strongly to com- mon sense that to read it is to be convinced. For a nation to be able to make a treaty but not to have the power to terminate it, even abruptly in case of sudden demand, would sim- ply mean that that nation had ceased to be independent. A treaty between nations is equivalent to a contract be- tween individuals and is subject to the same general lawsi The second point on which we dis- agree with Mr. SchifC, and on which he disagrees with himself, is when he declares that Germany, if victorious, would become at once a serious menace to the United States, and would before long challenge the Monroe Doctrine. A little further on Mr. Schiff says himself that the destruction of the victor would be nearly as complete as the disaster of the vanquished, and how anybody can think that in case of such utter exhaustion Germany should find the strength and feel the desire to challenge the United States passes our understanding. It will take Germany fifty years to repair the dam- age, and heal the wounds of this war, and by the time she will have recov- ered, her present enemies will have recovered likewise. This alone would keep Germany from antagonizing Un- cle Sam, aside from the fact that Ger- many's main object in acquiring col- onies was to open to Germans lands where they could stay Germans — would not "have to amalgamate with other nations. Germany does not covet any lauds already colonized by the wliite race, as her past history has BRITISH WAR POLITICS TO DATE 29 shown, but she wants her share of the waste places of the earth, where she can show, and has already shown, Eng- land how her colonies can and should be improved. Certainly for the next fifty years Germany will be unable to make war on Uncle Sam, and after that — less than ever. We trust that Mr. SchifE will be con- vinced by our arguments and should be glad to hear from him. ENGLAND IS PRANK IN ONE THING — ITS WAR IS A COM- MERCIAL, ONE. British Tradesman-Policy Is Admitted by Those Who Speak for the Navalism Nation to the World at Large. By Edmund von Mach. From "The Fatherland," New York. The British government has estab- lished in London a sample depot of German wares, with a list of the places where they used to be sold, at what prices and in what quantities. Suggestions are also made how this trade may be diverted to England. This is natural because England looks upon the economic profits to be derived from this war as the most important. A London magazine, therefore, The Financier, spoke in a recent number (Boston Evening Transcript, March 3, 1915), substan- tially as follows: "Germany is on the point of losing, for ten years or longer, not only the big markets of Russia, France and Belgium, but also those of the whole English-speaking race. The German foreign trade has suddenly ceased, and it is our duty to see that it will never start again. What Germany has achieved by years of painstaking labor has suddenly been given into our hands. So long as we control the routes of the great oceans — and if we improve our opportunity — the complaint of German commercial competition will not again be heard, at least in our lifetime." Self-Sufficient Confession. This unblushing confession of what England is fighting for, made only a few months after the beginning of the war, is a worthy counterpart to the famous trumpet call to arms of 1897 when England first realized her inability to win by fair means our German competition. "A million petty disputes," the Saturday Review said, "build up the greatest cause of war the world has ever seen. If Ger- many were extinguished tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, there is not an Englishman in the world who would not be richer. Nations have fought for years over a city or a right of succession. Must they not fight for two hundred million pounds of commerce?" From the English point of view they must, of course, fight for it, for Englishmen hate nothing worse than free competition in the open markets of the world. English wars are commercial wars. The English government, to be sure, has generally looked for moral sources under which to disguise its real purposes. This procedure, how- ever, has at times been very annoying to her blunt fighting men, for the lat- ter openly prefer the attitude of their famous Admiral Monck, who said dur- ing the English-Dutch struggle for commercial superiority: "What does this or that reason matter? What we need Is a slice of the commerce which the Dutch now have." Britons Write Neutral News. If the press of our English-Amer- ican friends, who in spite of their hyphen are often not void of Ameri- can patriotic feelings — this state- ment has, of course, no reference to the British subjects who are engaged in writing "neutral" war news in our metropolitan papers — ^would recog- nize the emphasis which England has always laid on the economic side of her wars, two recent occurrences would have been less puzzling to them. England's objection ' to President Wilson's Ship Purchase bill was voiced by those American business men who cannot conceive of a fiour- ishing American industry independent of England. Even if President Wil- son should have wished to purchase every German merchantman lying idle in an American port — and this lias been denied — the material benefit which would have accrued to the German companies would have amounted to only a few million dol- lars, and even if this money could have found its way from the private owners to the exchequer of the Ger- man government, it would have been but a drop in the bucket. England's real objection was due to her fear lest America cut loose from her walking strings. Independent of the British carry- ing trade, America and not England might be the real gainer of the war. But the very thought of England hav- ing instigated a world war without being able to reap the glorious re- ward of two hundred and fifty million dollars' worth of annual trade, was enough to break every honest English heart! And this would not have been the whole calamity, for if America could have her own ships, England might find at the end of the war that she had not one, but two capable rivals — Germany and America! She has been unable to hold her own against one rival; against two she would be utterly helpless! • Must Set His House in Order. And she knows this, for there is not a living English business man who is not convinced in the bottom of his heart that he must set his house in order first, before he can hope to compete on even terms with anybody. England, however, hates progress. She does not wish to re- nounce her oligarchical government or abolish her privileged classes. She regrets the destitution of her laboring classes — perhaps, but she would rather pay billions to crush a rival than millions to improve the condi- tions of her own people. This is the real cause of the present war. The second incident mentioned above as showing what England is aiming at, would have opened the eyes of everybody, if there had not been so many Americans who believe that they must admire the political England, because the literary and sci- entific England has meant so much to them. They were, therefore, willing to excuse Sir Edward Grey's an- nouncement last week that England would seize in the future all German goods purchased by and shipped to neutral countries. Officially this was a measure of retaliation against Ger- many's submarine war. Actually it was England's attempt to procure for herself the German dyestuffs with- out which her textile industry is dying. Since America could get these dye- stuffs, there was danger that the United States might forge ahead. Why not, therefore, take all neutral steamers carrying goods which both England and America need into an English port, keep the goods, ex- change polite notes with Mr. Bryan, offer perhaps arbitration, and years hence pay the present market prices of the captured goods? In the mean- while, England would have revived her own industries and have starved the American factories. Unfortu- nately for her plans, not all Ameri- cans are hyphenated English, and most Americans, of whatever descent, may be trusted to rally to the support of their country whenever her natu- ral welfare is at stake. ISOLATED GERMANY. Editorial from "The Chicago Trib- une," August 6, 1914. Merely as a piece of military con- fidence, Germany's challenge of Europe is wonderful. The triple al- liance has broken down. Italy has declared its neutrality. There re- mains the dual alliance. Austria- Hungary has its hands full with the veteran army of Servia, trained in two wars. It cannot give a full measure of aid to Germany. The two Teutonic empires are almost en- tirely surrounded by loes. Military necessity has made bellig- erents of the Belgians. It may make belligerents of the Dutch. It might even make belligerents of the Danes. Except for such aid as Aus- tria, hampered by an active foe, can give, Germany is isolated. Frederick the Great never faced such odds as Wilhelm II now meets. The new element of speed in war- fare is in the equation. Distance is not the same protection. Armies are raised and moved so swiftly that the tactics of Frederick in selecting his enemies and dealing with them singly may not have time or oppor- tuility. This eruption of armed men has been in the dreams of military strate- gists for a decade or more. The assumption has been that Germany must meet and destroy France. * * * 30 THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR Fairness and Impartiality The Plain Duty of all Intelligent Neutrals During the War AN APPEAL FOB A FAIR JUDG- MENT. New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, New York. Judge Peter S. Grosscup, Chicago. Mr. Herman Ridder, President of the "New Yorker Staats-Zeitung," in- troduces Judge Grosscup's article as follows: "Judge Peter S. Grosscup, of Chi- cago, to whom I am indebted for the following excellent analysis of the question of responsibility for the war in Europe, needs no introduction to the American people. As a District Court Judge for the Northern Dis- trict of Illinois and later as judge both of the United States Circuit Court and Circuit Court of Appeals, he established a reputation, equalled by few of his contemporaries, for clear-cut logic and fearless expres- sion of views. "The application of sound judicial sense to the points Involved in the present war has been avoided by England and by her ardent admirers in America for obvious reasons. I believe, and to some extent because this has been the case, that Judge Grosscup's presentation and elucida- tion of these points will be welcomed by all open-minded Americans." An Appeal For a Fair Judgment. The other day I saw a group of men in a lane some distance from the road who seemed to be in earnest conversation. Suddenly one of the men struck one of the others. In- stinctively I felt that he was the ag- gressor — that he wished a fight. But the facts, had I been near enough to see and hear, might have been differ- ent. That first blow as I saw it may have been in self-defense; I was not near enough to see the other's clenched fist. It may have been de- served; I was not near enough to hear the provocation. What is the only thing visible to one at a dis- tance may not have been the fact at all as seen by those upon the spot. American public opinion means to be fair. But we in America saw the beginnings of this war only from a distance. It looked to us as if Ger- many struck first. "Was that the act of an aggressor wishing for a fight, or the act of one who believes he was justified in what he did? At first I thought Germany the aggressor, wishing for war. The reading of the English White Paper — getting the facts from those near the scene — ■ convinces me that the Kaiser and his councillors did not do what they have done out of desire for war. And while it does not convince me that war was unavoidable, it reveals that responsibility for it, whether it was avoidable or not, is on Russia pri- marily, and as much, at least, on Eng- land and Prance secondarily as on the Kaiser and his councillors. Be- fore going to that, however, a couple of collateral considerations must be noticed. The first of these is: How came it about that Germany was so ready for war at the moment she declared war. If she did not desire war? Is not "readiness" an evidence of "desire"? Yes and No. That depends on other facts — for instance, how long has that readiness existed? One ready and wishing for war would strike quickly — would not wait forty years. Germany has been "ready" for forty- three years. Her situation, both on the west and east, has compelled her to be always ready. But while within the last sixteen years of that forty- three England has made war on the Transvaal, the United States on Spain, Japan on Russia, and Italy on Turkey, Germany, always ready, has S. A. S. What right has any Brit- ish Consular Officer to vise mani- fests of American vessels sailing to neutral countries? They have no such right under international law. It would seem, however, from the "Philadelphia In- quirer" of the 23rd instant, that such right has either been extended to them or has been suggested by Wash- ington. The American people should protest most vigorously against this infringement of their right. M. O. D. Has India come whole- heartedly to the support of England in this war? She has not. The people of India have put themselves upon record as being opposed to the use of "Indian" troops in this war. We should not be deluded by what England tells us. The Sikhs, the Gurkhas, and the Pa- thans, the troops which England has called to her assistance against Ger- many, are not Indians in any sense of the word. They are mercenary hill tribes whom England enlists against her Indian subjects. They serve to keep the intelligent Indians from revolt. There is a common say- ing in India, kept up by the English, that once the English are withdrawn, the Pathans will come down upon India, and then "there will not be a rupee or a virgin left in all India." The truth about India in this war is this: England has brought thence certain of her mercenary troops to fight the Germans. When England raises the cry of "a loyal India," we may ask England how many artillery units there are in the Indian army. There is not one. Since the insur- rection of 185 7 the Indians have not been entrusted with the great guns of Britain's modern artillery. Eng- land has been afraid to entrust them with artillery, because in the SeJ)oy Rebellion the artillery units which went over to the Indians were the hardest which she had to handle. England is today turning against Germany not India, but the wild troops which raped the women of Canton in 1912. — From the "Ques- tions and Answers" column in the "New Yorker Staats-Zeitung," Octo- ber 28, 1914. — The Publisher of "War Echoes." remained at peace. Does that count for nothing in the enquiry of whether "readiness" is evidence of "desire"? The Kaiser came to the throne in his twenties; he is now in his fifties; during that period, usually the fight- ing period in a man's life, he has not sent a German soldier against an en- emy; of the million soldiers in the field today the German army alone is without a private soldier who has ever before seen actual service in battle. Does that count for nothing? Who can believe, satisfactorily, to himself, that readiness of that kind is evidence of desire? The second of these collateral mat- ters is: How came it about that Ger- many invaded Belgium if she did not desire war? The White Paper shows that Germany told England she would not mobilize against Prance if England would assure the neutrality of Prance in Germany's affair with Russia. That shows she was not seeking war even with Prance, her old enemy, much less with little Belgium that lay between them. The White Paper shows also that Germany asked England if she (England) would remain neutral if Germany, in the event of war with Prance, would stay out of Belgium. England professed to treat this as the offer of a bribe and declined to commit herself. The White Paper shows also that when Germany could get none of these assurances she asked for peaceful transit across the Belgian territory, offering to com- pensate for any losses that might fol- low. This Belgium refused. One other fact in this connection — the geography of the country. A look at that will show that for Germany to swing her forces solely on the southerly bend through Alsace and Lorraine would leave her northern flank at the mercy of a northern army, from either'England or France. To keep out of Belgium, therefore, with England a possible enemy, would have been military madness. Now, with all these facts in mind, what was, not the technical, but the moral obligation of Germany to Bel- gium? By going across Belgium she was not forcing war on Belgium; for although Belgium was under no duty to Germany to grant her tran- sit, she was under no duty to England or France to resist it by force. She could have remained neutral by re- maining passive, as China is remain- ing passive, while Japan, called out by England, is going across her ter- ritory toward Germany's Chinese port. China has not given permis- sion ; she protests; but no one be- lieves, much less anyone in England, that as a neutral she is obliged to take up arms against the country whose army is crossing. Indeed, Bel- gium's right not to be molested, even by troops in transit, was not that of "guaranteed neutrality" at all, rest- ing on treaty, but of territorial in- violability, resting on the fact that she was an independent nation — the same right that I have to exclude you from my house, not because you have THE DUTY OF NEUTRALS IN THE WAR agreed with someone else, to let me alone, but because the law gives me the right, on my own account, to be let alone. But suppose, in pursuit of one who has attacked you or is about to at- tack you, you go through my house, that being the only way you can ef- fectusily overtake him. However technically it may be a trespass, will the law look upon it as a moral wrong? Some abstract rights have to yield, on occasion, to greater con- crete needs. Whether Germany was morally right in attacking France is one question; her military neces- sities, in case she was morally right in the attack, is another and a dif- ferent question. And that public opinion lacks all sense of proportion which holds, that however morally right the attack on France may have been, and whatever the neces- sity of going across Belgium, there is a moral wrong in trespassing on Belgium's abstract right of terri- torial inviolability — compensation be- ing guaranteed, t At least, except as an excuse, no nation yet has made it a cause for war. As for France, assuming again that Germany was right in striking her, her mouth is closed against complaining of the violation of the treaty by the fact that she provoked it. And England, in declining to say whether she would be a belligerent or not, is in the same posture. As pretended guardians of Belgium they cannot provoke an at- tack and then fend it off by holding up their ward between them and the blows that follow; so that as a moral question, this occupation by Ger- many of Belgium soil for the purpose of transit, is merged in the larger moral question: Was Germany right In her attack on France — did she honestly believe that her security and honor required that that attack should be made? Though the White Paper covers five pages of the American newspaper in which I found it, the essential facts pertinent to this larger ques- tion are few and can be compactly stated. The first of these — trite enough but never to be lost sight of — is that the Austro-Hungarian mon- archy contains a very large Slav popu- lation — the race of the Servians also — some of it added in recent years. This constituted, to say the least, a highly inflammable anti-Austrian ma- f'The Belgian nation preferred ruin and death to the shameful per- jury proposed to her by Germany." — We have reprinted this quotation from the statement made public by the Belgian legation on October 21, wherein it quoted extracts from the Belgian Gray Book, extracts which were published by "The Chicago Tribune" in its issue of October 22. After reading Judge Grosscup's article and also his supplement, which we reprint in full on the fol- lowing pages, each man will be his own judge as to whether Germany, in requesting Belgium to permit her to march her troops through Bel- gian territory, for which privilege she guaranteed full compensation, can be rightfully accused of having proposed a "shameful perjury" to the Belgian nation. The truth of the matter is, the Belgian king and government had allied themselves with the enemies of Germany. Both France and Eng- land had promised help to Belgium. It is a lie to say that "the Bel- gian nation preferred ruin and death to the shameful perjury proposed to her by Germany." The Belgian king and government committed an awful crime in preferring to throw in their lot with England and France and thus trusting to the fortunes of war to defeat Germany instead of remaining strictly neutral. The for- tunes of war have gone against the Allies. For the "ruin and death" brought over the Belgian nation, the latter should hold its own king and government responsible, and blame its allies, the French and especially the English, for not having fulfilled their promises for efficient help. Of course the Belgian nation is finding out that England wanted to use it only as a cats-paw, the same as England is using her French and Russian allies. In this connection we reproduce in the following, part of an article entitled "The Present Situation of the War" by the Military Expert of "The Fatherland," New York, Octo- ber 28, 1914, which says: After the fall of Antwerp our (the German) position was uncommonly favorable, great forces were now free for service elsewhere. In the meantime at the other end of our lines, the bombardment of Verdun had to be made more force- ful, in order to ensure more rapid progress. We have reached this point today, while the left wing of the French army was opposing a strong German position at Armentieres, northwest of Lille, and in no position to make any progress, they had another — a new group — apparently French ma- rines sent up to the coast in order to intercept the Germans at the Yser River, between Nieuport and Dix- mude, hoping to meet with the rem- nant of the Belgian army. Thus pre- venting the German army from reach- ing the coast. This German advance sets all Eng- land by the ears — especially many of their erstwhile phlegmatic golf and tennis heroes. Why? The English Channel Coast of France in the possession of the Ger- mans? Yea, that is certainly a turn we did not foresee on August 4. From this point the war could be carried over to the sacred soil of proud Albion, where throughout cen- turies of war upon war the rough- shod boot of a foe never committed the sacrilege to tread. English soil a battlefield for European squabbles? Ridiculous! Hear the Liondon "Times": "And, should the war last ten years; should the last French garcon of Bordeau.x; the last Cossack from the Caucasus find his grave upon the battlefield — England's soil will al- ivays remain unmolested and un- touched."* Whoever has failed to understand by this late day, the facts so plainly written upon the pages of current history, will soon realize the impor- tant result of events now occurring. What a monument to England's perfidy; to Albion's broken pledges to suffering Belgium: Liege, Namur, Antwerp crowned by delusive hopes. A similar movement is now in the hands of the great sculptor "Justice" for ceremonious unveiling in France. All this is perfectly clear to a mili- tary expert, however prone a layman may be to misinterpret the portend of the shadows of coming events. Ostend, Dunkirk, Calais, Havre in the possession of Germany is of minor importance to France, whose main object should be the annihilation of the German armies — not the defense of her unmolested channel coast line. Her marines who by command of her treacherous ally are wasting their efforts in the defense of Dun- kirk, should fight around Lille, or Arras, or Roye. Dunkirk is not a factor in the final result of this war. In the coming events at the front only — will the decision be reached. The iron ring around Dunkirk; the forts at Bruges — Francais, Ijouis and Des Dunes, originally erected against false Albion and which are so closely connected 'l^'ith English history, will now, in the possession of Gennany, become the starting point of a new era in world history.* Even while writing these words, this historic spot may have suc- cumbed to German conquest. The present position of the Ger- mans in Russia promise a final de- cision in their favor at an early date. Austria-Hungary, having succored Przemysl, has once again a free hand, as the Russians have been driven out of Hungary across the Carpathian Hills. The German - Austria - Hungarian left seems to be carrying out estab- lished plans between Ivangorod and Warsaw, as they have again taken the offensive in their endeavor to cross the Vistula. England and France are exceed- ingly worried over the slow progress of their barbaric friend Russia. They are really angry that the Russians, after promising to be in Berlin by October, are now further away from the "Brandenburger Thor" than they were last August. There is no change in the position in Bast Prus- sia. General Rennen-Kampf seems to be disinclined to entertain new adventures just at present. To the satisfaction of Brother Churchill a iew more "rats" came out of their holes. Too bad that these German rats are obliged to go all the way to the coast of Scotland to find offal to feed on. Note: Great Britain may thank Churchill that her navy is designated as "offal," a fa- vorite food for rats.* ♦Emphasized in bold type by the Editor. 32 THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR terial to anyone disposed to start a fire within the Austro-Hungarlan boundaries. Another fact — not so trite, but equally important — is that Servia has been systematically distri- buting firebrands throughout this in- flammable matter. "It was a sub- versive movement," says the Aust- trian foreign minister in one of the dispatches constituting the White Paper, "intended to detach from Aus- tria a part of her empire, carried on by organized societies in Servia, to which Servian high officials, including ministers, generals and judges, be- longed, and resulting in the assas- sination of the heir to the throne and his wife," not as the individual mad deed of a Guiteau or a Czolgosz, we might add, but of "an organized propaganda and conspiracy" that de- veloped itself in several attempts, at unconnected points, by several per- sons, on the same day; a statement of the Servian attitude nowhere de- nied in this English White Paper, either in the London foreign office or the embassies at Paris or St. Peters- burg. On the contrary. Sir Edward Grey says he cannot help but look with sympathy on the basis of the Austro-Hungarian complaint. And Servia herself practically admits the truth of it, in her reply to the Aus- trian ultimatum, for though she calls whatever agitation took place "political" — that is to say, something whose object is the change of govern- ment and not private murder — she offers to dissolve the Narodna Od- brana, a revolutionary society, and every society which may be "direct- ing its efforts against Austria-Hun- gary;" to introduce a law providing for the most severe punishment of "publications calculated to incite hatred against the territorial integ- rity of Austria;" to remove from the "public educational establishments" in Servia everything calculated to foment propaganda against Austria; to publish in the official gazette and read to the army this promised new attitude of Servia to Austria; and to remove from military service all such persons as judicial inquiry may have proved to be guilty of acts di- rected against the integrity of the territory of Austria-Hungary — prom- ises no people would make unless there was a basis of fact for the com- plaint. But though Servia thus acknowl- edged the basis of the complaint, and promised to take measures to remedy it, she refused the "collaboration" of Austrian representatives, or the participation of Austrian "delegates," in the investigations relating thereto. She made no straight out denial of the subversive movements alleged. The most that can be made of her answer is that she neither admits nor denies, but simply calls for the proofs. But she refused the presence of Austria at the taking of the proofs. In a word, as Austria viewed it, should the promised investigation be a whitewash, or should it be a sin- cere effort to locate responsibility? Austria wanted a sincere investiga- tion — the attitude of Servia looks as if she wanted a whitewash. And it was on that that the two countries broke. Now was Austria-Hungary right in making the demand and Servia wrong in refusing the demand, that Austrian delegates sit in at the investigation? That is the crux of the matter as a question between Austria and Servia. The conduct of nations, like that of individuals, must stand the test of common sense. And like individuals, nations have the right to have their word taken in matters of this kind until their word is no longer good, by being repeatedly broken; so that had this been the first complaint by Aus- tria against Servia on this matter, and this Servia's first promise to live hereafter on friendly relations, there would have been no justification for , Austria's demand, or for her refusal to take Servia's word that a fair in- vestigation would be made and the guilty punished. But this White Paper shows that this was not Ser- via's first promise — that she had made former promises — that this new offer of her word .was the offer of an already broken word This is the third fact in the enquiry — the turning fact in the question Have Slandered the Irish. "The same press which is now slandering the Germans, has always in the past slandered the Irish but now, every day, inspired articles tell of the loyalty of the Irish people to England in this war. We are told English officers are to be sent to Ireland to drill the Irish volunteers, and that the guns and uniforms will be given to them by the English gov- ernment. "I think I know the character of my race, and I am free to say that guns and military instruction will be gladly received by them from any source whatever, but the English red coat will never be worn by an Irish volunteer and the oath of allegiance to King George will never be taken by an Irish national volunteer sol- dier. I believe that the majority of the Irish race in America are op- posed to England in this unnecessary war of aggression which she is now waging against Germany. The Irish have always been for the under dog every time, and Germany is the un- der dog in this war, a war forced upon her by England's hatred and intrigue. "May the Germans continue to grow and thrive. We know them as God-fearing, law-abiding and self- respecting citizens, who bring credit to any community they live in." Alfred Williams made a five- minute speech in which he protested against the patriotic stand taken by John Redmond in the present crisis. He said it is time to sing the old song, "Germany, Oh, Germany, When Will You Set Old Ireland Free?" The members appointed to the re- lief committee were: Ed. Ruhl, Br. Huetz, Prof. Rosenau, Praeulein Dierckes, Jacob Milch, Mrs. Walter Wesselhoeft, Mrs. Kuno Francke, Mrs. H. L. Carstein, F. Stoltmann, Charles Eberhardt, C. W. Holtzer, P. W. Kalkmann, Max Schubert, B. J. Arntz, Max Otto von Kluck. of who was wrong and who was right — a fact entirely ignored in the views pressed upon American public opinion. Five years before, March 18, 19 9, Servia gave her word, not to Austria alone, but to the great powers, that this scatter- ing of firebrands should cease — that thereafter she would live as a friend- ly, neighbor. That shows that five years before the offense was already in existence. Did it cease? Was the word kept? In the note communi- cated to Sir Edward Grey by the German ambassador July 24, 1914 — a note that called out from Sir Ed- ward, not a denial, but an expression of sympathy — the German ambas- sador, referring to that earlier prom- ise says, "It was only owing to the far-reaching self-restraint and mod- eration of the Austro-Hungarian gov- ernment, and to the energetic inter- ference of the great powers, that the Servian provocation to which Austria- Hungary was then (March, 19 09) exposed did not lead to a conflict. The assurance of good conduct in the future which was then given by the Servian government has not been kept. Under the eyes, at least with the tacit permission of official Ser-- via, the great Servian propaganda has continuously increased in exten- sion and intensity; to its account must be set the recent crime the threads of which lead to Belgrade;" an indictment that none of the powers so much as question — neither the foreign offices nor embassies of Russia, England, or France — and to which Servia practically pleads guilty in her answer to the Austrian ulti- matum already stated. Now, in view of this, what was Austria-Hungary to do? Accept the word of Servia again? We must look at it not from the standpoint of those who think the Austro-Hungarian gov- ernment ought to be destroyed, but from the standpoint of Austria-Hun- gary herself. What would we of America do, if despite a solemn prom- ise to desist, some neighboring na- tion continued to' stir up racial revo- lution among our people — say Spain among the Porto Ricans or Philip- pines? Would we accept that na- tion's word again? It is a just and generous nature that accepts the of- fender's word on the first offense, but a foolish or craven nature that continues to accept it through repe- titions of the offense. Let us not lose sight of the practical side of the prob- lem as presented to Austria. The spirit behind these attacks on Aus- tria-Hungary was not the spirit of the Servian government only, but the spirit of the Servian people, also. A government may be reached some- times by protest. But there are cases in which a people can only be reached by some tangible military demonstra- tion. History is replete with demon- strations of that kind; so that the problem of Austria, now that the government's word could no longer be taken, was to impress the people of Servia with Austria-Hungary's pur- pose not to be silent longer under these flying firebrands. We went to war with Spain for less than Aus- tria was suffering at the hands of Servia. England declared war on the republic of Paul Kruger for less. THE DUTY OF NEUTRALS IN THE WAR 33 And Italy declared war on Turkey for less. And in each case the war closed with territory detached from the van- quished and taken by the victor. Were we wrong? More than that: Did any great outside power even say Nay? On the contrary, we were left to deal with the problem as we thought right. Why, then, should any outside power say Nay to Aus- , tria, especially if no territory was to be taken? Morally right in her demand on Servia, to sit in at the Investigation, why was not Austria left alone to enforce that right, as England, the United States, and Italy had been left to enforce their rights? The answer is — Russia. , And that too, not because Austria was without just cause for what she proposed, but because any movement against the Slavs of Servia would not be tol- erated by "home opinion" in Russia. That is the fourth salient fact con- tained in the White Paper. Had Rus- sia stood aside as England was will- ing to stand aside, except to see that the demonstration against Servia was not carried too far, the flame would not have spread to Europe. England had no interest in it, as an "Austro- Servian question;" so Sir Edward Grey expressly declared. France's in- terest was merely that of ally of Rus- sia — it was put on that ground at the time by the French foreign office; so it was Russia's interference, and Russia's interference alone, that blew the flame from a matter con- cerning Austria and Servia only, to a matter involving Europe. And upon the sole reason (at least such is the purport of the White Paper) that there was a condition of opin- ion "at home" that would not permit her to be tolerant, or even just, in such a dispute as this abroad. Group together, in your mind, these three facts — the presence of the Slav in large numbers in Austro-Hungarian population; the systematic stirring of these Slavs by Servia against Austria- Hungary; and the persistence of Ser- via in that, even after solemn prom- ises to stop it, both to Austria and the great powers — and you have staked out the cause of the war as an immediate matter between Aus- tria and Servia. Add the fourth fact — the determination of Russia, for reasons of her own, that no military demonstration should be made to stop Servia — and you will have the lever that lifted it from an Austro-Servian question to a European question. Russia is the great Slav country of the world. It is not impossible that that great race demanded of its gov- ernment that no Slav anywhere should be punished, even if he were stirring up the Slavs of a neighbor- ing nation. It is not impossible that Russia, pressed at home by her own Slavs for a greater measure of civil liberty, saw in the Servian situation a vent for that feeling, by becoming the champion of the race abroad. It is not impossible that Russia has de- signs of her own on the Balkan pen- insula, and feared that a demonstra- tion by Austria might take the form of acquiring territory. Whatever the reason, the spark that ignited Europe was this alleged public opin- ion in Russia. What subsequently transpired was simply the develop- ment of that spark. Germany tried to drown it out, even in Russia; the White Paper shows that on a sharp note from her to Austria, Austria stipulated not to take any of Ser- via's territory. Germany tried to T)revent its spreading to France; did not want war with France; the White Paper shows, as already stated, that she said she would not mobilize against France if England would stipulate for France's neutrality. And it is certain Germany did not want war with England. Even after England announced she would not permit Germany to attack from the sea the northern coast of France, and asked about the purposes of Germany respecting Belgium, Ger- many suggested that if England would remain neutral she would stay out of Belgium. But Russia was im- movable; she would not accept the offered stipulation of Austria that ter- ritory would not be taken from Ser- via. England would make no assur- ances for France; and with respect to Belgium, professed to look upon the suggestion as the offer of a bribe. War is hideous. The Kaiser and his father always ready, as their situation made it essential they should he ready, had for forty-three years averted it. But if put in his place, the head of a nation, what could you have done? What could Austria and Germany do? Let the Servian government and the Servian people go free, on her own word again? That would be to invite con- tinued attacks. Servia would have ascribed this indulgence to fear of stirring up trouble in Europe. Let Russia's interference change this? Servia would have known then that their indulgence was due to fear — the fear of Russia. Besides there is a national self-respect that must be maintained. Germany and Austria bowing to the yoke of Russia, on a matter in which Germany and Austria were right and Russia wrong, would have been Germany and Austria al- ready morally vanquished. Even though France and England has come at once, and openly, to the side of Russia, could Germany and Aus- tria have let the matter go on Ser- via's word? Not unless they were willing to bow their necks to the yoke of Europe. The fact that England and France joined Russia in putting on the yoke would not have allevi- ated the servility of bearing it. But was there no way to escape that yoke without war? That is the question history will ask. Without war with Russia, no — unless Austria accepted the Russian veto on any demonstration against Servia, Rus- sia's mind was made up. Austria stipulated not to annex Servian ter- ritory; that was not enough; Russia remained immovable. England sug- gested a conference, and pending such conference that Austria be allowed to occupy Belgrade. Russia refused. Russia was willing that England, Italy, France and Germany should go into conference, but made it clear that pending the outcome of such a conference, Austria's hands must be tied even from making a military demonstration of her determination that the incendiarism should cease. Russia's will in the matter must be accepted by Europe as well as by Germany and Austria. That was Russia's attitude. And it meant to Austria and Germany either to bow to that will, or war — with Russia, at least. Russia undoubtedly believed she had the backing of France in this, and possibly of England also. The White Paper contains a dispatch showing that the French ambassador at St. Petersburg was urging the "solidarity" of Russia, France and England, on the English ambassador there. Now, why did France back Russia? Why has England come finally to back her, for the Belgian matter Is only an excuse? On this matter between Austria and Russia, Austria was right and Russia was wrong. For Austria to have surren- dered to the veto of Russia would have meant the surrender of her in- dependence as a great power. Why did Prance (and England finally) virtually insist on that surrender? Because of the Triple Entente? No ally is bound to support another ally In a wrong. It is on that ground that American public opinion is excusing Italy from her obligation to Ger- many. Why, then, did not England and France let Germany, right, have it out alone with Russia, wrong? There was something else than the Triple Entente. Europe, the chief seat of civilization, is the chief seat of the world-old struggle of the races also, especially eastern and southeastern Europe; the drawing of the races together by the concentric chords of modern life has only in- tensified that struggle. Europe is the seat of the modern struggle of economic ambitions; industry in our day has become the affair not of Individuals but of nations. But as colors released from their anchorage run together, the races drawn out of their isolations are merging, and in- dustry no longer a matter of small spheres is concentrating into larger spheres; neither races nor economic spheres can be kept separate longer by national boundaries. Within the thirty years between my first and last visits to Europe this process of things becoming alike (including people) has transformed Europe from a land of picturesque differences to a land resembling America in identity of dress, of mental attitudes, and of the internal spirit as well as external appearances of live affairs. That means that the day of a larger polit- ical concentration is at hand also. What led France and England to back Russia, wrong, in this Austria- Hungary matter against Germany, right, was, undoubtedly, their appre- hension that Germany successful over Russia would be Germany not sim- ply preSminent, but preponderant, both politically and economically, among the nations of the continent. That apprehension may have been justified by the probable fact. The spread of the war to the whole of Europe, in consequence, history may justify; I am only stating what I be- lieve to be the basic cause. But this thing every honest mind must admit: If this was the Big Cause, underneath the smaller causes, that brought France and England into the strug- 34 THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR gle, Germany, by every law that en- titles a nation to honestly grow, was entitled to resist them. And it war on one Bide of this apprehension was something not to be denominated as monstrous, war on the other side is equally above that common epithet. It is not impossible of course that Germany made a mistake in believing war with Russia, or surrender to Rus- sia, was unavoidable, through con- ference. Only Omniscience and the Russian Cabinet knew. It is not impossible that Germany made a tac- tical mistake — that the participation of England on the side of Russia might haVe been avoided by that con- ference. Only Omniscience and the English Cabinet knew. And it is not impossible that Germany made a mis- take as to her own strength, even when ready, against her enemies' un- readiness. The event will prove. But the duty and the responsibility of balancing these, as to whether he would wait for such conference or not, was with the Kaiser and his counselors. He knew that Germany was ready. And who has the right to say, that if war either now or later was inevitable — if the attitude of France and England supporting Rus- sia, wrong, against Germany, right, in the Austro-Servian matter, re- vealed their true attitude toward the natural growth of Germany in the family of nations — who has the right to say in that event that William was bound to wait until his own prepara- tions had been matched by theirs. I am not unreservedly for Germany, nor for France or England in this war. There is much I do not know that might turn the scale either way. But I am for an open mind. The question is not: Who struck the first blow? The question is: Why was any blow made necessary? PETER S. GROSSCUP. the war. A certain phase of his ar- gument was taken exception to by "The Times." I now have pleasure in print- ing Judge Grosscup's counter-reply thereto. HERMAN RIDDER. I cannot refrain from the observa- tion that Judge Grosscup has not only struck, in the article concluded above, the true note of that higher neutral- ity enunciated by President Wilson, but that he has also given a sound, logical and workable interpretation of it. If in the beginning all Amer- icans and all American organs of pub- licity had approached the situation in Europe with "an open mind" we might have been spared the war of words which it has brought down about our ears. Attack inspires de- fense, and as in Europe, Germany and Austria were not the aggressors, so in the American press, it was not those who sympathized with Germany and Austria who opened hostilities but those who insisted upon vilify- ing them. It is high time that "cease firing" was sounded. HERMAN RIDDER. A Continuance of article: AN APPEAL FOR A FAIR JUDO- MENT. By Judge Peter S. Grosscup, of Chi- cago, in Herman Ridder's Column, "The War Situation from Day to Day," in the "Neiv Yorker Staats- Zeitung," October 25, 1914. I published in this column some days ago Judge Grosscup's article on An editorial just seen by me in the "New York Times" comments on some views the Belgian neutrality expressed by me In an article in the "Staats- Zeitung." This comment was no doubt meant to be fair and was without tem- per — something rather unusual these days in European war talk. But It left an incorrect impression of what I had written. Will you let me briefly state what my view is? The Congress of Vienna of 1815, sit- ting after the fall of Napoleon, took Holland and Belgium away from Aus- tria and made of them a single king- dom, guaranteeing its neutrality. The parties to that stipulation included England and Prussia, the party feared being France. In 1831 Belgium ob- tained her Independence and again had her neutrality guaranteed by the great powers, Including England and Prus- sia. The effect of this stipulation was that of international "contract" be- tween the powers signing, that in case of war between them, and especially In case of war between other powers, the neutrality of Belgium, a small state comparatively, should be observed and protected by the larger states. Unques- tionably the decision of Germany to cross Belgium was In contravention of that contract, and, in consequence, an international wrong, unless countervail- ing circumstances had arisen that made compliance with that contract a greater wrong. The point I wish to bring out is that the relation of Ger- many and England with respect to the Belgian matter, so far as England was concerned, was a matter of contract only. On the other hand Belgium as an independent neutral state was en- titled, not by this contract, mainly, but by the law of nations, to possess her territory inviolate from the trespass of other nations. Until early in the 19th century this right included the right to grant leave to belligerents to cross her territory on the way to the enemy. This, says the German authority quoted In your editorial — the nations of the continent being small and largely separated from each other by the territory of other nations — was a matter of "necessity." Since the early part of the century, however, the opin- ion has become pretty near unanimous that a neutral nation may not grant such leave, but on the contrary must "prohibit" the use of Its territory for the transit of troops. "It is neverthe- less conceivable," says Sir Thomas Bar- clay, an English authority writing since 1907 for the Encyclopedia Britan- nlca, "that under pressure of military necessity, or on account of an over- whelming interest, a powerful belliger- ent state would cross the territory of a weak neutral state and leave the conse- quences to diplomacy ;" as an illustra- tion of which he cites the act of Eng- land in crossing Portugese territory, on its way to the South African repub- lics in 1901, over the protest of Por- tugal. Those who succeed him in writ- ing may also cite as an illustration Japan's crossing China in this war of 1914 on her way to the German Chi- nese port, and over the protest of China also — Japan, according to her premier's statement, having been called out by England. In a word, neither the law of international trespass, nor treaty, abolishes "necessity" as an ele- ment in international warfare. Now let us look at the facts as a matter of "contract" between England and Germany — assuming of course that Germany was morally right In an at- tack of any kind on France. To march Into France by any way other than through Belgium is to go by a south- erly bend through Alsace and Lorraine. That would leave the whole of the northern half of France free from at- tack except from the south. Bismarck could afford to do this In 1870 because England had announced her neutrality. On August 2, 1914, six days before the German armies touched Belgium, and when the question of German neutral- ity was still under discussion between the English and German foreign offices, England not only had not announced her neutrality but gave her engage- ment to Prance that she would pre- vent, with her fleet, the Germans from attacking or blockading with their fleet the northern ports of France. England could not do this and remain a neutral. To say she would block with her fleet Impending operations of the German fleet in the war that was opening in France was, in itself, an act of war; this, too, in connection with the fact that, when England asked Germany her intentions respecting Belgium, Ger- many asked England if she (Germany) remained out of Belgium, would Eng- land remain neutral — a question Eng- land refused to answer except to say she would not tie her hands. Here, then, was England already enough at war with Germany to block any at- tack on the northern ports of France; ready, too, to come through those ports with her armies to the help of the French armies, In case she became a full belligerent which her attitude clearly foreshadowed ; and not above coming through Belgium also, in case of stress, upon the flank of Germany, as her conduct in South Africa showed. Now what under such circumstances was Germany to do with that "con- tract" with England? Keep it, as a sportsman, you say, would keep, his side of a stipulation however onerous, and thereby Increase by one-half Ger- many's chances of defeat, certainly prolong the war, and with equal cer- tainty give up a much larger toll of lives to bring the war to an end? War is not a sport; and defeat in war and its bruises are not the defeated sports- man going home with a sore pride or sores on his arms and legs. Defeat In such a war as this is the loss of every- thing for which a capable and gallant people have struggled since 1870, and the bruises are the families left at home without husbands, sons and brothers. To say that a "stipulation" thus misused by England — the England that has since palmed it off, as the "cause" of war although she had al- ready entered the arena before as a partial belligerent at least — should pre- vail over these larger circumstances both military and humane, is not the essence of morality ; It is quixotic, con- trary to the common sense of one's THE DUTY OF NEUTRALS IN THE. WAR 35 obligations, Inhuman as well as un- human, a:nd would have marked the German Kaiser as a faithless servant of his people. But what about the consequences to Belgium? The sympathies of the world naturally go out to her — not less the sympathies of those who believe she was beguiled into unnecessary fight- ing on her part than of those who think it was her duty to fight. As a neutral nation Belgium could not have granted leave to Germany to cross her territory. I will go as far as the au- thority quoted and say it was her duty to "prohibit" Germany from crossing her territory. But she was under obli- gation to England or the other nations to use herself up and her army in that prohibition. Belgium is to Germany in military strength about what Switzer- land would be to Austria. Switzerland is also a country whose neutrality is guaranteed. Now suppose Austria, in a time of peace, had put some great dishonor on France — had seized her President and his ministers when on a visit to Vienna and held them as pris- oners — how could Prance reach Aus- tria by land except through Germany, Italy or Switzerland? Supjwse fur- _ther that Germany refused transit and ■ Italy as a member of the Triple Alli- ance not only refused transit but with her navy barred the sea as England barred the sea to Germany, would Switzerland be obliged to let France eat up her army on its way to the enemy? Along with the balance of the world Switzerland's sense of justice and feelings might be all on the side of Prance — must she in spite of that on "a point of law" become practically the fighting ally of Austria? The con- elusion is absurd. It puts a "point of law" above humanity and ordinary common sense. Who thinks that in case Switzerland would not thus im- molate her army, Austria or the world would hold her accountable after- wards? Who thinks China will be held accountable by Germany after the war, even if Germany is successful? Who feels that England would hold Belgium accountable? And why not? Because down in his heart every man knows that to hold a power like Belgium or Switzerland to such an accountability would shock the moral sense of the world. In any wide vision of the situ- ation, therefore, Belgium was not re- quired to resist Germany "by force." She had the right to, but was not morally required to. Even as a "point of law" in international juris- prudence, her obligation did not go that far. International law is not un- reasonable. It recognizes "necessity" as a force in affairs. It does not de- mand more blood than is necessary to reach conclusions — demands no fruit- less blood of the innocent bystander to fulfill a technicality or keep the record straight. If Germany is morally wrong in this war on Prance and Russia, my pro-English friend does not need this side issue to justify his sympathies. On the other hand if Germany is morally right as between her and France and Russia, he is forgetting the duty not to sacrifice to a "word" the wider and substantial "thing," the in- creased danger of defeat and increased cost of life involved in shutting one's eyes to what may be the overshadow- ing military necessity of the situation. And if you reply that such doctrine is immoral, my answer is that in this case you are making a fetish of some- thing that it would be, in the highest sense of humanity, immoral not to dis- regard; for it is the letter of the law that killeth, only the spirit that mak- eth alive. England professing still to be not at war, holding back Germany on the neutral sea — itself a flagrant violation of neutrality — will cut a poor figure in her pretense that what brought her into the conflict was this subsequent violation of Belgian neu- trality by Germany. In a word, the position of England toward Germany was this : You shall not use the neutral seas to attack with your navy the northern ports of France or open them up to your armies. I will use my navy to prevent you from the use of such neutral seas. Nor shall you reach northern Prance with your armies through Belgium. I will use this "contract" of neutrality ,to block that. My obligation toward neutrality amounts to nothing on the seas ; but your obligation of neutrality is everything on the land. And be- cause Germany did not submit to this double cross on her right to attack Prance from the north, England pro- fesses to have gone into the war as the champion of the cause of the in- violability of treaties and of neutrality. PETER H. GROSSCUP. NEWS THE NEW YORK TIMES WOULD LIKE TO SUPPRESS. (From "The Fatherland," New York, September 23, 1914.) The New York Times chides the British censor for not suppressing the story of the Turco soldier who pro- tested vehemently when from his scanty baggage there was removed the head of a German soldier which he proposed carrying back with him to Africa as a souvenir. Evidently the old hypocrite on Times Square was taken off its guard. For we now know just what news the editor of the Times regards as "fit to print." Whatever helps England or hurts Germany is fit to print, whatever un- masks the true nature of the bar- barous war waged against Germany by the savages of Africa, the Mon- gols of Asia and the Cossacks, under the direction of London is not fit to print. Meanwhile the Times, more English than the English censor, con- tinues its criminal campaign for the suppression of truth. If I may be permitted a word to the American press, I should say, dis- card your bias, forget your sympath- ies, overlook your prejudice and mine, and enter upon the campaign of peace with the energy, the determin- ation and the grit so characteristic of America. When Barrie lectures In the United States tell him we want peace. Make that sentiment so strong and so universal that the na- tions of the world will hear our cry. Should Germany refuse an honor- able and lasting peace, then and then only will the time have come to heap abuse on its ruler arid odium on its government. — Herman Ridder. THE RUSSIAN "ORANGE PAPER." The publication of the Russian "Orange Paper" throws important, and what naay be regarded as prac- tically definite light on the question of immediate responsibility for the present war of the nations. The British and German "White Papers" already given to the reading world have contained nothing that ap- proaches in definitiveness the con- fession of the Russian Foreign Of- fice of the fatherly interest taken by Russia in the affairs of Servia, and of the filial obedience with which Belgrade responded tliereto. I have had occasion previously to draw at- tention to the well-defined policies of Russia and Servia. It remained, however, for the Russian government to show how closely interlocked they were and with what complete accord both were working, or being worked, toward their fulfilment. The ambitions of Servia may he de- scribed as the extension of her ter- ritory and the increase of her popu- lation by the detachment from the Austro-Hungarian Empire of those adjacent provinces in which the Slavic element predominates. These ambitions in themselves may be re- garded as laudable or otherwise, ac- cording to the political and ethical frame of mind of the observer. It is perhaps possible that Mexico would like to see returned to her all that southwestern portion of the United States which once was hers. As long as such feelings remain within bounds they do not constitute a casus belli with Mexico. But should the Mexican people attempt by a cam- paign of education, backed by secret murder and open assassination, to secure the restitution of this terri- tory to Mexico, and should it be dis- covered that this campaign had the support of the authorities in Mexico City, I do not believe we should hesi- tate long in demanding of Mexico an understanding quite as vigorous as that which Austria-Hungary asked of Servia. Were such a campaign to culminate in the assassination of the President of the United States or of his Secretary of State, as in Servia it ended in the murder of the Austrian Archduke, I am sure our act of retribution would he swifter. That Austria should have taken the stand which she eventually took, is not surprising. It is cause for marvel only that she did not as- sume it months before. The frame of mind of the Servian people upon the conclusion of the Balkan war may be compared with that of the Japanese after their suc- cessful war with Russia. They had beaten the enemy, and, consequently, could lick the world. If we carry the comparison further, however, we must admit that the Servian govern- ment, like the Japanese, held a more conservative estimate of its powers. And it is, and all along has been, impossible of conception that Servia would have maintained herself in the position of defending the anti-Aus- trian propaganda unless she had been able to depend implicitly upon the support of a strong ally. The am- bitions of the Servian people could not be realized without the aid of 36 THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR Russia, and in return for that aid Servia was willing to act as a cat's paw to draw Austria-Hungary into a conflict in which Russia would come to her support, and at the same time find an excuse for annexing, if possible, the Galician provinces. All this has been known by those who have followed the course of events in the Balkans in recent years. It is confirmed now by the Russian Foreign Ofiice. If Servia had depended impartially upon the powers signatory to the several Balkan conventions, why was it that the Austrian note of July 23 reached St. Petersburg the same day from Belgrade, and was not communicated to the Foreign Office of the other interested powers? It reached them apparently only through the diplomatic channels of Austria-Hungary. If Russia and Servia were not playing a concerted game of political intrigue, what ex- cuse can be offered for this oversight on the part of the government in Belgrade? If Servia wanted peace, why did she refer her troubles only to Russia, who, she knew, wanted war? The oft-repeated assertion that the Czar did his best to preserve the peace of Europe is contradicted by the published documents of his own foreign office. It develops from a reading of the telegram of July 24, . the day before the time limit set in the Austrian ultimatum elapsed, from the Prince Regent of Servia to His Majesty the Emperor in St. Petersburg, that Servia was "ready to accept the Austro-Hungarian con- ditions which are compatible with the situation of an independent State, as well as those whose accep- tance shall be advised us by your Ma- jesty." In other words, Belgrade was ready to submit to the just and natural demands of Vienna, if only His Majesty gave the word. Had the Czar counseled Servia as every con- sideration of propriety demanded, he should counsel her, there would have been no conflict between Austria and Servia. In this hour of opportunity, however, the Czar chose to be con- sistent rather than correct. Having encouraged the Servian propaganda for his own purposes and by the promise of support, it was perhaps too late for him to retrace his steps. It was easier, apparently, to go ahead and attempt to see the thing through, and that is what he did. . With the long-sought pretext at hand, it would have been bad management from the Russian point of view to pass it up. The Russian and French armies had been whipped into shape and the British fleet was being held in leash. It was now or perhaps never for Russia to strike for the accomplish- ment of her aims. But even when war had become inevitable between Austria and Servia, the impossibility of Russia not coming to the aid of Servia can be explained only on the grounds of consistency. There could have been no possible outcome of such a con- flict which called upon Russia to in- tervene on one side or the other, except that she had backed Servia against Austria to a point from which she could not retreat without "los- ing face." It is clear now what Rus- sia stands and has stood for — in- trigue against neighboring states, murder and assassination. The pre- tense that she sought peace by ask- ing delay on the part of Austria is too shallow to hold much water. To her, and to her alone, was it given to counsel Servia in the right direc- tion and she refused to do so. Even then it was given her to allow Aus- tria and Servia to settle their dis- pute without her interference. When she failed in this, she failed to pre- serve the peace of Europe. It is idle to talk now of what the German Emperor might have done. As an ally of the Austrian Emperor, he could not be expected to counsel Austria against demanding of Servia the righting of wrongs which had come to be intolerable. He did what he could to localize the war, did more than any other sovereign of Europe, and his efforts to this end ceased only when it became unmis- takably apparent that Russia could not be swerved from her purpose of attacking Austria. The then position of Germany was sufficiently explained in the note handed to the British Government, on July 24, by the German Ambas- sador at the Court of St. James. "The Imperial Government want to emphasize their position that in the present case there is only the ques- tion of a matter to be settled ex- clusively between Austria-Hungary and Servia, and that the great pow- ers ought seriously to endeavor to reserve it to those two immediately concerned. The Imperial Govern- ment desire urgently the localization of the conflict, because every inter- ference of another power would, owing to the different treaty obliga- tions, be followed by Incalculable consequences." It was not the entrance of Ger- many into the war that started the conflagration, but the unwarranted interference of Russia in a quarrel which was not hers, and when his- tory writes the story of 1914, the name that will stand out pre-emi- nently before all others, written in letters of blood, will be Nicholas II. AN UNFAIR COMPABISON. "* * * In England the opponents of the war, and I understand that they are represented in the House of Commons, maintain that the For- eign Office failed to do everything possible to avoid the war. It is cer- tain that England knew of the agreements, the plans and the pur- poses of France and Russia. Eng- land knew on July first of this year what all the world knows now, namely, that Germany and Austria had been isolated by diplomatic in- trigues of the Triple Entente. The dream of Edward VII to crush his hated nephew was about to be real- ized. The fact that England, Russia and France join in the chorus shout- ing "The Kaiser did it, the Kaiser did it' will not blind history when it places the responsibility for this war." — Herman Ridder, in the "New Yorker Staats-Zeitung." Editorial from the "Milwaukee Free Press," September 21, 1914. We have not had presented a sufficient reason for the almost complete destruction of Louvain. It does not seem to reach the spot to say that Belgians flred on Ger- man troops. Mexicans did the same on Americans at Vera Cruz but Vera Cruz is now a better organized, healthier and hap- pier city than it was before the Americans entered. American military justice upon citizens found shooting was as severe as the Germans' upon Belgians caught in the act. The non-combatant saeriflces his standing when he does this, but it does not warrant such wholesale destruction as was the punishment given by the Germans. This paragraph from an editorial in "The Chicago Tribune" is a typical specimen of the kind of argument, speciously fair upon its face, by means of which certain American newspapers create sentiment against Germany. There does not exist even the ves- tige of a parallel between the Ger- man occupation of Louvain and the American occupation of Vera Cruz. The United States was not at war with anyone. Her troops were landed without declaration, and to this day no precedent or warranty has been adduced for this strange violation of the territory of a friendly nation. In the anomalous position which our troops occupied at Vera Cruz, the meting out of "American military justice upon citizens found shooting" is in itself a strange commentary on the event. Had this arbitrary act on the part of our Government led to national armed resistance on the part of Mex- ico, such as met the German army when it entered upon its pacific march through Belgium, what would then have been the policy of the American generals? Had Mexico declared war upon us, would we have paused to make Vera Cruz a healthier, better organized city? Would we have continued to tolerate the guerilla warfare of non- combatants to the extent of making it an individual and not a community matter? The smouldering ruins of Filipino villages, the "water cure" inflicted upon tight-tongued insurrectos, which engaged the press some fif- teen years ago, may testify to the contrary. Let us not be hypocrites. War is one thing, and a police move — such as we assume the occupation of Vera Cruz to have been — is another. It was for us to avoid any act that might antagonize the Mexican people to convince them of our pacific in- tent. It was for the Germans har- rassed from the start by civilian at- tack, to teach a lesson that would once and for all stop the guerilla warfare of Belgian non-combatants. We are not in a position to pass upon the necessity of the destruction of Louvain, as "The Tribune" seema to be. Its correspondent, Mr. Ben- nett, believes that it was merited. It is hard to think in terms of war In a land peace, and the thought of this fair city in ruins is a tragic one. IMMEDIATE CAUSES OF THE WAR From the Time of the Assassination of the Archduke and Duchess of Austria The Real Immediate Cause of the War The Russian MobiHzation The Philosopher of History on Modern Ultra-pragmatism in this World Politics german "war-makers" — a criticaij study. Germanistlc Society of Chicago. By Noel Sargent, of the University of Washington. The great European war has been ascribed to many causes, but the one of which we hear the most is beyond doubt German militarism. "Ger- many," we are told, "had a chip on its shoulder and was ready and will- ing, even anxious, to fight any or all comers." "Germany was the most formidable military power on the Continent and took no pains to avoid the conflict." "The people of Ger- many are a war-like race and believe that in might is right." "Ever since 1870 the feeling of militarism has been predominant in the Teuton em- pire." These are serious charges to make, and appeal strongly to every American when they are constantly reiterated. The United States is, and always has been, opposed to mili- tarism in any form. As a result ap- peals to our natural prejudice have a great effect. But while we can never approve of militarism, for its own sake, yet it is possible to under- stand, by reviewing actual facts, the reasons for Germany's strength, and to disprove the allegation that Ger- many is a warlike nation. The Historical Record. History demonstrates to us that Germany is not an aggressive coun- try. The war of 1870 was the result of French desire to engage in a strug- gle with Prussia. Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer stated in the Commons Feb- ruary 17, 1871, that Germany had been exposed to a war which was un- justly brought upon her. Mr. Wash- burne, American Minister to France in 1870, writes in his "Recollections of a Minister to France," (v. 1, ch. 2): "It really appeared that the government of France had deter- mined to have war with Germany, coute que coute. The alleged causes growing out of the talk that Ger- many was to put a German prince on the throne of Spain were but a m^re pretext." Mr. Horsman in the House of Com- mons said on Feb. 17, 1871: "I insist that if you take the whole history of Germany you must say that she has not been an aggressive power." Viscount Royston added: "Prussia has never been aggressive outside what she considered her own sphere." Again, take the German record since 1870. What do we find? Over forty years of unbroken peace. What other nation can point to such a record? Not England, with her bitter struggle with the Boers. Nor Italy with her defeat in Abyssinia and the war with Turkey. Neither Japan nor Russia with their war of 1904. Nor can the United States and Spain lay claim to a better rec- ord. Surely, this record must speak for itself. If Germany had really desired war what magnificent oppor- tunities she has had. At the time of the Boer war it would have been an easy matter to start a conflict with England. Or after the Russo-Jap war of 1904, when the Russian arms were demoralized by defeat. Or dur- ing the Algeciras or Agadir inci- dents. If Germany had wished for war what better chances could she have possessed? Germany's record does not prove her a warlike power. Prof. Arthur McDonald, in an ad- dress at the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology in Washington in October, 1914, showed the years the countries of Europe remained at peace from 1800 to 189 5, a period of 96 years. Ger- many was at war 11 years; Spain 13 years; Austria-Hungary 14; Italy 16; Turkey 16; England 19; Russia 20; France 21. German "militarism" has kept the peace for over forty years. Not an- other great nation can show us a record to compare with this. Facts are the truth and the truth is mighty and must prevail. The Kaiser's War. "William II, the 'war lord' of Eu- ope, the war-mad ruler, the supreme autocrat of Germany, personally started the conflict. This is the Kaiser's War," Such is the charge. Let us see. These two words — "war lord" — have done more to influence the be- lief of the Americans that German militarism is a menace to world peace than any one thing. Yet the term "der oT)erste Kriegsherr," from which they are derived, means merely "chief commander of the forces." Every sovereign country has an "oberster Kriegsherr," as George V in England, Nicholas II in Russia, or Woodrow Wilson in our own land. Twenty years ago some one took the phrase, highly elabo- rated it, and flung it out to the world as "supreme war lord," which has been a powerful ally for all those who feared or disliked "Prussian militarism." The constitutional powers of the Emperor are not exceptional. He has the power, just as our own President, to declare defensive war. For offensive war he must obtain the consent of the Bundesrat. All funds, in both offensive and defen- sive wars, are voted by the Reich- stag, as by the House in this country. The military power of the executive everywhere includes the supreme command of all the military forces of the nation. In some monarchical countries, as Great Britain, it em- braces also the right to declare war. In France the assent of both cham- .bers is necessary. In both France and Germany it is admitted that the executive can declare defensive war without the necessity of obtaining the legislative consent. Even where the executive may initiate hostilities, extensive war cannot be waged for any length of time without the ap- proval of the legislature, since it and not the executive controls the source of supply. When compared with other rulers the power of the Kaiser is not excessive. Now let us consider William II. Is he, as a man, warlike and mili- tant? Is he an enemy of peace? It is difficult to believe this. The Kaiser has always acted in the in- terests of peace. And he has had, as Emperor, many chances to em- broil his country in foreign relations which must inevitably have led to war. After the settlement of Agadir the Kaiser- was severely arraigned by 38 THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR the jingoistic members of the Berlin press (Germany, like every other nation, including our own, has a jingoistic press) on the ground that he had exhibited weakness in the councils of Europe. French jour- nalists have called him "Guillaume le timide." On the first page of the magazine section of the "New York Times" for June 8, 1913, there are some interesting letters. Here are some extracts : "The one man outside this coun- try from whom I obtained help in bringing about the Peace of Ports- mouth (ending the Russo-Jap war) was His Majesty William 11. From no other nation did I receive any assistance, but the Emperor person- ally, and through his Ambassador at St. Petersburg, was of real aid in helping induce Russia to face the ac- complished fact and come to an agreement with Japan. * * * This was a real help to the cause of international peace, a contribu- tion that far outweighed any amount of mere talk about it in the abstract, for in this as in all oth«r matters an ounce of performance is worth a ton of promise." THEODORE ROOSEVELT. "The highest praise that I can of- fer concerning the Emperor William II is that he would have made as good a King of England as our his- tory has provided, and as good a President of the United States as any since George Washington. "It was said of the Emperor Wil- liam that he was medieval in his war spirit, but he has proved himself a modern keeper of the peace * * * The world owes to Emperor William a debt of gratitude. He might have found cause to reap advantage from European embroilment of his own making, but he has proved himself among the most civilized interna- tionally patriotic of rulers." SIR GILBERT PARKER. "The truth of history requires the verdict that, considering the critic- ally important part that has been his among the nations, he (the Ger- man Emperor) has been for the last quarter of a century, the ^ greatest single individual force in the prac- tical maintenance of peace in the world." W. H. TAFT. England's greatest daily, the "Lon- don Times" (see Literary Digest of July 12, 1913) said: "His homage to peace is no mere lip-service. It comes from a deep and real sense of the awful responsibility to Heaven and to man which weighs upon the author of an unjust war." Yet we are now asked to believe that a man with these high-minded ideals and principles has wilfully started an un- just war. M. Charles Bonnefon in the "Paris Figaro" remarked: "On two occa- sions of initial significance has the Emperor courageously plied his oars in stemming the current of popular fury * * * He has braved uni- versal unpopularity in order to main- tain the peace of Europe. The "Berlin Vorwarts" refused to join in the Kaiser's anniversary celebra- tion, but had to admit: "We are ready to believe that William II hon- estly wishes for peace." The record of William II is open to the world. The truth may be caught up by the winds of calumny; it may be distorted and turned aside, but it shall not be lost — its influence shall be lasting. Statements by men who know are surely worth far more than the vaporings of war-mad journalists or politicians. Is it probable or possible that the Kaiser was for a quarter of a cen- tury deliberately deceiving the world, and that now, at the age of 55, he has determined to unmask and strike for the mastery of Europe? Even less likely is it that the Emperor suddenly changed overnight like a chameleon changing its color. It is an insult to our intelligence to ask us to believe such things. For one, I prefer to take my stand with the ideas expressed by Roosevelt and Taft, who, in supreme office for twelve years, surely had ample op- portunity to become acquainted with the real aims and purposes of the rulers of foreign nations. The "New Statesman" (English weekly) said editorially in its issue of October 24, 1914: "Those who may be expected to know most about the point are almost unanimous in declaring their conviction that the Kaiser did not want war." The truth is that this is a war of the German people. Critics who otherwise oppose the Germans admit this point. Dr. Gibbons, former Professor of History at Rogers Col- lege, Constantinople, in his late book, "The New Map of Europe," says that this war is "the war of the people, intelligently and deliberately willed by them." Sidney Low, former editor of the "St. James Gazette," in the "Edinburgh Review" of October says that this war has the unanimous sup- port of the German people. Prof. Morris Jastrow, Jr., of the University of Pennsylvania, tells us: "Whether rightly or wrongly, the feeling throughout Germany and among all classes was that the war was forced upon them." Andrew Bonar Law, leader of the Opposition in the Com- mons, said ("New York Sun" of Nov. 11): "I have never cherished the delusion that this is a war of the German ruler's army. It is a war of the German nation." The German people are unanimous in their support of the present war. Not since history began has the world witnessed such a spectacle of a uni- fied and courageous people resisting forces whose success they believe would be inimical to their future as a people and as a nation. Without exception they believe themselves to be obeying the command: "Fight the good fight of faith." The "Euro-Nietzschian War." The works of Nietzsche, Treitschke, and von Bernhardi are said to have inculcated in the German people a love of war and of force, and a feel- ing of disregard for the rights of others. Learned professors at Ox- ford have published a very interest- ing book with the title the "Euro- Nietzschian War." Let us first take up the question of Nietzsche and his influence. We find in him a writer who vacillated from one policy to another. Start- ing as an admirer of Wagner and Schopenhauer, as one iinbued with religious principles, he became embit- tered; he denounced German culture, German ideals, and everything else German; he denounced militarism and nationalism; he opposed all moral Christian laws and in a sort of hyper-Darwinism preached the "survival of the fittest." At last he became insane. This is the man whose writings are held responsible for the great struggle. But Nietzsche's writings lead us to no such conclusion. He was the bitter opponent of German culture, "upon which," he said, "I looked down even in 1873 with unmitigated contempt." He denounced Wagner as a musician of decadent emotional- ism. Schopenhauer he rejected. He termed D. F. Strauss (the theological and philosophical writer) the "Phil- istine of Culture." Why credit this individual with unlimited power over a people whose culture he derided and whom he deplored for a race, ordinary, even cowardly in thought, and weak? But, did he not say that "a good war justifies any cause?" Did he not preach the doctrine of the Superman, the being who was to es- tablish his own code of morality? These things are quite true, but their significance fades when we consider the real attitude of Nietzsche. The war that he preached and the force that he urged were to be by and of the individual, and not the race or nation. Nationalism he de- tested. In this respect he is diamet- rically opposed to Treitschke and von Bernhardi. Of Rome, the great em- pire, he asked: "Who venerates this colossus?" He doubted if large em- pires were not inimical to art and beauty. He ridiculed the "bovine spirit of nationality" and denounced Prussian militarism. Since the war started the University of Oxford has published many pamphlets, one of them entitled "Nietzsche and Treit- schke," by Ernest Barker, M. A. Mr. Barker is forced to admit (p. 12): "Passages such as these (which he has just quoted) would seem to in- dicate an aggressive and militant na- tionalism. But Nietzsche is not consistent; and nationalism is one of his many 'hete noires.' His con- structive idea is not national, and the war he would preach is not an ordinary battle of the nations." Mr. Barker adds: "Nietzsche loved neither nationalism nor militarism." He emphasized European culture, and the coming unity of European economics. He termed the State "that coldest of monsters and most frigid of liars" which pretends to be the People, and by the People is de- tested. "'Talk not of 'land of my fathers'; our bark must steer for the land of our children." Nationalism, says Nietzsche, is "that national POLITICAL PRAGMATISM AND FORCE 39 heart-itch and blood - poisoning." Nietzsche, while he despised English culture, was a great admirer of the Russian and the Slavic culture. To sum up: Nietzsche despised the German culture and the German peo- ple; he was the foe of militarism; he was the bitter enemy of national- ism; his doctrine of force, of war, and his standard of master and slave morality (cf. teachings of Callicles in Plato's Gorgias) was for the Indi- vidual and not for the State. On the very face of it, therefore, it does not seem a reasonable proposition to as- sert that Nietzsche can be held re- sponsible for the war, which he would have been the first to mourn. Regard the matter without preju- dice for a moment. The German peo- ple are alleged to be imbued with Nietzsche's doctrine of the Superman. How ridiculous! It cannot be said that the Social Democrats believe in the idea of supreme force. The Cath- olics vote as a party in Germany and are very strong. But the Catholics are not Nietzschians. They do not believe in the idea of master and slave morality or in the idea of a Superman. Nietzsche denounced Christianity and would not be in favor with the Catholic voters. These two parties represent a large ma- jority of all Germans. Economically Nietzsche's doctrines are but the policy of "laisser faire" taught by Jean-Baptiste Say, Adam Smith, and Ricardo. T. W. Rolles- ton, former Taylorian Lecturer at Oxford, writes in the "Hibbert Jour- nal" of October, 1914: "No ideal could be more unlike Nietzsche's than that which the Germans have followed for forty years. * * • Nietzsche's social philosophy was that of a violent individualism — the subordination of the individual to the interests of a vast political ma- chine was one of the inany things he detested in his native country." Yet the German economy of the past quarter of a century and over has been the exact opposite of this pol- icy. With the possible exceptions of New Zealand, Svntzerland, and Bel- gium, Germany has passed more measures of social reform than any other country. The workers are protected in every imaginable way. Agitators for measures of social and industrial relief in our own land have for many years pointed to Ger- many as a model. A nation imbued with the idea of force, of every man for himself, of the survival of the fittest — imbued with Nietzscheism — would never have adopted such a program. Theoretically inconceiv- able we can state that practically Nietzsche has no great influence in the German Empire of today. Treltschke. Our next war-maker is Heinrich von Treitschke, the great historian. Lord Acton pronounced Treitschke to be "the one writer of history who is more brilliant and powerful than Droysen." He continues: "He writes with the force and fire of Mommsen. He accounts for the motives that stir a nation, as well as for the coun- cils that govern it." He was the personal enemy of Nietzsche, "this madman, who tells us so much about his inactual thought, and who has nevertheless been bitten to the mar- row by the most actual of all vices, the foUe des grandeurs." The cause of this outburst, which is but a sam- ple of the conflict of words between the two men, was an attack by Nietz- sche on Prussian professordom. Nationalism, condemned by Nietz- sche, is the starting point and goal of Treitschke. "The State is Power." "This truth remains: the essence of the state consists in this, that it can suffer no higher power than itself." Dr. Munroe Smith, Professor of Juris- prudence at Columbia since 1891, writes in the "Bookman" for Decem- ber (1914): "Although the state is might, Treitschke does not admit that might is right. The state is un- questionably subject to the moral law * * * Power which tram- ples all right under foot must perish in the end." Thus in his history of the Thirty Tears' War Treitschke asserts that the humiliation of Ger- many was a just retribution for the attempt of German kings to rule Italy and re-establish world empire. Those are in the wrong who main- tain that Treitschke advocated world dominion and the rule of force with- out consideration of the right of the question at issue. Treitschke's Germanistic preach- ings of twenty years ago have not formed a school. His great works on history, which include the re- marks that have been translated into English since the war started, are found in ponderous two and four-vol- ume sets. Even in Germany people do not pore through such works of history as a matter of pleasure. In all the present author's reading on the subject, covering such periodicals as "Blackwood's," the "Edinburgh Review," the "Fortnightly," "Con- temporary," and other English peri- odicals for the last few years, includ- ing all the jingoistic articles, he did not find until this war broke out a single reference to Treitschke as be- ing responsible for any militaristic spirit in Germany. Not a single ref- erence. He did, however, find a few references to Bernhardi. Sidney Whitman, F. R. G. S., prom- inent English political writer, says in the "Fortnightly Review" for Oc- tober, 1914: "Prof. Cramb (author of 'Germany and England,' published 1914) tells us that it takes at least half a century for any German thought to cross the North Sea, and proves it to be so in his own case. He credits Treitschke with an in- fluence over the German mind of today — which he no longer possesses — to the same extent as he did about forty years ago. I am in a position to cite Professor Hans Delbriick as my authority for the statement that Treitschke's influence has been on the wane for some time; that he is no longer actual in the present; that he is old-fashioned (veraltet) ." Prof. Smith, previously quoted, says: "It seems to me improbable that Treitschke's theories of the state and of war have appreciably affected the conduct of Germany. When we survey a list of the great historians of Treitschke's time we can see that it is foolish to assert that his doctrines could have dom- inated Germany. A few of them are: von Ranke (1795-1886); Mommsen; Giesebrecht (1814-1889); Hausser (1818-1867, bom in Alsace) ; von Sy- bel (1817-1895); Burckhardt; and Droysen. Yet, none of these, all as great as Treitschke, has been de- clared responsible for the war. Though a great historian, Treitschke has never exercised a great influence on the German people nor have his doctrines ever been widely dissem- inated throughout Germany. Three of our warmakers have been thus disposed of. Bernhardi. Now for Bernhardi, the terrible man who represents the best thought and ideals of modern Germany, the man who preaches militarism and force, force and militarism, the man who glories in the greatness of war for war's sake, and would humble the other nations of the world. Rather a terrifying picture, isn't it? Yet, not half as rabid as some of the statements that have been made dur- ing the past few months. It is not too much to say that not one in every ten thousand Americans had heard of Gen. Bernhardi until this war. Since then he has become one of the best sellers. Bernhardi's book, "Germany and the Next War," is said to represent the true German ideal The English have exploited it for its full value. The Lord Bishop of Carlisle ("Nineteenth Cen- tury" for October) solemnly assures us that "this is the book which has deeply penetrated the minds of the German people, poisoning their hearts with jealousy, confusing their thoughts with plausibilities and prej- udices, etc." Now, what are the facts as to this most interesting book? We are told by leading Ger- mans that Germany repudiates Bern- hardi. But German assurances will not be sufficient for the doubters. According to the German literary publications (before the war started) seven thousand copies of Bernhardi's book had been sold in Germany. We can safely place the maximum at 10 000 copies. According to Brock- haus' "Deutscher Literatur Katalog' for 1913-1914, the book consisted of 333 pages and sold for $1.50 to $2.10, according to the binding. The price is not one which would lead to a wide sale. It would seem, then, reasonable to assert that the book's circulation was confined almost en- tirely to military circles. Professor Kiihnemann, when in Seattle, assured his hearers that he had never heard of the book until he came to America, and Professor Kuno Meyer relates that upon an en- quiry among the professors of Berlin University only two were found to have read the book before the be- ginning of the present war. We do not need, however, to rely on Ger- man opinion, which would be dis- counted by American readers. Dr. Dillon, prominent member of Parlia- ment, has just published a work an- tagonistic to Germany, entitled "A Scrap of Paper," which is published 40 THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR by Doran's. Dr. Dillon was for many years the foreign and diplomatic editor of several of the best English periodicals. In the "Contemporary Review" for March, 1914, Dr. Dillon says: "Gen. Bernhardi is not Ger- many, nor do his demands embody the intentions or the wishes of th^ Kaiser's Government." Consider an American opinion. The "Boston Transcript" of Feb. 1, 1913, said: "General Bernhardi's book is at this distance a piece of academic thun- der, whatever it may mean to the timorous in England." The "Na- tion" (American) of Feb. 6, 1913, writes in its book review column: "There is nothing very surprising in all this talk, with which the Blatchfords in England, the Bourgets and DSroulGdes in France, and the Homer Leas in our own country have made us familiar." Bearing out the same thought is the "New Statesman" (English) of Sept. 5, 1914, which said: "General Bernhardi's doc- trines are now pretty well known. For that matter they were well known before ever he wrote his book, as they have been the commonplaces of militarists the world over." Why is it that we have been constantly reminded of von Bernhardi and that the writings of "militarists the world over," who expressed the same "com- monplaces" have been neglected? Can it be that Germany's enemies wish to point out the German vulner- abilities, but would have us forget those of their own countries? Is there a skeleton in the closet or a nigger in the woodpile? Bernhardi Is a jingoist. He op- poses the peace movement. He would fight any reduction in arma- ments. He is a patriot and a nation- alist. But to assert that Bernhardi dominates Germany savors of the ridiculous. Germany is censured be- cause — simply because the writings of Bernhardi have been cleverly used and manipulated by the English and by English sympathizers to make the British and Americans believe that Germany is Bernhardi and that Bernhardi is Germany — one and in- separable. Every country has its jingoists. France has Senator Humbert, M. Delcassg, M. Clemenceau, and others who favored strong military forces. Can we not accept as true Bernard Shaw's statement that jingoists are as prevalent and as powerful in Eng- land as in Prussia or France? Many Englishmen, however, do not take anything Shaw says seriously. Per- haps a few quotations and examples will serve to convince. England has its Prof. Cramb. The reviewer in the Dublin Review of last October said that the Professor "proclaims him- self, as enthusiastically as Gen. Bern- hardi, a disciple of the Religion of Valour, announcing, apparently with satisfaction, that Corsica has, in this twentieth century, conquered Gal- lilee * * * The glamour of war possesses him * * * a peace pol- icy is, in his eyes, a mere expression of weakness, a symptom of demorali- zation." In the "Nineteenth Century" for April, 1911, there is an article en- titled "God's Test by War," writ- ten by Harold F. Wyatt. There is nothing in Gen. Bernhardi's work which can compare with this arti- cle. Here are a few passages: "Efficiency for war is God's test of a nation's soul. This is the ethi- cal content of competition." "If war could suddenly be ren- dered henceforth impossible upon earth, the machinery by which na- tional corruption is punished and na- tional virtue rewarded would be un- geared. The higher would cease to supersede the lower." "While human nature remains what it is at present, war must re- tain its place beside death as a vital and essential part of the economy of God." "A spurious and bastard humani- tarianism masquerading as religion declares war to be an anachronism and a barbaric sin." Perhaps since Bernhardi is a mili- tary man, military authorities would appeal better. For years Lord Beresford, Captain Faber and Lord Roberts have been urging England to gain an overwhelming superiority over all other nations. Take, if you will, this statement setting forth the advantages of an offensive warfare. "The heart of a nation has gone out of it, which bases its security on de- fense alone. As Raleigh urged upon Cecil, 'If we be once driven to the defensive, farewell might.' To talk about 'National Defense Committee' is a selfish idea and an insult to our world Empire." This statement may be found in the "Nineteenth Century" for June, 1900. Its author is Major- General Sir W. G. Knox, K. C. B., C. B. The United States is not free from jingoists. One great American press association is entirely militaristic and jingoistic. Hobsonism is not un- known. Roosevelt, Gardner, Weeks and Lodge are but a few of the great men who urge this country to arm itself. We have our "Army and Navy League" and other organiza- tions of a similar nature. In the "Independent" of July 6, 1905, Paul Morton, Secretary of the Navy, writes: "The United States will in time logically and inevitably become the most powerful nation in the world * * * The fulfillment of such a destiny as this will be advanced or retarded in direct ratio to the expan- sion of the naval power of the coun- try." Congressman Britten of Illi- nois, in the House on Sept. 13, 1913, said: "No policy of disarmament can penetrate the peace we now en- joy. The millennial peace is yet be- low the horizon of our vision * * * It is the man behind the punch that goes by unmolested. Preparedness for war is the best promoter of peace * * * Power is the climax to all argument." Gen. Homer Lea's "The Valor of Ignorance" can be compared to the works of Gen. Bernhardi and Prof. Cramb. The truth is apparent. All coun- tries possess their jingoists. As we have seen, also, von Bernhardi's teachings are not the thoughts of the German nation. It is absolutely impossible to trace this war, from the German side, to any one, two, or three men; it is a war of and by the German people. National Expenditures. From the standpoint of expendi- tures, both absolute and relative, Germany compares very favorably with other nations. According to of- ficial figures furnished by the British Admiralty and War Offices (see "Liv- ing Age," June 14, 1914), the five warring nations pay for their armies and navies: Russia, ?455,000,000; Germany, $350,000,000; France, $280,000,- 000; England, $375,000,000; and Austria-Hungary only $145,000,000. The real question, however. Is not the absolute amount spent by each government, but the burden to the tax-payers. On this basis the per capita expenditures are as follows: Russia $3.70; Germany $5.38; France $7.00; England $8.33; Aus- tria-Hungary $3.00. Russia's ex- penditure per capita is, of course, less because of the countless mil- lions of Russian subjects. In the per capita statistics the population of only European Russia has been used. Figures could be quoted which would favor more the German side, but it seems best to use these figures, furnished by the British government, which eliminate all non-corresponding expenditures. The Jfational Burden. Consider the sizes of the various armies in their peace strength. I Times" of Nov. 8, 1914. In round take my figures from the "New York numbers, Germany's peace army consisted of 800,000 men; Russia's of 1,284,000; and France's of 869,- 000. In Russia, there is one soldier for every 95 persons; in Germany, one for each 81; in France, one sol- dier for each 46 persons. The term of service is less in Germany than in Russia, thus equalizing the bur- den between Russia and Germany. The population of Germany in- creased 14 per cent from 1901 to 1910, but the number of men in her army and navy combined increased only 7.8 per cent! To show that Germany had no aggressive designs we have only to mention that during these ten years nearly 900,000 men, the vast majority fit for service in the army, were excused by being placed in the "Ersatz Reserve." The men in this reserve receive no mili- tary training; they are only liable to be called out and trained in case of war. If Germany had desired or expected war she would have put these men into the regular army. A Vital Factor. A strong army is a necessity to Germany. The fact that she did not make it numerically superior to her neighbors' forces and that her mili- tary burden is lighter indicates that she was not aggressive but prepared, well prepared, to wage war if forced to do so. Germany's strategic posi- tion emphasizes the need of an effi- cient army. Germany is situate(d like a nut between two crackers — POLITICAL PRAGMATISM AND FORCE Russia on one frontier and France on the other. Russia's dream of ex- pansion and France's wish for re- venge made it necessary for Ger- many to be prepared against any at- tempt to crush her by a concerted effort of the two powers. Russia enormously strengthened her army in recent years. The increase of her military and naval expenditures dur- ing the past four years has been truly startling. Mr. J. Ellis Barker, a very prominent English author, now bitterly opposed to the Germans, wrote in the "Fortnightly" of April 1, 1913: "The events of the last few years have awakened her (Germany) to a sense of insecurity. Germany has found it necessary to increase her army because the Balkan War has endangered her position. She must reckon with the possibility of having to fight France and Russia simultaneously. Her army is pri- marily intended to be a weapon of defense." Mr. Barker found no rea- son to believe that Germany was do- ing aught but trying to defend her own interests. In view of Germany's perilous po- sition we cannot do else but agree with Mr. Balfour's statement (House of Commons, July 14, 1910), that "it is on the Army that their na- tional existence depends." However much we may deplore the necessity, a little reasoning should be sufficient to convince us that, for Germany, a well-prepared army is a national need. The Navies. We still have the naval situation to consider. Is not British Navyism, with its demand for supreme con- trol, more dangerous to the world than Germany's militarism, with an army inferior in size to those of either Prance or Russia? England says she must rule the sea. We can readily perceive that, as an island power, England is justified in want- ing a strong navy, but it is difficult to concur in her two-keel-to-one standard. The English Navy is an enormous burden to the country. Mr. A. Mac- Callum Scott, former secretary of the Kew Reform Club, writes in the "Con- temporary Review*' for April, 1914: "The cost of the German Navy is only $1.75 per head of the population of Germany, whereas the cost of the British Navy is $5.50 per head of the population of the United Kingdom." The average family of five persons is taxed $8.75 in Germany and $27.50 in the United Kingdom towards the cost of maintaining the respective na- vies. The German naval expendit- ures are not so enormous as the British agitators would have us be- lieve. A study of the British attitude . towards their naval expansion is highly interesting. Consider the following statements taken from speeches delivered in the House of Commons: "Our Empire is only kept going by supremacy at sea." (Lord Charles Beresford, March 17, 1910.) "I should like to see a Navy which would stop the shade of a shadow of an idea that it could be attacked at all, and if once we had a Navy of that character, I am perfectly certain it would be very cheap, no matter what the insurance (meaning cost) was." The following remarks were made March 15, 1910: "If we are to have peace we must be prepared for war." (Sir C. Kin- loch-Cooke.) "We want a Navy for this country which no power dare to attack." (M. Foot Mitchell.) "Under present conditions our food supply, our national independence, our treaty obligations, and our rights of asylum, must be defended by ade- quate forces." (Mr. Hyndman, lead- er of British Social Democratic party.) "We wish the two-power standard to apply to the two next strongest powers." (Mr. Arthur Lee.) Can you not imagine what a cry of militarism would go up in this country if we should demand that we must have a navy so strong that no power would even dream of at- tacking us? These few quotations show that England desired a power- ful navy, one which could meet any two other nations. Such statements could be multiplied many, many times if space did not forbid. Does not such a policy constitute more of a world menace than Germany's land strength, numerically inferior to the armies of France or Russia? Eventually, after many years of such rodomontade, about 1907 or 1908 there came a time when the English public refused to listen to plans for a more powerful navy, and the resulting large and ever increas- ing expenditures. The Big Navy men resorted to a skillful policy of press agitation. Navy Leagues sprung up like mushrooms and propaganda work continued steadily. These bodies worked smoothly and efficient- ly. "They," said Mr. Dickinson in the Commons, March 16, 1910, "have kindled a feeling of suspicion and distrust on the part of our nation." The same work, we must admit, was going on in Germany, when the peo- ple were urged to support the fleet for two reasons: (1) the fear of English aggression, should any con- tinental dispute arise, and (2) close- ly allied to this, the enormous expan- sion of German commerce. This phase will be considered later. After carefully preparing the way the panic was launched in 19 09. The First Lord of the Admiralty, sup- ported by the Prime Minister, star- tled the nation with the revelation that Germany was making a stupen- dous acceleration in the production of naval armaments. Germany was said to be planning the construction of Dreadnaught after Dreadnaught. The journals were filled with articles inspired by words such as these, de- livered in the Commons on March 16, 1909. Mr. Balfour said: "Ger- many will have seventeen of these great Dreadnaughts in July, 1911, and we shall have only fourteen. * * • There is no doubt they will have thirteen on 1st April, 1911." Mr. McKenna, First Lord of the Ad- miralty, said: "My own opinion is that they will have thirteen complet- ed in August, 1911." Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister, was not quite so pessimistic, and stated: "In Novem- ber, 1911, we shall have sixteen against thirteen." Four Dreadnaughts were imme- diately voted. The panic, and that alone, made the vote possible. Time tested these revelations. They did not stand the test. It was discovered that the program of German building upon which the Commons author- ized the construction of the four Dreadnaughts were ludicrously incor- rect, perhaps, who knows, deliberate- ly misleading. When November, 1911, came around, Germany had but five Dreadnaughts, instead of the "from thirteen to seventeen" it was alleged she would have. Mr. Balfour capped the government estimate by stating that by April, 1912, Germany would probably have 21 Dread- naughts to England's 20. Actually, Germany had, on March 31, 1912, only nine of those great ships, to England's fifteen. On May 31, 1913, Germany had thirteen and England twenty-two. Not till 1914 was Ger- many to have seventeen, the number Mr. Balfour said they would have in July, 1911. The panic figures of 1909 were absolutely unfounded and have been proved completely erro- neous. Yet the English Navy was in- creased as if they had been correct. The German bogey served a useful purpose for those who stood for an exaggerated British Navy. Indeed, it was this very agitation in England which led to part of the increase in the German Navy, the remainder of the increase being ac- counted for by German commercial expansion. Mr. Dillon, in a powerful speech delivered July 14, 1910, said that it was British aggression and disastrous blunders that had caused the creation of the German Navy League, founded to advance the interests of the German Navy. He stated further: "It is an abominable thing, but there are men in this country, who are delib- erately and avowedly, without any concealment whatever, trying to pro- voke war between Germany and this country. Many of them, notably Mr. Maxse of the "National Review," and many other publications, openly say this war is bound to come, and the sooner the better." Dr. Dillon re- ferred to "the outrageous and crim- inal agitation carried on against Ger- many for the last three years." Can we greatly blame Germany for trying to prevent England from gaining an overwhelming naval superiority, since it was evident that if these two countries alone should engage in war, the struggle must occur on the sea? The "Review of Reviews" for Octo- ber, 1914, editorially (p. 394) re- fers to England's "ruinous policy of naval expansion that has forced Ger- many, France and the United States to follow after." Mr. W. H. Dickin- son said in the Commons (March 15, 1910): "I believe if we could look into the inmost secrets of the Ger- man Navy we should find that it has been this country that on every occa- 42 THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR Bion has brought about the increase in that navy." German naval expan- sion is justified in large measure by the English attitude on the naval question. Nothing but overwhelm- ing superiority would satisfy Britain. England must bear a large share of the responsibility for German naval growth, a responsibility she cannot escape. The end is not yet. Mr. Churchill laid down a standard in what are called capital ships, which, he stated, would be satisfactory from the Eng- lish point of view. This ratio was that of sixteen British capital ships to ten German. Subsequently Ad- miral von Tirpitz, on Feb. 7, 1913, stated in the Reichstag that such a ratio would be satisfactory to Ger- many. Concerning this statement, Mr. Molteno, member of Parliament since 1906, says in the "Contempo- rary Review" of Feb., 1914: "This pronouncement has not re- ceived adequate appreciation or at- tention in this country. It is an un- welcome statement to those who de- sire to create an inordinate navy. In any fair attempt to estimate the naval situation it would be mon- strous not to realize the full meaning of this admission on the part of Ger- many. * * * It proves conclu- sively that she has no desire to at- tack us, or of aggression upon us." With desire to follow out this plan, the German Naval Estimates for 1914 provided for only two large ships with an occasional third. This was very unwelcome to the Big Navy men of Britain. The Navy League of England said: "Now that her yearly programs have been reduced from four ships to two, with an occa- sional three, it is the most difficult thing in the world to get up steam for the further task which lies before us, namely to create a sufficient mar- gin of strength to protect the 'whole- world interests of the Empire.' " That admission of von Tirpitz must not be forgotten in any discussion of the Anglo-German naval situation. In England's attempts to make it appear that German ascendancy was approaching and that national dis- aster was imminent they have elected to ignore this, and all other state- ments, which would tend to weaken the case for the necessity of a great navy. But facts cannot be ignored nor successfully hidden. A large part of Germany's naval growth can be justified on another ground — her commercial expansion. Her mercantile development has been astounding. The trade of Great Britain and Ireland since 1870 has arisen from two billion dollars to five and a half billions. Germany's has increased from one billion to five billions. Ger- many's trade is, therefore, five times what it was in 1870; England's only two and a half times as great. Eng- land's advantage over Germany in 1870 was one hundred per cent; now it is but ten per cent. Comparing the figures of 1870 with those of 1906 as to the tonnage entered and cleared in the German and British ports re- spectively we find that the amount passing in British bottoms in England was multiplied by three; and the amount passing in Germany in Ger- man bottoms was multiplied by seven- teen. Comparing with France we find that in 1870 the amount of mer- chandise passing in and out of Ger- many in German bottoms was less. In 1906 it was sixty-seven per cent greater, so that Germany's commerce increased much more rapidly than that of Prance. In 1900 the German mercantile marine consisted of 1,000,- 000 tons flying under the German standard; in 1910 there were 4,266,- 000 tons sailing under that Aegis. Hamburg was in 1914 the second port of the world. Germany must have protection for her commerce. Geographically she is confined to one sea. In war with France that coun- try could do more harm to German commerce than in 1870. The Germans believed, therefore, that they had to protect their commerce against other nations, as well as against England. This principle of naval protection for commerce is well recognized everywhere. Nor is it a new doc- trine. Jean-Baptiste Say, the French economist, said: "The art of naviga- tion is an expedient of war, as well as of commerce. The working of a vessel is a military maneuver; and the nation containing the larger pro- portion of seamen is the more power- ful in a military point of view." The "Edinburgh Review" (April, 1909, p. 95) said: "Our naval greatness * * * was conspicuous before our navigation laws were framed. It existed then, as it had done before and has done since, in a degree com- mensurate with our commerce, which will be found the regulator of naval power in all countries." These ideas, simply expressed, mean that naval power tends to vary directly with the amount of commerce and the prosper- ity of a nation. It is this principle which accounts for much of Ger- many's naval growth. Mr. Verney in the House of Com- mons on March 17, 1910, after pre- senting figures as to Germany's mar- ine development, commented: "I wanted to account, if I may, at all events to some extent, for the growth in their navy by reference to the growth in their mercantile marine. I think that tells entirely against the idea of any scare being got up in j this country by reason of the growth of the German navy." The "Edin- burgh Review" of April, 1914 (p. 448), says: "The German navy has grown with the growth of national spirit in Germany and with the con- sciousness of necessity. The increase of manufactures, the expansion of foreign commerce, the progressive change which is converting Germany from an agricultural into an in- dustrial country, and the develop- ment of German interests throughout the world, are the causes of the growth of the German navy." Dr. Gibbons, in his book "The New Map of Europe," refers to the navy as "the safeguard of commerce." Nor is this doctrine peculiar to Eu- rope. Hilary A. Herbert, our former Secretary of the Navy, wrote in the "Forum" of Sept., 1897: "We should be able to protect our commerce in- stantly, and see that such questions (trade relations) are not decided wrongfully to our detriment. We cannot afford to be in the condition we occupied during the Napoleonic era, when Great Britain and France * * * warred on our commerce until we were compelled « • « to fight." Rear-Admiral Melville believes that "it is not only our right to extend our trade, but it is our duty to pre- vent foreign markets from being un- justly taken away * * * It is certain that in order to hold on to what we have secured through conquest or industrial superiority we must maintain an armed force of sufficient strength to manifest our readiness and ability to protect commercial rights and privileges." Why con- demn Germany because along with her enormous increase in commerce she has increased her naval power at the same time? German naval growth is entirely logical. Conelvision. To sum up the points made. The historical record shows Germany to be the most peaceful of all the great powers. The war cannot be traced to the Kaiser, to Nietzsche, Treit- schke, Bernhardi, or to any other man or group of men, but is the struggle of a whole nation fighting shoulder to shoulder and with but a single thought — the Fatherland. The Ger- man Army is an inexorable necessity of Germany's geographical situation; her navy has grown because of ag- gressive English tactics; and the in- crease of German militarism, weighed by facts, vanishes. MODERN DIPLOMACY ESPECIALLY ''SECRET" DIPLOMACY Discussion on General and Special Diplomatic Questions Vital Causes of the War The Mystery of Diplomacy and International Politics WHY GERMANY IS AT WAR. "The Irish Voice," March 17, 1015. In the last few months responsible and irresponsible persons In the coun- tries now at war with Germany have repeatedly made the assertion that the European War broke out because Germany desired it and that it is now being waged in the name of European civilization, in the interest of the smaller democratic nations against Prussian militarism. These state- ments are one and all incorrect. The Causes of the War. The international crisis which led up to the present war is rooted in the conflict of interests between Aus- tria-Hungary and Servia. On the 28th of June, 1914, this opposition de- veloped into an acute situation through the murder of the Austro-Hungarian heir-apparent and his wife. In the course of the investigation of this de- spicable crime the Austro-Hungarian authorities discovered that it had been committed in the name of the Pan- Servian propaganda, that this propa- ganda had its origin in Servia, that its ultimate goal was the destruction of Austria-Himgary and that Servian officers and officials were directly, as well as indirectly accomplices in the murder. Since Servia had on March 31, 1909, made Austria-Hungary the promise that she would put an end to the Pan-Servian agitation, Austria- Hungary was now compelled not only to seek reparation for the murder of Sarajewo but also to insist upon guar- antees that the Servian government would keep its pledge and actually suppress this propaganda. In this matter Austria-Hungary had a right to expect the sympathy of the entire civilized world. For, not only had the murder of Sarajewo aroused the greatest repugnance all over Europe, but it also recalled the fact that the present Servian government and a considerable portion of its personnel had been concerned in the no less hor- rible murder of King Alexander and Queen Draga. England in particular had for years refused to send diplo- matic representatives to a country 'svhose authorities had , in part thus soiled their hands with blood. The Austro-Hungarian note which was delivered in Belgrade July 23, 1914, clearly expressed these convic- tions and desires. The Servian an- swer, which had to be delivered with- in 48 hours, did not, however, in sufficient measure comply with the wishes of the Austro-Hungarian gov- ernment because the kingdom of Servia, as has been clearly proved by disclosures of the Novoye Vremva of the 10th and 23rd of December, 1914, was certain of Russian protection. Consequently Austria-Hungary saw herself compelled to break off diplo- matic relations with Servia and de- clared war on July 28. In doing so Austria-Hungary by no means intended to annex Servian territory or to bring about a displacement of the balance of power in the Balkan States, as she very soon made known in Petrograd in order to calm the uneasiness that had been caused there. Germany as the ally of Austria- Hungary from the very beginning of the crisis took the stand that the con- flict of her ally with Servia was of a local nature and would therefore have to be localized. And in the course of the succeeding international negotiations which endeavored to smooth the differences and solve the crisis, Germany could not give up this standpoint. Russia. Soon after the conflict between Aus- tria-Hungary and Servia had become acute a great unrest became notice- able in Russia. For years Russia had assumed the r61e of guardian to the southern Slav nations. Inasmuch this attitude had met with little favor and in part with open opposition in Bulgaria, but was welcomed all the more in Servia, Russia interpreted this r61e, which was legalized by no international agreement, to mean that she was to protect Servia even against a just castigation for misdeeds com- mitted or abetted by Servian officers and officials. Although, as mentioned above, Austria-Hungary had already given the assurance that she in no wise intended to endanger the terri- torial integrity of Servia or disturb the distribution of power in the Balkan peninsula, Russia mobilized those por- tions of her troops which would be affected by a war against Austria-Hun- gary on July 29. Attempts at Mediation. The attempts at mediation which were made by the other European powers in the last weeks of July, 1914, centered in the last instance, though this was not acknowledged, around the question whether an understand- ing between Austria-Hungary and Rus- sia or Austria-Hungary and Servia were desirable. Germany was com- pelled to remain true to her convic- tion that mediation between her ally and Servia was not in place, especially since Austria-Hungary in making the above-mentioned declaration had al- ready complied with all of Russia's justified demands. Therefore, Germany could not agree to the proposals of Sir Edward Grey on July 26, accord- ing to which the London ambassadors of Germany, France and Italy were to meet in conference under his chairman- ship. Such a conference would have brought the Austro-Hungarian differ- ence with Servia before a European tribunal, which by no means harmo^ nized with the actual state of affairs or Germany's duties as an ally. Never- theless Germany, for her part, con- tinued in her efforts to bring about a peaceful solution. She brought about direct negotiations between Vienna and Petrograd and energetically furthered them although the mobilization of the Russian troops against Austria-Hun- gary hampered these efforts markedly. France looked with mistrust upon the German proposal because she feared thereby to compromise herself in the eyes of Russia (French Yellow Book No. 62). Formally England accepted Germany's proposal. But at the same time — she had already mobilized and concentrated her fleet as early as July 24. Besides the French charge d'affaires in London could report to his government already on July 25 (French Yellow Book No. 37) that Sir Edward Grey had told the German ambassador, no European power could restrain itself in the case of war. This attitude on the part of the Triple Entente brought about a decided strengthening of the Russian war party. After Russia had mobilized against Austria-Hungary on July 29, it ordered a complete mobilization of its army and navy in the night from July 30 to July 31, which now threatened Germany. This was all the more dangerous be- cause Germany was not only constantly active in the interest of European peace but at that very time an inter- change of telegrams had begun between the German Emneror and the Czar. In the interests of her own safety Ger- 44 THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR many was now compelled to reply with a declaration of a state of impending war in Germany on July 31 and at the same time requested the Russian Gov- ernment to cease mobilizing. When no answer to this note was received from Petrograd, Germany was like- wise forced to a complete mobilization after the expiration of the appointed time on August 1. Under these circumstances it was entirely pointless of Sir Edward Grey to repeat at the last moment his pro- posal of an international conference to be held in London, which had pre- viously been rejected by Germany and Russia. For in the meantime the ob- ject of dispute between Austria-Hun- gary and Servia had in no wise been altered. But Grey had already in the above-mentioned manner given the German Ambassador in London to understand .that England would take part in a European war and had con- fidentially informed the members of the Entente of this warning given to Germany. And besides these powers had already a distinct advantage over Germany in having mobilized earlier. Long before the official mobilization Russian had begun a displacement of troops on a large scale ; since July 24 the English fleet was mobilized and concentrated ; the military prepara- tions of Prance had begun on July 27, or still earlier. Now since all new military preparations would have had to cease during such a conference on the part of all participants, the nego- tiations would have been carried on under the pressure of the bayonets and the threat of the ship's guns of the mobilized Entente powers, where- as Germany would not have even par- tially mobilized. Hence the acceptance of Grey's repeated proposal could mean nothing but war or humiliation for Germany. Since in the meantime the Russian and French forces had crossed the German borders on August 2, the European war had actually begun. France and England. The war between Germany and Rus- sia broke out because Russia denied Germany's ally the right to force the punishment for a mean crime com- mitted against a prominent member of Its royal family. It was to be assumed according to the treaties existing be- tween Prance and Russia that Prance would take part in a war even if Rus- sia were involved in it because she protected a country which harbored regicides. Nevertheless Germany made the effort to restrict the war to her Eastern border and to prevent it from becoming a European calamity. The inquiry of the German Ambassador in Paris respecting this question, was answered evasively by the French Pre- mier on August 1, that is, it was in reality very distinctly answered. For the attitude of Prance the circum- stance may have been decisive, that already on July 27 the German Am- bassador in London was informed that Germany could not count on English neutrality in the event of a European war (French Yellow Book No. 63) and that the French Ambassador Cambon could on July 31 report to his Govern- ment (French Yellow Book No. 110) that the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs had said to Prince Lichnowsky, England could not keep out of a war in which France was involved. On Au- gust 1, the French Ambassador was then able to add (French Yellow Book No. 126) that Sir Edward Grey was about to propose in the Cabinet meet- ing that the English fleet should pre- vent the German fleet from sailing through the Channel or making any demonstration whatever against the French coast. Accordingly France is at war with Germany because she was forced to it by her treaty with Russia, because she was assured in advance of English support, and because such a war was, in short, the final and logical result of the determined desire for revenge on the part of the French people and the French government. As for England, Sir Edward Grey had repeatedly given the assurance in Parliament that his government had entered upon no obligations that would tie its hands in the case of a European war. This was literally true but in spirit it was false. Sir Edward Grey had obligated himself to take counsel with Prance in the event of. war whether the proposed collaboration of the army and nav^ heads of the two nations should actually be materialized against Germany. In any case Ger- many had to attempt to assure herself of England's neutrality in the coming conflict. That these attempts were hopeless from the beginning is shown by the exposition of the state of af- fairs which Sir Edward Grey made in Parliament on August 3. He there de- clared that England would in no case have remained an idle spectator if the German fleet had attacked the French coast and merchant marine, because this coast was laid open to attack by the concentration of the French fleet in the Mediterranean on the ground of the agreement with England. Grey further openly declared in this speech that a German victory over France was opposed to English interests and could therefore not be permitted by England. Finally Grey expressed the opinion in the same speech that neutrality would be just as detrimental to England as participation in the war and that, moreover, England's most vital inter- ests would be imperilled by a neutral stand. Under these circumstances it was impossible for the German government to be assured of England's neutrality by any guarantees whatever, namely, that it would respect the French coast or guarantee not to make any conquest of French soil. The German inquiry under what circumstances England would remain neutral could hence not be answered. England had bound her- self over against France to such an ex- tent to a participation in the war — as Grey correctly stated on August 3 — that England would have imperilled her honor and reputation had she kept out of the war. By her attitude, therefore, England brought about the victory of the Rus- sian war party and thereby gave the impulse for the general mobilization in Russia, and thus assisted toward the war between Russia and Germany. She further abetted France in her inten- tion to enter into the war and herself took part in the war, because, accord- ing to Grey's views, this participation in no way hampered England but, on the contrary guaranteed the safety of her most vital Interests. Belgium. In his speech of August 3, 1914, which set forth the causes of England's participation in the war. Grey spoke only conditionally of the Belgian ques- tion. Subsequently England sought to conceal the true reasons for the par- ticipation in the war. She pleaded the protection of Belgian neutrality, where- as she entered the fray merely for the protection of her own material inter- ests. Herein the protection of Belgian neutrality rests solely on British Inter- ests, as Sir Edward Grey distinctly said on August 3, which demand that this portion of the North Sea coast should not fall into the hands of any great power. Belgian neutrality became Invalid for Germany in that no doubt existed on the part of France to concentrate her troops along the line Givet-Namur. The declarations made on August 2 In Brussels by the German Minister prove this. Documents which were later found by the Germans in Brussels fur- nish a further basis for it. According to them Belgium had for years nlade plans in conjunction with England and Prance for carrying out military oper- ations against Germany in common. In the eyes of every thoughtful non-parti- san these documents are tantamount to proof. They have already been pub- lished. It is unnecessary, therefore to enter upon them again here. Accordingly the European war broke out because Russia declared her solidarity with the Servian regicides, because Prance and Russia were allied, because both nations were abetted in their warlike intentions by England, and because England hoped to acom- plish through the war the defeat of Germany which seemed to her abso- lutely necessary. Thus we see that Germany In waging a war which Is purely and simply de- fensive and was forced upon her by her neighbors. Note. — See the Taile of Contents or the Index for the telegrams in the Diplomatic Correspondence and "The Case of Belgium" - referred to in this article. — The Editor. THE CASE OF AUSTRIA. (Editorial in the "Springfield Bepnb- lican.") That Austria is not wholly without a case may be seen by considering the part played by the Maine in our own Spanish war. The justification of a sort, urged for that war was that dangerous and intolerable con- ditions were maintained in Cuba near our shores, and the sinking of the Main was taken as a kind of dem- onstration, a concrete instance. It would be a closer parallel to suppose Texas filled with rebellious Mexicans anxious to secede to Mexico, and a President of the United States as- sassinated by a Texan affiliated with a band of conspirators at the Mexican capital. Under such conditions we may be sure that this country would be as hot for war as Austria, and that the demands made upon Mexico for apology and amendment would be quite as severe as those now im- posed upon Servia. DIPLOMACY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 45 DIPIiOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. How The French-German Conflict Could Have Been Avoided. Xhe Chicago Herald. Under this title the German Gov- ^ eminent has published a new pam- phlet containing the following corre- spondence between Prince Henry of Prussia, King George of England and the German Emperor. This serves to Illustrate the point that Russia at no time was willing to desist from her policy of mobilization. The burden of proof becomes stronger each day that had Russia been willing to ar- bitrate the questions at issue, the present war could have been averted. The text is reprinted from the "Chicago Herald" of September 11. Note Preceding the Correspondence. "The following documents refer to the exchange of views between Ger- many and England immediately be- fore the war broke out. It will be perceived from these documents that Germany was prepared to spare Prance in case England should re- main neutral and would guarantee the neutrality of Prance. We believe that historical docu- ments such as these telegrams re- quire a deeper study than the "Chi- cago Herald" seems willing to devote to them, judging from the flippant heading it gave these telegrams in its issue of September 11. The head- ing: "From Georgie to Nicky to Willy." We are not surprised that this strong pro-British daily should desire to treat these telegrams as a joke in order to distract its readers' attention from them ; for if they seriously considered and analyzed these messages, they would readily perceive how "English diplomacy faced right about, disavowed a peace proposal of England's King, and joined Russia." The Chicago "Daily News" there- fore deserves great credit for having published in Its issue of September 11, the letter received from Berlin from its Special Correspondent, Mr. Raymond E. Swing, wherein these telegrams are analyzed and com- mented upon. Mr. Swing begins his letter thus: "Berlin, Germany, Aug. 24. — The accumulation of historical material, which is to help the world decide the causes of the present war, goes slowly forward. Battles make more interesting reading, but historical material, be it ever so uninteresting on first acquaintance, turns out to contain dramatic stuff of the finest ^quality, and serves also as the only guide to the world's judgment. The battle decides only strength; these telegrams and notes decide right and wrong. "The latest array of telegrams made public in Berlin and herewith published comprises some of the com- munications between London and Berlin during the critical days pre- ceding the outbreak of the war. They are not so startling as the German "White Book," but* they make many significant points, two of which are highly important. One, which the St. Petersburg dispatches strongly indicated, is that Germany was work- ing to preserve peace. The other proves that England, up to one crit- ical moment, was co-operating in this movement, and that at this one moment English diplomacy faced right about, disavowed a peace pro- posal of England's king, and joined Russia in imposing a condition upon Austria in the Servian conflict which alone might have made war unavoid- able had not Russia's own mobiliza- tion interfered to break off negotia- tions. * * * " As we wish to make "War Echoes" a book for present as well as future reference, we hope our readers will find it convenient because we have not only reprinted in full the docu- ment as it appears in the pamphlet issued by the German Government, but also have added the complete analysis and comments made thereon by Mr. Swing. Our readers will find Mr. Swing's letter reproduced imme- diately following the above tele- grams. — Editor. "Telegram of his royal highness Prince Henry of Prussia to H. M. the King of England, of July 30, 1914: " 'Am here since yesterday; have informed William of what you kindly told me at Buckingham Palace last Sunday, who gratefully received your message. William, much preoc- cupied, is trying his utmost to fulfill Nicky's appeal to him to work for maintenance of peace and is in con- stant telegraphic communication with Nicky, who today confirms news that military measures have been ordered by him equal to mobilization, meas- ures which have been taken already five days ago. " 'We are furthermore informed that France is making military prep- arations, whereas we have taken no measures, but may be forced to do so any moment should our neighbors continue, which would then mean a European war. If you really and earnestly wish to prevent this terri- ble disaster, may I suggest you using your influence on France and also Russia to keep neutral, which seems to me would be most useful. This I consider a very good, perhaps the only chance, to maintain the peace of Europe. " 'I may add that now more than ever, Germany and England should lend each other mutual help to pre- vent a terrible catastrophe, which otherwise seems unavoidable. " 'Believe me that William is most sincere in his endeavors to maintain peace, but that the military prepara- tions of his two neighbors may at last force him to follow their example for the safety of his own country, which otherwise would remain defenseless. " 'I have informed William of my telegram to you, and hope you will receive my information in the same spirit of friendship which suggested them. (Signed) HENRY.' "Telegram of H. M. the King of England to Prince Henry of Prussia, July 30, 1914: " 'Thanks for your telegram. So pleased to hear of William's efforts to concert with Nicky to maintain peace. Indeed I am earnestly desirous that such an irreparable disaster as a European war should be averted. My government is doing its utmost sug- gesting to Russia and France to sus- pend further military preparations it Austria will consent to be satisfied with the occupation of Belgrade and neighboring Servian territory as a hostage for satisfactory settlement of her demands, other countries mean- while suspending their war prepara- tions. Trust William will use his great influence to induce Austria to accept this proposal, thus proving that Ger- many and England are working to- gether to prevent what would be an international catastrophe. Pray as- sure William I am doing and shall continue to do all that lies in my power to preserve peace of Europe. (Signed) GEORGE.' "Telegram of his majesty, the Em- peror, to his majesty, the King of England, of July 31, 1914: " 'Many thanks for your kind tele- gram. Your proposals coincide with my ideas, and with the statements I got this night from Vienna, which I have had forwarded to London. I just received news from the chancel- lor that official notification has just reached him that this night Nicky has ordered the mobilization of his whole army and fleet. He has not even awaited the results of the mediation I am working at and left me without any news. I am off for Berlin to take measures for insuring safety of my eastern frontiers where strong Russian troops are already posted. (Signed) WILLY.' "Telegram of the King of England to his majesty the Emperor, of Aug. 31, 1914: " 'Many thanks for your telegram last night. I sent an urgent telegram to Nicky expressing my readiness to do everything in my power to assist in reopening conversations between powers concerned. "'(Signed) GEORGIE.' "Telegram of the German ambas- sador in London to the chancellor, at Aug. 1, 1914: " 'Sir E. Grey just asked me by telephone whether I believed I was in a position to be clear that we would not attack France in a war between Germany and Russia in case France should remain neutral. I de- clared I believed to be able to give such an understanding. "'(Signed) LICHNOWSKY.' "Telegram of his majesty the Em- peror to his majesty, the liing of England, of Aug. 1, 1914: " 'I just received the communica- tion from your government offering French neutrality under guarantee of Great Britain. Added to this offer was the inquiry whether, under the conditions, Germany would refraiii from attacking France. On technical grounds my mobilization, which had already been proclaimed this after- noon, must proceed against two fronts, east and west, as prepared; this cannot be countermanded be- cause, I am sorry, your telegram came so late. But if Prance offers 46 THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR me neutrality, which must be guar- anteed by the British fleet and army, I shall, of course, refrain from at- tacking France and employ my troops elsewhere. I hope that France will not become nervous. The troops on my frontier are in the act of being stopped by telegraph and telephone from crossing into France. "'(Signed) WILLIAM.' "Telegram from the chancellor to the German ambassador in JJondon, of Aug. 1, 1914: " 'Germany is ready to accept Brit- ish proposals in case England guaran- tees with all her forces absolute neu- trality of France in Russo-German conflict. German mobilization has been ordered today on account of Russian challenge before E3nglish proposal was known here. It is there- fore now impossible to make any change in strategical distribution of troops ordered to the French fron- tier. But we guarantee that our troops will not cross the French fron- tier before 7 p. m. on Monday, the 3d inst., in case England will pledge herself meanwhile. (Signed) " 'BBTHMANN-HOLLWEG.' "Telegram of his majesty, the King of England to his majesty, the Emperor, of Ang. 1, 1914.: " 'In answer to your telegram just received, I think there must be some misunderstanding as to a suggestion that passed in friendly conversation, between Prince Lichnowsky and Sir Edward Grey this afternoon when they were discussing how actual fighting between German and French armies might be avoided while there Is still a chance of some agreement between Austria and Russia. Sir Ed- ward Grey will arrange to see Prince Lichnowsky early tomorrow morning to ascertain whether there is a mls- undertanding on his part. •"(Signed) GEORGE.' . . "Telegram of the German ambas- sador in London to the chancellor, of Ang. 2, 1914: " 'Sir E. Grey's suggestions were prompted by a desire to make it pos- sible for England to keep permanent neutrality, but as they were not based on a previous understanding with France and made without knowledge of our mobilization, they have been abandoned as absolutely hopeless. "•(Signed) LICHNOWSKY. "(Note following the correspon- dence. ) "The essence of Germany's decla- rations is contained in Emperor Wil- liam's telegram to the King of Eng- land, of Aug. 1, 1914. Even if there existed a misunderstanding as to an English proposal, the kaiser's ofl'er furnished England the opportunity to prove her pacific disposition and to prevent the Franco-German war." HOW THE KAISER WORKED TO AVOID WAR. Messages of the German Ruler and Prince Henry to King George — British Plan Withdrawn — Elev- enth Hour Efforts to Bring About an Understanding — Diplomacy by Telephone. Immense flocks of storks are re- ported in southern France. We know of nothing that Prance needs more. — From the "Boston Evening Transcript." The Chicago Daily News. Berlin, Germany, Aug. 24. — The ac- cumulation of historical material, which is to help the world decide the causes of the present war, goes slowly forward. Battles make more interest- ing reading, but historical material, be It ever so uninteresting on first ac- quaintance, turn out to contain dra- matic stuff of the finest quality, and serves also as the only guide to the world's judgment. The battle decides only strength ; these telegrams and notes decide right and wrong. The latest array of telegrams made public in Berlin and herewith published comprises some of the communications between London and Berlin during the critical days preceding the outbreak of the war. They are not so startling as the German "white book," but they make many significant points, two of which are highly important One, which the St. Petersburg dispatches strongly indicated, is that Germany was working to preserve peace. The other proves that England, up to one critical moment, was co-operating in this move- ment, and that at this one moment English diplomacy faced right about, disavowed a peace proposal of Eng- land's king, and joined Russia in im- posing a condition upon Austria in the Servian conflict which alone might have made war unavoidable had not Russia's own mobilization interfered to break off negotiations. How Kaiser Worked for Peace. The first point is quickly proved by combination of the white book and the telegrams that are here presented. Everyone of the kaiser's dispatches to the czar is impregnated with his desire for peace and his willingness to work for it to the end. The telegrams of his brother, Prince Henry, to King George adds to the kaiser's own telegrams most convincing evidence. "William, who is most concerned," telegraphs Prince Henry of Prussia, "is extending himself to the utmost." The language by its very straightforward strength gives a lucid picture of Brother William, his mind filled with information about Russia's and France's military preparations and con- sequent forebodings of war and himself "most concerned," since his ideal of peace was in danger. It must have been already apparent to William that Cousin Nicholas was allowing himself to pilot Russia outside of diplomatic waters. "Nicholas today confirmed the news that five days ago he ordered mil- itary measures — tantamount to mobil- ization." No doubt William was "most concerned." Then Prince Henry pro- ceeds: "If you really and uprightly wish to avert this frightful calamity may I suggest that you use your in- fluence upon Prance and also upon Rus- sia to keep them neutral. I believe it to be a sure and perhaps the only pos- sibility of maintaining peace." Then he continues : "Believe me that William Is utterly upright in his efforts to main- tain peace." The whole telegram Is a frank and manly statement between cousins. It was not intended for event- ual historical evidence. It rings with the vibrations of the moment. King George's Peace Plan. But the really significant telegram of the lot is the second, the answer of Cousin George, another document teeming with frankness and spirit. "Very glad to hear of William's ef- forts," replies George. George, too, has an "earnest wish" that the "Ir- reparable catastrophe should be pre- vented." His next sentence Is very important: "My government is doing its ut- most to induce Russia and France to defer further military preparations in case Austria is satisfied with the occupation of Belgrade and neigh- boring Servian territory as security for a peaceful adjustment of her de- mands, while at the same time other countries suspend their war prepa- rations." Here in one sentence is a solution of the Austrian-Servian con- fiict. With this proposal there could be no doubt where England stood. It was a strikingly intelligent pro- posal. The air was cleared. Read- ing on, William must have smiled gravely as he read, "I trust William will use his great influence to move Austria to accept this proposal." When Prince Henry received this telegram he was off at once to the Kaiser and thence to the chancellor's palace, and there they talked and argued until 2 o'clock in the morn- ing. A few hours later there was another long conference, with many taking part. The tone of this meet- ing was distinctly hopeful, one can easily imagine. The Fateful Word from Russia. Then a messenger enters. In the little red satchel attached to his red belt are many dispatches and these are laid upon the table. The chan- cellor starts to opening them and hands them to his secretary for di- ciphering. They soon come upon a vital message. We know it was short, but the text has not been made public. It was to this effect: "The Czar ordered full mobilization of army and navy today." It was signed by Pourtales, the German am- bassador at St. Petersburg. The fateful decision had been made. The next telegram of the series with London Is not by Henry, but by William himself. It voices bitter dis- appointment. "Your proposals coin- cide with my ideas and with messages from Vienna." In other words, the solution of the difiiculties has been found. But, he continues, Nicholas has ruined it all by mobilizing. There follows a human and moving complaint: "He did not even wait for the results of mediation and left me altogether without news." Can any one, reading this, doubt that the Kaiser wished peace? "I am going to Berlin to insure the safety of my eastern frontier where already strong Russian troops have taken up their position." This was defense, not at- tack. War had been forced upon him and Russia was the culprit. . DIPLOMACY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 47 The Plan Evolved in St. Petersburg. So far, Russia had borne the brunt of the blame for this war from the Berlin point of view and not until a copy of the Russian "orange book," corresponding with the German "white book," arrived in Berlin, was there a hint of strange maneuverings in British diplomacy. Not forgetting that King George's solution had been suggested in a telegram of July 30, the Germans read with astonishment that the British ambassador in St. Petersburg, working together with Foreign Minister Sasonow, had evolved an entirely different solu- tion, and informed the Russian am- bassadors in other countries about it only July 31. The change in the proposal was radical. Instead of al- lowing Austria to hold Belgrade as security, Austria was to retire from Servia. She was to have no security other than a promised word. Within twenty-four hours England had changed her course; hitherto her at- titude as known in Berlin had been peaceful ; within a day it became pro- vocative. In the light of this fact, what can be thought of King George's next telegram to the Kaiser? "I have sent an urgent dispatch to Nicholas in which I have expressed my willing- ness to do everything in my power to further the resumption of the negotiations between the powers In- volved." What, then, is English di- plomacy? Did or did not George know of the action of his ambassador in St. Petersburg? If he did, what a lamentable deception this telegram appears! And if he did not, is not British diplomacy, by this very fail- ure, responsible in no small measure for the outbreak of this war? That Message by Telephone. The remaining telegrams are in- structive, though the die had already been cast. The telephone conversa- tion between Grey and Lichnowsky on the subject of French neutrality was immediately dispatched to Ber- lin. It is, by the way, unheard of in diplomatic circles thus to commit national destinies to telephonic com- munication. The chancellor received it about thirty-five minutes before the mobilization order was to be made public, though it appears that the order was already in force. In five minutes he was in the palace, closeted with the Kaiser. How they must have regretted the delay of Grey's suggestion! A few hours earlier and the mobilization toward the French frontier would have not been ordered. However, the message is not alto- gether too late. The Kaiser imme- diately writes his answer, possibly sitting to the task at once, and writ- ing in pencil with his clear, rapid hand the message to George, surely in English: "If France offers her neutrality X shall naturally avoid an attack upon France and shall dispose of my troops otherwise. I hope that France will not be nervous." — Al- most as though the Kaiser were thinking aloud — "The troops at my frontier are even now being held back by telegraph and telephone from crossing the French boundary." The palace must have presented a busy scene, the adjutants at the tele- phone, the chancellor perhaps at an- other table writing messages to the front, while William sent his tele- gram to Cousin George. But Something Went Wrong. But English diplomacy had slipped again. George's next telegram was not filled with the cousinly affection which shone out in previous mes- sages. It is not introduced with a word of thanks, as are his others, and it is tinctured this time with the odor of diplomatic evasion. "There must have been a misunderstand- ing." A diplomatic method of say- ing: "Things have changed" even as they changed the day before. The last telegram of the series shows why things had changed. "The proposals of Sir Edward Grey," wires the German Ambassador in London, "which are attributable t» a wish to assure the possibility of England's continuous neutrality were made without previously sounding France" — just as Sir Edward's am- bassadorial conference was suggested without previously sounding the powers involved — "and without knowledge of mobilization, and in the meantime have been given up as completely hopeless." When France was sounded, it follows, England found that its hasty suggestion was unfortunate and evidently found that the possibility of England's own con- tinuous neutrality was dimming. In three days England had, indeed, changed! These telegrams are, to be sure, incomplete. We do not yet know what occurred in these three days of England's change, nor what justifica- tion she can give for her own right about face. But in any attempt to hold certain individuals responsible for this war it becomes more and more obvious that the responsibility must be divided. And unless the peculiarities of these telegrams are illuminated by startling justifying facts a goodly quantity of the blame must fall in London. Prince Henry of Prussia to King George, July 30. "I arrived yesterday and having repeated what you so kindly told me at Buckingham palace to Wil- liam, who received your message gratefully. "William, who is much concerned, is extending himself to the utmost to comply with the request of Nich- olas to work for the maintenance of peace. He is in constant tele- graphic communication with Nich- olas, who. today confirmed the news that five days ago he ordered mili- tary measures which are tantamount to mobilization. "We also received information that France is making military prep- arations, while we have taken no similar measures; we shall, however, be forced into them at any moment if our neighbors continue In this way. That would mean European war. "If you really and uprightly wish to avert this frightful calamity, may I suggest to you that you use your influence upon France and also upon Russia to keep them neutral? That, in my opinion, would be of the great- est usefulness. I believe it to be a sure, and, perhaps the only, possi- bility of maintaining peace. I should like to add that now more than ever Germany and England must mutu- ally support each other to avert a terrible catastrophe which otherwise seems unpreventable. "Believe me that William is ut- terly upright in his efforts to main- tain peace. But the military prep- arations of his two neighbors can force him finally to follow their ex- ample in order that his otherwise un- protected country may be safe. I have informed William of my tele- gram to you and I hope that you will accept my message in the same friendly spirit in which it is sent. ' "HENRY." King George to Prince Henry, July 30. "Thanks for your telegram. "Very glad to hear of William's efforts to unite with Nicholas for preserving peace. I have the earnest wish that such an irreparable catastrophe as a European war should be prevented. My government is doing its utmost to induce Russia and France to defer further military preparations in case Austria Is satisfied with the occupa- tion of Belgrade and neighboriilfe Servian territory as security for a peaceful adjustment of her demands, while at the same time the other countries suspend their war prepa- rations. I trust that William will use his great influence to move Aus- tria to accept this proposal; that would be evidence that Germany and England are working together to avert what would be an international catastrophe. "Please assure William that I am doing everything and will do every- thing in my power to maintain Euro- pean peace. "GEORGE." Kaiser to King George, July 31. "Many thanks for your friendly message. Your proposals coincide with my ideas and with the mes- sages which I received this evening from Vienna and which I forwarded to London. I have just learned from the chancellor that he has just re- ceived the news that Nicholas this evening has ordered the mobilization of his entire army and fleet. He did not even wait for the results of medi- ation, for which I was working, and left me altogether without"' news. I am going to Berlin to insure thOi safety of my eastern frontier, where already strong Russian troops have taken up their position. "WILLIAM." Perhaps the everlasting height of optimism was contained in Gen. Gal- lieni's wards when the French state officials left Paris: "The members of the government of the republic have left Paris to give new impetus to the defense of the nation." — From "The Daily News," Chicago, Septem- ber 4, 1914. THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR THE HISTORY OF EIGHT DAYS. Translation of Editorial. Illinois Staats-Zeitung, Chicago. We have demonstrated several times how England has worked against Germany. In the course of the last year, however, it seemed aS If the British politicians could not reconcile themselves to being on friendly terms with Germany, be- cause the latter was a great indus- trial competitor, and also because of the trouble over the Bagdad Railway. The future may prove that Eng- land broke the bonds of friendship with Germany because the situation became too serious, and that this will be the British excuse for hostility. This also may account for there be- ing only ten days' interval between the Austrian ultimatum to Servia and the British declaration of war on Germany. On July 23 the Austrian govern- ment sent its demands to Belgrade, and this action caused a great storm in the European press. Both the German and Italian newspapers ex- pressed their belief that the demands were entirely justified in view of the murder of Serajevo. The English press took the same stand even more strongly, as nobody thought of the possibility that the murder might have been committed with a view to causing war with Germany. The Pall Mall Gazette, for example, on July 24, said that it was Servia's duty to meet the Austrian demands, while the Westminster Gazette, organ of the liberal party, asserted that no power, not even Russia, could say that Servia should not give Austria the satisfaction demanded. But St. Petersburg and Paris al- ready had decided otherwise. The Novoje Vremya on July 24 again gave the opinion of the Russian minister of foreign affairs, that Russia could not remain indifferent to such action, and the Paris Temps strongly stated that the Vienna ultimatum should find a tremendous echo in Russia. These opinions opened the eyes of the politicians at London to the op- portunity for making political capital out of the affair, which the British press twenty-four hours before had agreed was justified. Consequently on July 25 one could read in the Times: "All who have universal peace at heart should earnestly hope that Austria-Hungary had not spoken its last word in the Servian note. If this is the case, however, we would face a war that would be of unlimit- ed danger to all the great powers of Europe." London believed in the possibility of war long before Secretary Grey urged mediation of the trouble, and this gives any fair-minded person the impression that England did not care to maintain peace after It ascertained the position of Russia and Prance and realized how favorable was the opportunity for war upon Germany. Each of the following days afiirmed this opinion. In order to prove this it may be cited that the English gov- ernment spoke with two mouths. In some newspapers were found optimis- tic governmental expressions, while in others war views were expressed. For example, the Westminster Ga- zette on July 25 said the European situation showed great dangers, while the Novoje Vremya openly spoke of Russian mobilization. The following day an order was issued in St. Petersburg stopping all news of military operations. On that same day the mobilization order was se- cretly issued, but, notwithstanding the censorship, the Echo de Paris told its readers that Russia was preparing for war. * * * An echo of these preparations was seen in an article in the London Morning Post of July 27, which stated that England's duty as a nation was to assist friendly powers in case of necessity. The kaiser returned from his trip to Norway on July 28 and was wel- comed by a hypocritical telegram from the czar, indicating that the Russian ruler wanted him to be the mediator in the trouble. The kaiser immediately took hold of the media- tion proposals with Sir Edward Grey, while Russia was making great prep- erations for war, the French ad- miral, Lapeyrere, was ordering the concentration of the Mediterranean fleet at Toulon, and the commander of the English fleet in the same wa- ters had called his ships, which were scattered all over the Levant, to as- semble at Malta. It was not until July 31 that Ger- many and the kaiser became ac- quainted with the exact state of af- fairs and learned of the manner In which the triple entente had bull- dozed the true friends of p^ace in or- der to gain time for their own prep- erations for war. After this the ultimatum went to St. Petersburg and war followed by a formal declaration of war. BERNARD SHAW CLAIMS RUSS PERIL OF WESTERN EUROPE. "Our Trade Ambassador." "The trade embassador of the Na- tional Chamber of Commerce to South America will find his work cut out for him. If he or the organiza- tion which commissions him is under a contrary impression they will be painfully disillusioned. "He will find a well defined po- litical distrust of us that does not help trade relations. He will find differences of manners that mean more than the mannerless American suspects. He will find competitors with established relations, competi- tors who take the trouble to please, and have not at all the American at- titude of "be pleased or be d d;" competitors who study conditions, commercial, financial, and social, and who meet them. He will find a sin- gular absence at belief in the innate superiority and manifest destiny of North Americans. "In a word, he will find uphill York, and he will return, we hope, to tell some neglected truths to a peo- ple too much given to the doctrine that 'we kin lick all creation' in the arena of world trade." — The pub- lisher of "War Echoes." By George Bernard Shaw. London, Aug. 20 (by mail to New York, Sept. 1.) — It is idle and somewhat exasperating to talk of "lifting the acts and thoughts of the British people to the plane of the noblest and purest patriotism," with such a business in hand as the pres- ent war. The hard fact is that we have placed ourselves in such a position that we cannot, without the most cowardly treachery, refuse to throw ourselves with all our might into the war on the side of Prance. But we are all three — France, Germany and England alike — com- mitting a crime against civilization for the benefit of Russia, and to ask me or any other sane man to create an illusion of nobility and purity and patriotism around such a crime is to ask honest people to do the work of dupes and fools. We Must Fight and Die. We shall have to fight and die and pay and suffer with the grim knowl- edge that we are sacrificing our- selves in an insane cause, and that only by putting up a particularly good fight can we bring ourselves out of it with credit. For my part I can only hope that all the western powers quoted will acquit themselves so heroically that they will be forced to divide the honors of war and shake hands for- ever. For what is to happen if we smash Germany and smash Sweden, If we have forced Sweden to join Ger- many? Simply that we shall have to de- fend both Sweden and Germany against Russia, and to defend them when we are exhausted by a fratri- cidal war. And if Germany smashes us and annexes the coast of the North Sea, what sort of back seat shall we and Prance occupy — we, who might have dictated the destinies of Western Europe if we had stood for civili- zation and not for loans to Russia and capitalistic exploits in Persia? Draft Peace During War. It is fortunate for us all that smashing is school boy brag. We can display tremendous bravery and exhaust one another in the face of inexhaustible Russia (not more in- exhaustible, however, than we three shall be when we unite), but we can- not smash one another. For the present there is only one thing to be done besides fighting for all we are worth, lest we be ashamed as weaklings and cowards as well as fools and madmen, until we learn to respect one another and respect our high destiny as the joint standard- bearers of Western civilization as against the half-civilized Eastern le- gions to whom we have taught the art of killing by machinery. And that one thing is to set to work immediately to draft the in- evitable treaty of peace, which we must all sign when we have had our bellyful of murder and destruc- tion. FURTHER CAUSES OF THE GREAT WAR The Nations are all to Blame and all are Right from a Certain Point of View Causes and the Occasion of the War Great Britain and Germany A Manly and Peaceful Pursuit of Industry and Progress Spurned LETTER OF AN ENGLISHMAN TO HIS GERMAN FRIEND. Althougb I am an Englishman and my country is at war witti yours, I do not consider, however, that my loyalty to England need necessarily compel me to obliterate from my memory the long years of friendship I have entertained for Germany. Ever since I first went there as a student some nineteen years ago. I have always remained one of her staunchest friends and most enthus- iastic admirers, and I am still so today, though in certain quarters it may be considered heretical to admit it. I have mixed so much with Germans and have been afforded such exceptional oppor- tunities for studying their splendid State and Municipal governmental sys- tems and, in fact, the entire civil and military administrative machinery oq which German power and greatness de- pends. I am possibly, therefore, better qualified to estimate correctly what Germany's tremendous powers of re- sistance are destined to be during this conflict, than many of those whose knowledge of German international af- fairs is based mostly on hearsay, but who publish columns on the subject daily in the French and British presses. It is a pity that so many Englishmen when they visit foreign countries and especially European ones, are usually incapable of divesting themselves of their inherent insularity and racial prejudices. Because, by failing to real- ize that there is something new worth learning, or at any rate investigating, in every civilized land, much useful information slips by them unperceived to the detriment of their own country. The average Britisher's conception of patriotism is to entertain a pitying con- tempt for everybody (and everything) Willi hiis hnd the misfortune of being created outside the British Isles, and it is entirely due to this unfortunate temperamental characteristic that all we English have had such an unpleas- ant and rough awakening concerning Germany's might since the outbreak of this war. Individuals often get angry at first when suddenly startled, and this is exactly what has happened in England. She embarked on this cam- paign thoroughly convinced that at the first shout of the Triple Entente, the "Walls of Jericho" would almost in- stantly collapse and that within three months the German Empire would be in extremis. But to her disgust she has discovered that the Germans are not perturbed In the very least at tak- ing on the whole of Europe, and if necessary any interested spectators who may care to take a hand In the game. In consequence, the disillusionment of my "sporting" compatriots knows no bounds, and the only comfort they get is by reading the volumes of the above, interwoven with slander, belched forth daily by their press at Germany's ex- pense. But there Is a comical side to the present situation which disinter- ested spectators are not likely to over- look. — Because the Germans have so far succeeded in withstanding, prac- tically single handed, the onslaught of a gigantic coalition, the object of which was the total annihilation of their Em- pire, they are now being accused of having secretly spent years in prepar- ing their defensive military machine for the sole purpose of subjugating Europe and especially poor little Eng- land. Personally, I have not the faint- est notion whether the German Govern- ment Is directly or indirectly respon- sible for this terrible conflagration, but what I do know is, that the German Nation has got its back to the wall and is flghting the largest military powers of the world, and such being the case, if any of the English people have a spark of sporting instinct remaining in them, they who, hitherto, have always been believed to be the admirers of true sport and of everything that is sports- manlike in the noblest and highest sense of the word, then in my opinion, they should be the first to acknowledge what a magnificent fight the German nation is putting up ! Even if your country should T)e eventually defeated, the terrifflc odds against which she is fighting will roT) the victors of all glory, and impartial historians of future gen- erations tcill assuredly dedicate it all to her. For years I have incessantly im- pressed on my countrymen what a stupendous power the German Empire is, but my opinions were scoffed at and I, myself, was "dubbed" pro-German and was told that I was unpatriotic and belittled my own country, because I maintained that in certain respects Germany was a greater country than England owing to the superiority of her military and educational systems. Now, if I, a private individual, could collect sufficient data for the purpose of enabling me to assess her strength at its true value, how much more should our Military Attaches have been able to do so, possessing all the ad- vantages which the sacred robes of oflS- cialdom bestowed on them. It is evi- dent, therefore, that our military rep- resentatives in Berlin were either crim- inally negligent and apathetic, or else hopelessly incompetent, and I should be inclined rather to believe the latter. But in either case, it is preposterous for us now to accuse the German Gov- ernment of wilful duplicity and Im- pute to it aggressive motives for adopt- ing precautionary defensive measures while the British nation peacefully slumbered. Such a point of view is as irrational as that of the Peace-at- any-price Party in the House of Com- mons who, prior to the war, was con- tinually beseeching the Germans to disarm, so that Great Britain, with her vast colonial possessions wrapt tightly around her, might continue to sleep In perfect tranquility and free from all anxiety for the future. But when sug- gesting such an unbusinesslike and un- practical arrangement, British politi- cians completely ignored the fact, that were she to have adopted such a fatu- ously short-sighted policy, Germany would speedily have been smothered by her French and Russian neighbors and their cohorts of hangers-on. Instead of attempting to usher in the millenlum before the world was ready for It, these well-meaning but misguided Idealists would have served the case of civiliza- tion far better, had they directed their energies in bringing pressure to bear on their Government to heed the old classical dictum "Si vis pacem, para liellum" (If you wish peace, prepare for war), but which preferred to pan- der to the ignorant proletariat for the sake of obtaining its manhood votes on which depended ministerial posts and huge yearly salaries regardless of na- tional security. So obsessed was the Government with Social reform, that had this war been postponed but a few years more, the probabilities are that we should have had an appalling na- tional disaster. For some years prior to this war I contributed innumerable articles to our press, in which I showed how utterly futile it was to try to prevent a country like the German Empire, con- taining a population of sixty-eight mil- lions and possessing the most perfectly 50 THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR organized and trained army -which has ever existed, the second largest Navy and mercantile marine, and an ever in- creasing commercial and industrial prosperity, from expanding and ac- quiring Colonies, Protectorates, Com- mercial spheres of influence, or what- ever you choose for convenience sake to call them. I emphasized the fact, that quite apart from all equitable con- siderations, such a systematic and ruthless blocking policy as was being pursued by our Government with re- gard to Germany's legitimate territorial aggrandizement aspirations, would most certainly culminate in some such frightful world-wide cataclysm as has now actually come to pass. In direct contradistinction to this negative line of policy. I strongly advocated a rap- prochement with her, based on an ami- cable and equitable settlement by which she would be allotted certain spheres of influence in Asia Minor and Africa. I was opposed all along to the Franco- British Entente and still more so to the fatal Triple Entente, as I foresaw clearly that both these agreements con- tained the germs of future interna- tional complications, and were thus bound to defeat their ostensible "raison d'etre" namely, to safeguard the peace of Europe. To wish to cultivate friendly relations with France was ad- mirable, but the modus operandi em- ployed for doing so could not have been more clumsily devised and more cal- culated to injure rather than benefit France's interests, by the mere fact that the terms of the "Entente Cor- diale" were shrouded in so much mys- tery, that nobody knew what they were or to what extent England had pledged herself to assist France, should Bhe be involved in a war. Besides, from the very outset, the French were per- mitted to exaggerate its political sig- nificance and placed an entirely differ- ent interpretation on it to that which the British Government had originally intended. Its natural tendency, there- fore, was to foster in them a spirit of misplaced confidence in their ability of waging a successful war of revenge against their old enemy and so recover their lost provinces of Alsace-Lorraine. But, as might well have been expected, the Germans viewed the whole transac- tion with the utmost suspicion and dis- like, and especially the Triple Entente, because they firmly believed, that its primary object was to head them off in every direction, and definitely pre- vent them from ever obtaining those outlets, the possession of which is es- sential for ensuring the future economic and commercial prosperity of their Em- pire. The immediate result of this threatening coalition was to compel Germany to redouble her armament efforts, and for having done so she is now being roundly abused by Great Britain and accused of compassing the destruction of Europe. If she had not maintained her lead in armaments I should like to know whether there is a single English Statesman worthy of the name, who would have been willing to stake his personal honor, that imme- diately the military preparations of France and Russia had been completed and they believed themselves suffi- ciently strong to crush her, that they would not have hesitated to seize upon the first opportune moment for picking a quarrel with Germany and forcing a war upon her. Sandwiched in as she is between two avowed and implacable foes such as they are, what else could she do than prepare for all eventuali- ties? Is it conceivable that a great and progressive nation as Germany is, was gomg to incur the risk of being reduced to the status of a second class Power? The fact that Germany did not go to war with France in 1905 when the Moroccan crisis arose, speaks volumes for her peaceful intentions. Then, if ever, vcas the psychological moment for her to have done so, as France, Russia, England and Belgium were wholly unprepared for war, their military affairs being in a chaotic con- dition. No, in my opinion, a combination of unfortunate circumstances, but not Ger- many, were the cause of this terrible conflict, however much in certain quar- ters it may be desired to attribute it to her. To act in self defense is fre- quently mistaken for aggression. For instance, suppose two persons have an altercation and one of them is sud- denly seen to strike the other, would he not appear to be the aggressor in the eyes of anybody watching the scene a way off and to whom the words which were exchanged between them were in- audible? May not one man have said something to the other which compelled him to act as he did? Moreover, is it not conceivable that believing himself to be the weaker of the two, and realiz- ing that the other was fast losing con- trol of himself, but deemed it expedi- ent, therefore, to hit first and not in- cur the risk of receiving a staggering knock-out blow? This is exactly what happened in Germany's case. The pre- mature mobilization of the Russian troops coupled with France's truculent and threatening attitude obliged the Germans for the sake of their own safety to declare war, and thus en- deavour to deal the enemy a decisive blow before he was ready. But Ger- man critics declare that if Germany had not desired war, her military mo- bilization could not have been com- pleted prior to that of her opponents. But they forget that her peculiar geographical position, namely between France and Russia, necessitated that her troops should always be in a constant state of preparedness to take the field at a moment's notice, just as the British fleet is maintained on a war footing and is always ready for active service. The fact is, that by their clever scheming, the Russians suc- ceeded in making the German govern- ment appear to be the aggressor, when in reality it was merely dealing a de- fensive blow. But now because the Germans have objected to being annihi- lated ("butchered, to make a Triple Entente holiday") and are defending themselves heroically in the face of overwhelming odds, their foes now blame them for their extraordinary powers of resistance and accuse them of having secretly compassed the down- fall of Europe. In order to gain the sympathy of neutral states. Great Britain has ad- vanced the preposterous plea that she is championing the case of freedom against militarism. If this were the case, she should then be waging this war against the whole world, as all civilized countries except the Americas have adopted compulsory military serv- I ice and maintain large armies. Be- sides, she herself has of late become an ultra military power, and has even gone so far as to adopt a veiled form of military dictatorship which is one of the most sensible things she has done, especially as Lord Kitchener is one of the very ablest of great statesmen we have ever had. No ! let us admit frank- ly that we are not fighting militarism, but only the wonderful German mili- tary machine that has raised the stand- ard of military efliclency to such a pitch that it has so far enabled the German Empire to withstand, practi- cally single-handed, the onslaught of the hordes of a united Europe. The fact is that England realizes only too well that Germany's homogeneous mili- tary governmental system is what stands between her and becoming the dominant commercial power of Europe and which proud position she is per- fectly justified in coveting. For, if it were not for the inconvenient counter- balancing effect of German military power, our naval preponderance would permit of our playing off one country against the other and whilst they were scrambling for the fence we should be gathering in the sovereigns. We are hearing a great deal just at present con- cerning the iniquities of this brutal and tyrannical German militarism, but what about navalism? Has it ever dawned on English people how lu- dicrously inconsistent their abuse of German militarism on land Is, consider- ing the fact that Great Britain's naval- ism aids at playing identically the same game on sea ; also that It is of equally vital importance to the German Em- pire's existence as a great power for her to retain her military supremacy as it is to our existence to retain our naval supremacy. I am fully aware that the German people are convinced that England was the evil genius who caused this war, but I venture to differ with them on that point. There is not the least shadow of a doubt that the British Isles were madly jealous of Germany, and what is more, feared her. They knew that her commerce was on the increase and that her navy was grow- ing stronger year by year, necessitat- ing a proportional Increase in that of theirs and which was already costing them £45,000,000 annually. As it would have been suicidal for her to abandon the race in naval armaments, England was obliged, therefore,- to re- double her efforts in the hope that the German government would either tire of the contest or else go bankrupt, and which was a most probable contingency seeing that, not only had it to meet naval expenses but ever-increasing colossal military ones as well. How- ever, in spite of her heavy naval expen- diture England had no desire to become embroiled herself in a conflict with the Germans, although she may not have been adverse to seeing them hum- bled by other powers. The flirtatious British government had unquestionably whispered many "sweet nothings" into France's loving ear during those early halcyon days of the courtship, and prior to the conclusion of the mysterious "Triple Mgnage." But judging from the lack of martial ardour displayed by MEETING A NEIGHBOR AS A COMPETITOR 51 the British government by not adopt- ing the most trivial and palpable piill- tary precautions commensurate with the foreign policy to which it had com- mitted itself, I think I am justified in declaring that the one prayer it offered daily to Heaven was that no occasion would arise necessitating the fulfill- ment of those promises it had made its mistress. Hence, my contention that we were not the instigators, but invol- untary participators in this upheaval. When the Austro-Servian crisis arose in July, 1914, followed by the Austro- German-Eussian one, the English cab- inet was placed in an appalling di- lemma, and however much Germans may be incensed against us today, those of them who have studied political questions will, I feel sure, agree with me in this. On the one hand, the gov- ernment knew it had guaraiiteed to support France should she be attacked, but what was even worse still, it real- ized that if Russia should again re- ceive an unavenged rebufif on Servia's behalf (she had already received sev- eral since the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria in 1909), the probabilities were that she would sicken of the paralytic and impotent policy of the Triple Entente, and, in consequence, would conclude an inde- pendent agreement with Germany to the serious detriment of British inter- ests in Asia Minor and Persia. But besides all this, there was yet another reason, no less important, which im- pelled the government to adopt the course it did. For ten years that scur- rilous rag and insatiable scavenger, "The Daily Mail," Lord NorthclifEe's personal property and mouthpiece, and supported by its foster brother, the once distinguished "Times," carried on a systematic and ruthless anti-German campaign with a view to terrifying the gullible public and arousing its insen- sate hatred for Germany and all her works! The immediate result of this iniquitous policy was, -that when the European crisis arose in July last, pub- lic opinion in England was already inflamed against the Germans, that however much one government might have wished to do so, it would never have been permitted to draw back at the eleventh hour and leave France to her fate. Had it done so, it would not have remained in office twenty-four hours. But what I am particularly de- sirous of impressing on the German na- tion, is the importance of differentiat- ing in its hatred of England, between the individual Englishman and his press-ridden government. I can assure you. that had the question of war or peace been submitted in the form of a referendum to the people, there would have been an overwhelming ma- jority in favour of peace because none of our working classes wanted war with the Germans, however much they may have been interested in the "Daily Mail's" exciting and sensational nov- elette anti-German jargon. They were simply rushed headlong into heel by their government and its inexorable taskmaster, the prePs. Do not imagine that the mush you vend in our daily newspapers Is th:' true voice of the English nation. The childish and fu- tile abuse which is now being heaped upon Germany comes solely from the pens of that handful of scum of scum of Fleet Street editors, who by their maniacal ravings have succeeded In hypnotizing my compatriots into be- lieving that they abhor Germany and Germans, that the latter are barbari- ans but that the Russians are saints. If, however, the "Daily Mail" suddenly veered around and commenced publish- ing leading articles rigorously decrying the war, and showing what economic and commercial suicide it was, what a baneful effect it would ultimately have on the interests of our working classes and on those of all other coun- tries, and how unnecessary it was, see- ing that prior to the July European crisis, we had no tangible reason what- soever, for quarreling with Germany, the latter would speedUy witness the most startling revulsion of feeling im- aginable against this conflict in Great Britain. Consequently. I maintain that it is the fault of our fespective presses, we are all now murdering each other and are. thereby, retarding our civil- ization by hundreds of years. But the question is : How can peace be once more restored? Unfortunately so long as both Germany and England are both quite convinced that each is certain eventually to smash the other there can be no possible prospect of a speedy settlement. However, those of us Germans and English who have still retained our mental equilibrium and have not allowed the war fever to take too strong a hold upon us, must strive to instil a little common sense into our respective unhappy compatriots. If ever there were an opportunity for the press to prove what a mighty power for good it can be, this is most certainly the moment of all others for doing so. Public opinion today is formed and influenced almost entirely by what the various daily newspapers write ; of what vital importance it is. therefore, that they should, one and all, endeavour to uphold unflinchingly the standard of right or their inter- pretation of it, in as charitable a spirit as possible for those whose opinions differ from theirs and thus, to quiet rather than excite the unreasonable and harmful passions by which the ig- norant masses are swayed. Only by this means it is possible to guide them along the path which is best calculated to lead to the most satis- factory results both for themselves and the good of the whole world. — The "Continental Times," Berlin. THE WAR AND AMERICA. H. B. M. When was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle knighted? Was it after he had written and circulated in Eu- rope his famous pamphlet defending Great Britain in the South African War? Is he writing a similar de- fense for the present occasions? Sir Arthur was knighted in 1902, subsequent to the publication and distribution of the pamphlet to which yoli allude and two years after the appearance of "The Great Boer War." It has been announced in the press that he is now working on a book having to do with the present war. — From the "Questions and An- swers" column in the "New Yorker Staats-Zeitung," November 9, 1914. "And the Lord our God delivered him before us: and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people." New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, New York. Herman Ridder. When so much is being written on every angle of the European war, so much that will serve its purpose of creating a temporary misconception of the aims and ideals of Germany and Austria and then, having lived Its little day in type-metal, will pass into the limbo of the past, a mono- graph on the war from the able pen of Professor Hugo Muensterberg, of Harvard University, is not only time- ly but to those Americans who are striving to maintain a neutral mind and who desire only fair play, ex- ceedingly welcome. It Is not necessary to Introduce Prof. Muensterberg to the reading public in America, or in Europe. For twenty years his pen has been active on both sides of the Atlantic, defending In turn American ideals In Europe and German ideals in Amer- ica. I know of no man, now living, who has sought more consistently or more intelligently to promote a prop- er understanding not alone between Americans and Germans but also be- tween Americans and Europeans in general, including the British peo- ple. The book which Professor Muens- terberg has written on the war, and which Messrs. Appleton will publish today, deals of necessity only with causes and morals. It is free from prophecies and does not even touch on the military operations which have already taken place. Its great value lies in the clearly thought and con- cisely put causes which led up to the outbreak of hostilities, from the point of view of a man of superior intellect and education whose life has been divided nearly equally be- tween Germany and the United States. The spirit which permeates it is that of cold, logical reasoning, which alone, and more especially in times like the present, when the smoke of battle is still In our nos- trils, can be of assistance to those who wish to arrive at the truth. There is no attempt on the author's part to belittle, to slander or to con- done. He has a good word for each of the participants in the struggle. To him there is no immortality in the war. It is as moral a conflict as inevitability could make one. It had been building for many years. In the author's own words: "And yet was ever a war more natural, more unavoidable? It is central Europe's desperate defence against the mighty neighbors of East and West, who have prepared and prepared for the crushing blow to the German nations. This war had to come sooner or later. Russia spent billions to he ready to push the steam roller of its gigantic population over the German frontier. France armed as no civilized nation ever armed be- fore; even the educated had to serve three years in the army against the one year's service in Germany. For decades the French did not allow Germany an hour to rest without ar- mor. 52 THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR "Germany's pacific and industrious population had only the one wish: to develop its agricultural and indus- trial, its cultural and moral re- sources. It had no desire to expand its frontiers over a new square foot of land in Europe. It aimed to un- fold its commerce over the markets of the world and to build up a great national literature and art and sci- ence. It became prosperous and even luxurious. But never did th% neighbors allow Germany a pause in its training of patriotic defenders. The neighbors begrudged this pros- perity of the fatherland which had been weak and poor through cen- turies satisfied with songs and thoughts and dreams. They threat- ened and threatened by ever increas- ing armaments. Germany had to spend a vast part of its material and mental income in a hard preparation for defence." Six nations have cast their lots against Germany and Austria; yet for Prof. Muensterberg there is but one war — the war between Russia and Germany. A native of Danzig, reared under the shadow of the Russian ad- vance, he speaks with the voice of one who knows. The Slavic peril Is for him the one great fact which stands out, clear-cut and unmistak- able, among the varied dangers which are now threatening the German people. "All other nations are in a hurry, Russia has time; all others econo- mize with men, Russia can waste and waste and will always grow. All other nations have wavered in their enterprises, Russia remains unswerv- ingly loyal to its aim of world con- trol. Russia has seen reverses which would have crushed any weaker na- tion; defeats in Turkey, defeats in Asia; she hardly felt them. The clumsy bear withdrew his heavy paw for a while to put it forth with tre- mendous power at another spot. Rus- sia is the one nation on earth which is invincible." And yet Prof. Muensterberg has not one harsh word for this perpetual eternal, invincible foe of Germany. She, too, is moving in channels dredged for her by first causes. The meaning of Russian domination is not overlooked, however. "The Slavic world is full of deep melan- choly beauty, of devoted loyalty, of religious democracy, of sincere ideal- ism," but — "the Russian life is one of cultural inefficiency, a life from which no true inner progress may be hoped." The, diplomatic incidents which preceded the open declaration of war are condensed and reviewed in a spirit of broad non-partisanship. The conclusions at which the author ar- rives are those of every intelligent and unbiased reader of the corre- spondence which has been made pub- lic. The murder of the Archduke of Austria brought to a head the ma- chinations of the Pan-Slavs not alone in Servia but in the southern prov- inces of Austria-Hungary, and de- manded the ultimatum sent by Vi- enna to Belgrade. "Belgrade was willing to yield completely to its great neighbor, but at noontime of the day on which the ultimatum was to end, a cipher tele- gram from Petersburg arrived, and the message of the Russian govern- ment to the Servian reversed the mood of the little kingdom. The bellicose Servian Crown Prince, standing in his automobile, drove jubilantly through the excited crowds on the streets, and a few hours later a refusal was sent to Vienna which could mean nothing but war. The Czar had instigated it and was con- sistent: the Russian empire was to back little Servia against its foes." The immediate order which fol- lowed the mobilization of the Russian army, and which was carried out un- swervingly in the face of repeated protests and entreaties from the Ger- man Emperor, was the real declara- tion of war. If the Emperor erred at all, he erred in not meeting the challenge of Russia sooner. The part played by England in this "cosmic catastrophe" is so over- shadowed in Prof. Muensterberg's mind by that of the Russian danger, that little space is given to it. And perhaps rightly so in a work from the pen of a philosopher. The Rus- sian danger is racial and cultural, the British economic and commercial. The Russianization of Germany, or of an essential part of it, would mean the turning back of the hands on the clock of cultural progress not alone for Germany but for all Eu- rope and the whole world — the achievement of British aims would mean no more than a temporary eco- nomic set-back which in time the inner virility of the German people might be looked to recoup. There are not wanting those, however, who see behind the "clumsy bear" of Rus- sia the work of Britain's far-reaching diplomacy, and feel that as the in- stigator and abettor of the Russian advance. Great Britain demands more attention than is generally ac- corded her. The entrance into the war of England is condoned on the grounds of national expediency. There is no bitterness expressed on account of race treachery. "The whole idea of race obliga- tion and race treachery is a con- struction which has never really been accepted by the political powers of the world . . .There cannot be a more unlike racial companionship than England, Russia, France, Servia and Japan, and yet the whole history of mankind justifies the welding to- gether of strange elements. The cousinship of Germans and English- men is no political tie." That England, while committing no crime, has "committed a great historical blunder" is clear to the author, however. "But will England pluck the fruits for which it reaches out its hand even if Germany is crushed? The German defeat will satisfy the longr Ing of France without strengthening it strategically, but it will immense- ly strengthen the Slavic nations. Rus- sia will be the great winner, and the new strength of Russia will be the real danger to the British Empire, which will be weakened anyhow by the exhausting war. Russia will at once push forward in Asia; India will be liberated, and if India secures Its independence, Canada and Aus- tralia will be lost. If the German dam against the Russian-Servian flood is broken, twenty years later the area of the British Empire will be pitifully small." The inconsistency of the Anglo- phile element in the American press is alluded to, and explained on the basis of "the psychology of the crowd." A year ago, on the occasion of the celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the inception of the present German Emperor's reign of unbroken peace, it lauded Germany and its Emperor to the skies. Today there is nothing too wild, too imag- inative, too ridiculous and untrue to ascribe to the aims and ideals of both. The German cables were cut at the beginning of the war and the American press Was flooded with anti-German reports colored by the enemy. Acting on first impulses and first "news," the campaign of vilifi- cation was set in motion and it is only now, when the truth is begin- ning to come in from Germany, that the better element among the Amer- ican papers is returning to the nor- mal. The writings of H. G. Wells, for England, Henri Bergson, for Prance, and Dr. Charles W. Eliot, for the United States, are disposed of by dignified controversion — those of the petty "penny-a-liners," who have turned their pens alike against Ger- many and the truth, by an expres- sion of poorly veiled contempt. "They are hardly conscious lies; they are the hysteric illusions of over-excited brains. The bystanders are really convinced that they saw the horrible ferocities. I fancy Richard Harding Davis believed sin- cerely that he actually saw those wild impossibilities with which his reports are bristling. There is not a line in the two hun- dred and ten pages which make up "The War, and America" which will not repay reading. They are pages pleasantly written but nevertheless calmly thought out and concisely put. As a contribution to the literature of the present war and to the philos- ophy of war in general, their place is assured. In the concluding chap- ter, on "The Morals of the War," the reader will find in the suggestion of a novel basis for world peace, "cos- mochorism," food for new thought and perhaps the solution of the ques- tion now uppermost in all American minds: Why is war? When will the necessity for It cease to be? FOREIGN CHARITY AND NATIVE WAGES. From "The Chicago Tribune," No- vember 14, 1914. Clinton, la., Nov. 12. — [Editor of "The Tribune."] — Will some gentle- man kindly explain to the writer through the columns of "The Trib- une" why some people "sincerely trust" that $5,000,000 of America's money be sent abroad to help the needy, and kick like Texas steers if they have to pay living wages for American skilled labor? H. F. S. MEETING A NEIGHBOR AS A COMPETITOR 53- A GERMAN MENACE. A letter written to the Chicago "Tribune" in, reply to an article on the German Menace to Great Britain — Its Rising -Navy. — By the Editor o/ "War Echoes^' The Editor in iChief, The Tribxiiie, Chicago, 111. Dear Sir: I am frankly and honestly a Ger- man sympathizer in thepresent Euro- pean conflict, and, no , doubt, pri- marily so, because of my deep-seated conviction of the justice of the Ger- man-Austrian cause, and, conse- quently, I have an abiding faith in them. To be sure the Historian will some day settle this question to the satisfaction of most enlightened and disciplined people, settling their cause in its true light. And not un- til this is done, and until we refuse to hear a verdict with but a part of the evidence and only some of the witnesses in the case, shall I lose faith in a country that bears the reputation aiid character of that of Germany. It is simply faith based on knowl- edge. It is fact and truth. It is certainly the more abiding thing we have to judge by; this spiritual, intellectual, and practical Germany is universally acknowledged where people have not been too much con- cerned with fear, prejudice, jealousy, revenge, ambition, etc. Can it pos- sibly fail to appeal to us that we are dealing with a situation created by Germany's bitterest enemies? I venture to predict that Germany will retain her abiding character, in spite of all the abuse, vilification and slander heaped upon her in this crisis. Be not deceived; History shows that strength, character and courage are made in such trying times. But the thing created by the passions of man against her, un- justly, will pass away, with traces of guilt and contrition, let us hope, from the guilty. I am indeed gratified for the let- ters appearing under "Voice of the People," for it is precisely the want of such a Forum in the popular press, publishing overwhelming material from England and her Allies, while their enemies have been shut out from the world, that I am ready to make any possible sacrifice to de- fend Germany. For the press It simply spells BUSINESS. Could Germany and Austria assure us im- mediate and ultimate financial gain by boosting her, she would get the support. I have been told that Ger- many lacked practical wisdom by re- futing to spend several millions to this end, that she will have to pay it anyway, and that in an infinitely harder way, by much suffering and making additional human sacrifices for the sale of ideals and patriotism, than she would have been obliged to sacrifice by the every-day practise of bribing, such as is common even in our very households; why then cher- ish high ideals In regard to how we may "get there" in relations with our neighbor nations. To defend her, not so much in her claims, though I feel that I have just reason to have more faith in their claims than in those of her enemies, but as against the claims of her ene- mies. From the very first of the conflict I have had a genuine reluc- tance to mete out in the same kind, style and measure in Which it was meted out by the Anti-German press the world over. This has had one inevitable result; nine out of every ten responsible persons we meet, who have any interest in the conflict at all, are still harping the echoes of the first impressions, made upon them by the Allies literature: now it is "German Militarism," now "Prussian Militarism;" it is "German Conceit" and "German Culture." We could stand their "Kultur" if we would never see it or hear of it, but "to choke it down our throats," that is what we object to. Then it is the "Militarism Supreme," the "Autocrat Kaiser," the "degenerate Crown Prince," and so forth without end. But one thing is certain that we have not been honest and fair, for it is evident that we have not availed our- selves of the many, most excellent articles on these and many similar questions by a number of American writers of character, learning and spirit unquestioned. Are we ac- quainted, for instance, with such men as Dr. John W. Burgess, Dr. Benjamin Ide Wheeler, Hon. Peter S. Grosscup, Dr. George Stuart Ful- lerton. Dr. F. Westfall Thompson, Dr. Ferdinand Schevill, Dr. Herbert Sanborn and many others, whose non-German names will indicate that they are not defending Germany from sentiment alone. Have we who have so much to say about German sins and crime, read and digested what these great American scholars have to say to this? Now, as voiced by your recent cor- respondent in this department, Mr. Owen Howard Owen, we finally have also to hear of the "German Naval Menace." To be more exact, in speaking of Germany, Mr. Owen de- clares that "if they could prove that the German Naval program was not a distinct MENACE to Great Britain" (Tribune, March 22, Voice of the People). Now, Mr. Owen, honor bright, as man to man, why should Germany be obliged to make a con- fession on this point? If she said it is to protect our growing com- merce, they would give her the lie; if she said, straightforwardly, with her customary candor and frankness (where the (jerman philosopher has no doubt been at fault for the non- Teutonic world) that this navy is to protect us against our neighbors in case of war, they would brand her with "Ambition," "World Emperor- ism," "Menace," etc. I cannot see why Germany should have to explain her conduct in this particular at all. Did England make apologies for her growing navy? Do you, Mr. Owen, make apologies to your competitor when you strip him in honest business and other competition? Or, if your competitor should think you "a menace" to him in your prospering business? X trust I have heard the last such unreasonable objections. I would let such statements pass alto- gether if it were not that the unrea- soning masses swallow in a most pathetic manner everything they hear and see; then they try to digest it as best they can — since it is spoken of the unpopular element among us to the popular. Give us this day our daily sensation and some poor, devils at war to lie about. You observe, Mr. Owen, that I fail to see the logic of speaking of a "German Naval Menace" inasmuch as Germany has never had more than half of the British naval force, that is, in the number of ships, their man- ning, and the money invested. This fact ought, also, by the way, settle that question of "Militarism." Brit- ish Navalism, of course, is not "Mili- tarism." And now, through British maneuvering, since the opening of the war, Germany is easily opposed in the present naval warfare, by five to one in the number of ships, and by even more in the cost of their equipment. Is it, Mr. Owen, that the British Em- pire realized that the German Navy would be more than a match for them in case of war? If this is the" case and especially so, in the light of the part that Great Britain played in getting into the slaughter-game to cripple an honest competition, when she had as good a chance to make a military showing as she might ever expect to have again, that is while other nations would be sure to do the bulk of the fighting — -then she ought to be defeated. The idea was this, that the com- bination of naval and land forces of the Allies would be irresistible; alone or with one power she would not have had a ghost of a show to force her will among nations. It must not be overlooked, moreover, that England was in as good a position, both from point of view of influence, and honor at stake, to prevent the war by sim- ply putting her finger on Russia — yes, and Prance and Belgium — and say that she would. not back Russia up in her interests in the Serbian- Balkan policy. I wish somebody would point out to me where Eng- land had more at stake, both in hon- or and other national interests, than Germany. Hence, why could she not have honorably done this? Is a small man a menace to a large man simply because the small man de- velops to the utmost? Why should we expect the small man to make ex- planations and apologies for the de- velopment of his powers? You say he might some day give me a thrash- ing. But are we so certain that the big fellow ought not to have a thrash- ing, that the little fellow has a weaker cause just because he has come into the limelight? Any way you wish to take it, Mr. Owen, I fail to see the point ; and have you not observed how this "Menace," the Ger- man Fleet, has been utterly incapable of protecting the German commerce, for which purpose it was called into existence? We were not called into existence, primarily to fight, but to be happy in constructive work and yet I see a VIRTUE in using force at times. And so the German Navy does not be- come a menace, even if It finds duties other than protecting German com,^ merce. Or, don't you trouble your- self in trying to see the other fel- 54- THE VITAL CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR low's situation, Mr. Owen? Can we not even see so simple a point? Is it because of our selfishness or what? Did Great Britain really expect the world to come to her assistance, to defend her against Germany in case of war? If you will recognize a menace when you see one, Mr. Owen, behold Russia mobilizing, egged on by France and Great Britain; here you have a real cause for a declara- tion of war and they got it. Russia succeeded in becoming a real menace to Germany, but by this trick alone. Can you show me that England and France are not also guilty of this? Is Germany not guilty with Austria, if the Austrian-Balkan policy is repre- hensible? And, mind you, this Balk- an question, ultimately the real issue, was of no primary concern to Great Britain, perhaps not to France even. I would ask: Is it Germany's fault that her fleet of about one-fifth the size and number of ships and of about one-sixth the cost of the Allied fleets is yet "a menace" to them? , If this is your real meaning, Mr. Owen, then I say it serves them right that they are facing a menace. Is a man a menace simply because he is capa- ble of holding his own and protect- ing his home, his all, against three or four who have plotted "to get him"? Or, are Germans a menace be- cause they are intelligent, industri- ous and serious in the tasks of life? I would not be surprised if a fur- ther complaint were lodged against Germany because she is getting more effective results with her fifty sub- marines than all her enemies com- bined with five times that number? Hence, next, the Submarine Menace. Oh, yes, the submarine is "a menace" too, because of its efficiency. And here we come to the crux of the whole controversy about Germany and her enemies — Efficiency, "Made in Ger- many." We cannot compete with you, Germany, and so you must be crushed. But there is no end to this. It is common knowledge that Ger- many has made more of her native as well as created resources, when taken together, than perhaps any other peo- ple. Why should that be a menace? Why should it be a menace to be able to read and write, to think hard, rea- son, take discipline, learn to obey, command and serve? Why should it be a menace to be able to make a better article and sell it cheaper than some one else can do? No, competi- tion along these lines is too hard and takes too long; it is too laborious, for England impossible. There was one idea with France and Great Brit- ain in this competition problem: the "Bear" must save us. We shall settle this question in quite a unique and original fashion. We know how to unite the "Gordian Knot." When speaking of menaces, I have often observed that "the menace" is very frequently well named. You could easily show and that with ex- cellent reason, how the British navy has been and still is a menace. Con- sult Washington, for example, at present. Consult the spirit of Wash- ington and Lincoln. Consult the American archives from 1800 to 1812. Nor need we go outside of our own country to settle this question, Mr. Owen. But this philosophizing is a mighty slow and inexpedient busi- ness, hence the war; it is certainly not Germany's fault if not enough philosophizing was done. You, Mr. Owen, and your sympathizers in this connection may console yourselves with the thought that he who would rise and maintain his position honor- ably, nobly and in righteousness must pay the price, must win his spurs, just as Spain, France, England in turn, had done. They all have passed through these critical moments. They ought to know upon what their laws and morals are written. You may console yourselves, moreover, in the fact that the literature writ- ten against the menace of the British navy will make interesting reading to you all in times of trouble. It Is quite possible, too, that you could not take this record seriously, as Great Britain may have been the Chosen People, in your eyes, to enjoy the privilege of a large navy alone, and by virtue of "Divine Right." Of course, it is a heinous crime for the Turk or the Jap to cherish such an ambition. Yes, even for our kin, the Germans. Has not our own Secretary of State clearly implied in his recent analysis of cases coming under inter- national law that Great Britain is getting the better of it at sea in the present conflict, not by any illegal act, but by sheer virtue of posession is 99 per cent of the law "she can get away with it" in every day slang. The implication is clear and sim- ple. German sympathizers may re- gret it and other sympathizers may congratulate themselves, secretly, for the good fortune, but what are we going to do about it? You see we all face the same law, and there it is hard and fast. It certainly does not take a bright man to see the great realm of human endeavor that lies between the "Letter of the Law" and the "Spirit of the Law" within which latitude we might commit plenty that were questionable and wrong if the shoe were on the other foot, but a region within which we may steer safely to the harbor of temporary success. Just let unfor- tunate Spain or Japan do one-half what Great Britain has done, even in the present crisis and you will see another type of neutrality and even getting away around the law. Why in the case of the Maine, we did not even wait to investigate. The offense rests so much in the offender; it grows so much out of our feelings in relation to the offender. I find this an opportune time, also, to say what I have often said in this connection, and what to the best of my knowledge thousands of good and able sympathizers all over this coun- try have been saying; let us set our- selves the noble task of clearing up misconceptions, too hastily formed by the helpless innocent, who do not think for themselves; let us neu- tralize the venom and poison sent into the minds and hearts of millions of innocent Americans by the enemies of Germany. We can also prevent the still further evitable damage that would be done by inflammatory writers by inspiring leaders to a manly and womanly dignity, to speak evil of no man and to cultivate an insatiable thirst for facts, truths, fair play, and above all, for us Americans to be neutral in Spirit as well as Word — in this task America always first, we may not dare or do too much. Sincerely yours. Hotel Holland. Chicago, 111. Further Evidence of the Work of the War Makers TWO EXTREME VIEWS. Editorial from "The DaUy News," Chicago, November 10, 1914. Mr. Roosevelt is indignant because the United States has not taken ag- gressive steps on behalf of Belgium. He does not go the length of saying in so many words that we should have declared war on Germany, but many persons will think they dis- cover this to be his meaning on read- ing the sixth of his papers on the war appearing in The Daily News. Although this country is not one of the signatories to the two long stand- ing treaties which guarantee Bel- gium's neutrality, the ex-president is of the opinion that our participation in The Hague conventions obligates us to take cognizance of any infrac- tion of those stipulations. It is on this ground that he declares the present administration has failed in its duty. The United States is called upon as a "trustee of civilization," Mr Roose- velt thinks, to investigate all the charges made against Germany. "If such an investigation is made," he writes, "and if the charges prove well founded, then it is the duty of the United States to take whatever action may be necessary to vindicate the principles of international law set forth in these [The Hague] conven- tions." This is vague, though forceful. Apparently, it points down the red pathway of war. While Mr. Roosevelt is crying out for direct interference by the United States in European affairs, it is in- teresting to discover how far peace advocates will allow themselves to go in the other direction. Writing in the current number of the North American Review, Prof. Phelps of Yale shows how easy it is for well meaning persons to become extrem- ists in their enthusiasm for a cause. In the course of his appeal for peace Prof. Phelps exclaims: "Would it not be fine in the future if the United States of America should make some actual sacrifice to prevent war? Would it not be splendid if we actu- ally sustained insults and material damage from some other country and did not fight?" MEETING A NEIGHBOR AS A COMPETITOR 55 lilBEBAIiS PliEAD FOB CO- OPERATION. lieaders Object to British Policy Which Preceded the Present War Encouraged by Great Britain. Prominent members of the Liberal organization are taking measures to direct public policy toward the re- form of European methods of shap- ing the destinies of the various na- tions. It is the purpose of these leaders to carry on a vigorous cam- paign, in which their plans will be outlined and the thinking public urged to co-oprate. The following letter to the London "Morning Post" has been sent broadcast as the fore- runner of the movement for govern- mental reform: "There are many thousands of people in the country who are pro- foundly dissatisfied with the general course of policy which preceded the war. They are feeling that a divid- ing point has come in national his- tory; that the old traditions of secret and class diplomacy, the old control of foreign policy by a narrow clique and the power of the armament organizations have got henceforth to be combated by a great, conscien- tious and well directed effort of the democracy. "We are anxious to take the meas- ures which may focus this feeling and help to direct public policy on broad lines which may build up on a more secure and permanent foun- dation the hopes which have been shattered for our generation in the last month. The objects we have in view are: "First. — To secure real parlia- mentary control over foreign policy and to prevent it being again shaped in secret and forced upon the country as an accomplished fact. "Second. — ^When peace returns to open direct and deliberate negotia- tions with the democratic parties and influences on the continent, so as to form an international understanding depending on popular parties rather than on governments. "Third. — To aim at securing such terms that this war will not, either through the humiliation of the de- feated nation or an artificial rear- rangement of frontiers, merely be- come the starting point for new na- tional antagonisms and future wars. When the time is ripe for it, but not before the country is secure from danger, meetings will be organized and speakers provided. But the im- mediate need is, in our opinion, to prepare for the issue of books, pamphlets and leaflets dealing with the course of recent policy and sug- gesting the lines of action for the future. Measures are being taken to prepare these at once, and they will be ready for publication when the proper opportunity occurs. For this we shall be glad of any subscrip- tion which you can spare and would like to know if you are willing to support us in this effort in order that we may communicate with you as occasion arises. "There may be other ways in which voluntary help may be of value. We shall be glad of the names and addresses of any of your friends who you think are likely to share the views expressed in this letter." The foregoing communication bears the signatures of B. Ramsay MacDonald, Charles Trevelyan, Nor- man Angeli and E. D. Bord, who will have direct charge of the campaign. — Reprinted from the "News of the War in Europe," supplied by "The Fatherland," New York. THE BRITISH AND GERMAN WHITE PAPERS. HORNET STINGS. From "The Hornet," Chicago, Octo- ber 15, 1914. Did you notice the fragrant bou- quets which the French and British army commanders are lately throw- ing at each other? General French is simply de-lighted about the dash and bravery of Jean Crapaud and Joffre is just tickled about the mag- nificent courage of Tommy Atkins. It reminds one of two boys whistling as they pass a graveyard after dark. They are trying to keep up their courage. * * * (From an Editorial in "The Boston Herald," Aug. 28, 1914.) Occasionally the public interest to be served by the distribution of a pamphlet is so great that the news- papers owe it all the free advertis- ing they can give. Such is the case with the full text of the White Pa- per of the British Foreign Office and the memorandum issued by the Ger- man Government, which the New York "Times" has brought out in pamphlet form and is selling at ten cents. Everybody who wishes to form a coherent and unprejudiced opinion of the relations of the two great powers — Great Britain and Germany — should read the diplomatic corre- spondence. And no one who fails to do so has longer any intellectual right to express a cocksure opinion on the struggle. Here is a body of evidence of the most substantial char- acter. It deserves the attention of every thoughtful citizen. Up to date nothing has thrown such a clear white light on the sources of the present desperate calamity as the full text of the diplomatic correspond- ence of the two powers, in whose leadership a large share of the civ- ilization of the world rests. How deficient is our English lan- guage when It comes to describing colors! Thus we all remember Rich- ard Harding Davis' wonderful de- scription of the almost invisible "gray" uniforms of the Germans, which so melted into the landscape that they could hardly be seen, ex- cept as a mist, across a city square, while from St. Louis comes a dis- patch that says: "A British agent who is buying 10,000 horses and mules in Missouri is rejecting gray ones. He says they can be seen far- ther than animals of any other color." — From "The Boston Globe," September 9, 1914. SECOND CHAPTER UNFORTUNATE BELGIUM PROCLAIMING A VIRTUE LONG SINCE SURRENDERED BELGIAN NEUTRALITY A MYTH GERMANY AND THE TRIPLE ENTENTE THEIR BELGIAN POLICY Their Position and Consequent Attitude in regard to the Future of Belgium Belgium Co-operates with France and England Against Germany In Consequence Belgium Loses her Neutrality ■ THE GERMAN GEOGRAPHIC POSITION HER CONSEQUENT ATTITUDE BEFORE THE WAR AND NOW Germany's Honorable Proposal to Belgium Even after Belgium's Secret Dealing with the Entente Evidence of these Secret Negotiations — Meaning Trouble for Germany Great Britain, France, Belgium THE NON-TEUTONIC NATIONS OF EUROPE THE CASE OF BELGIUM AND THE OTHER NATIONS The Interesting Position of the Teutonic Nations in this Great World Conflict The Deeper Meaning of the Alignment of Nations at War THE ENGLISH-FRENCH-BELGIAN POSITION THEIR CONSEQUENT ATTITUDE The Popular Notion that there was a Neutrahty to Violate That the Entente were Duty-bound to Protect Belgium in This Sham Neutrality BELGIAN NEUTRALITY— ITS REAL MEANING A "SCRAP OF PAPER" What the German Chancellor meant by thus describing the Belgium Neutrality Guarantee INTRODUCTION BELGIAN NEUTBAIilTY — ITS REAL, MEANING. The Vital Issue. EDITOR'S NOTE: This article by Professor John W. Burgess was released to the press of this great country two weeks ago. Which newspaper printed it? If our readers will give us the name of the paper in which it appeared before this copy of the "Vital Issue" goes to press we would be glad to give them credit for their sense of honor and fairness.* Is it not strange that a special paper has to be founded to print such material as is contained in our magazine? In spite of the im- mense difficulties this paper will con- tinue to throw a true light on the present European crisis. BY PROFESSOR JOHN W. BUR- GESS. Of Columbia University, New York. So much has been said about "Bel- gian Neutrality," so much assumed, and it has been spoken of as such a sacred thing, that it may be well to examine the basis of it and get an exact idea of its scope. It is not a moral question. It is a question of truth. It is a question purely of in- *The "Milwaukee Free Press" printed this article of Professor Bur- gess under the heading of "What Belgian Neutrality Really Means," on its editorial page of October 13, 1914. Read also the paragraphs headed: "The Case of Belgium," in the article by Professor John W. Burgess, entitled, "Why I Champion Germany," and also article entitled: "Has Germany Vio- lated Belgian Neutrality," both of which important papers have been re- printed elsewhere in this book. — Editor, War Echoes. DOCTOR JOHN W. BURGESS ternational agreement and we must find for it such an agreement and the agreement must not have been abrogated nor have become, by change of conditions, obsolete. Of course by the term "Belgian neu- trality" is meant guaranteed neutral- ity, not simply the "general neutral- ity of all states not at war" at a time when other states are at war. On the 19th day of April, 1839, Belgium and Holland, which had from 1815 to 1830 formed the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, signed a treaty of separation from, and independence of, each other. It is in this treaty that the original pledge of Belgian neutrality is to be found. The clause in the treaty reads: "Belgium in the limits above described shall form an independent neutral state and shall be bound to observe the sBme neutrality towards aU other states." On the same day and at the same place, London, a treaty, known in the history of di- plomacy as the "Quintuple Treaty," was signed by Great Britain, Prance, Prussia, Austria and Russia, approv- ing and adopting the treaty between Belgium and Holland. A little later. May 11th, the German Confederation, of which both Prussia and Austria were states, also ratified this treaty. In the year 186 6 the German Con- federation was dissolved by the short war between Prussia and Austria. In 1867 the "North German Union" was formed, of which Prussia was the largest state. Did these changes abrogate the guarantee of the Treaty of 1839, or make it obsolete? The test of this came in the year 1870, at the begin- ning of hostilities between France and the North German Union. Great Britain, the power most interested in the maintenance of Belgian neutral- ity, seems to have had considerable apprehension about it. Mr. Glad- stone, then Prime Minister, said in the House of Commons on the 2nd of August, 1870: "I am not able to subscribe to the doctrine of those who have held in this House what plainly amounts to an assertion that the simple fact of the existence of a guarantee is binding on every party to it, irrespective altogether of the particular position in which it may find itself at the time when the oc- casion for acting on the guarantee arises." Acting on this view, the British government then sought and procured from the French government, and from the government of the North German Union separate but identical treaties, ratified on the 9th and 26th of August, 1870, respectively, guar- anteeing the neutrality of Belgium during the period of the war be- tween France and the North German Union (the so-caUed Franco-Prussian war) , which had just broken out, and for one year from the date of its close. In these treaties Great Brit- ain limited the possible operation of her military forces in maintaining the neutrality of Belgium to the territory of the state of Belgium. These treaties expired in the year 1872, and the present German Em- pire has never signed any treaty guaranteeing the neutrality of Bel- gium. If the Treaty of 1839 had be- come so unreliable in 1870 as to re- quire, in the opinion of the British government, the new treaties of 1870 in order to make sure of the guar- antee of Belgian neutrality, what shall we say about it in 1914, 42 years after these treaties of 1870 have expired, and after the North German Union, which was party to them, has given way to the present German Empire? Finally, The Hague Conference of 1907 drafted a convention which reads: 60 THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM' "The territory of neutral powers is Inviolable. Belligerents are forbid- den to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral power." Great Britain, Germany, Austria- Hungary and Italy refused to sign it and did not sign it. Russia was not represented. Perhaps we may now somewhat more clearly understand, why the German Chancellor referred to the guarantee of Belgian neutrality as a "scrap of paper." At any rate, these facts, taken together with the facts that- Great Britain refused to pledge her own neutrality In the present war even on tke condition that Germany would agree not to move her troops through Belgium and not to attack the north coast of France, and declined to formulate any conditions upon w^hich she would remain neutral, clearly reduce Eng- land's much vaunted altruistic rea- son for entering upon this war to a diplomatic subterfuge. JOHN W. BURGESS. Athenwood, Newport, R. I., Septem- ber 11, 1914. 'SOME BBAIi NEWS." Editorial from "The Vital Issue," New York, October 10, 1914. We believe our readers and the un- told millions of sympathizers of Ger- many will surely consider it a treat to read the many interesting articles which appear in the present copy of "The Vital Issue." The article by Professor Burgess proves so convincingly that somebody has lied about the Belgian Neutrality Question. Will the British Govern- ment sit up and take notice of "The Vital Issue?" We think it will. It will be much upset by now reading the true facts about this Belgian is- sue, instead of seeing their lies con- tinually reprinted by American news- papers. More discoveries will follow. We will catch them again. With these new facts at hand, the statement Issued by Sir Edward Gos- chen, the then Ambassador to Ger- many, loses almost its entire force. Perhaps, it even does him an injury, because the statement issued by him is absolutely misleading, not to use stronger terms. However, he may not have been acquainted with the Btatus quo of the Belgian situation. and we will therefore be charitably Inclined and attribute his statement to a lack of knowledge rather than to malice. Inasmuch as Sir Edward Goschen's statement formed a part of the British White Paper, It becomes evident that the British White Paper loses in Importance and trustworthi- ness. Many editors will no doubt regret that they have been so Imposed upon and that they have innocently fallen to be a victim to the British wiles. Innocently, these editors have stirred up hatred against a friendly country. Let them beware in the future of British lies and British systematic se- cret work. Berlin's comment on the advance southeast of Verdun corroborates a French report of yesterday. Of the German claims of advance there is nothing from Paris except the vague remarks that the Kaiser's troops are in a strong position. However, siiice the war started, Berlin has made no claims which have not been proved later. When the German war oflSce has nothing favorable to report, it simply issues no report. — From the "Chicago Examiner," September 27, 1914. Making a Fuss over a Virtue long since Surrendered Belgian Neutrality a Myth BEIiGIAN NEUXBAMTY. New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, New York. Herman Kidder. So much has been written about the breach of Belgium's neutrality that I shall say a few words on the German side of this question. A spe- cial treaty provided for "Belgian neu- trality during warfare." England, France and Germany agreed to it. For many years past Prance has, in a measure violated the neutrality of Belgium by assisting that country in building the fortresses on the German frontier. The details of the fortifica- tions of Lifege and Namur were partly worked out by the French General Staff, giving them a decided military advantage over Germany. As far as we can learn from German sources, preceding the outbreak of hos- tilities, French officers. In larger num- bers than ordinarily, were active In Belgium. It is certain, at any rate, that the French had made extensive preparations in Belgian territory for the eventuality of a war with Germany. Not to take account of these prepa- rations would have been folly and sui- cide on Germany's part. More than this, the erection in Bel- gium of a series of great fortifications does not appeal to the unbiased mind as an act of pure Belgian initiation and violation. Neutralized as her territory Is by a European convention, what necessity could have prompted her to these steps? The answer must be sought not in Belgium but in Paris. The fortress of Lifege and Namur were designed for defense again Germany, but where are the fortresses to Insure the Belglun frontier against France? Germany requested Belgium to allow the transfer of German troops In Ger- man railroad cars over the Belgian lines. The bulk of Belgian traffic In times of peace is carried on in German cars, there being a tremendous through traffic of German goods. Germany of- fered to pay for these facilities and to pay for anything else that it might use at Belgium's own price, to put in order again anything that was destroyed and to guarantee the integrity of the terri- tory of Belgium In the fullest measure. This offer was not accepted and the simple law of self-preservation forced Germany to Its subsequent steps. As matters have turned out it would have been the part of wisdom of Belgium to have accepted the proposition of Ger- many. It was furthermore, increas- ingly clear to the German government that England wanted to keep its hands free to join the fray whenever the time seemed favorable. The consideration of the opportune moment and nothing else, has been the reason why skilful Eng- lish diplomacy, although we have only the English "White Paper" to go by, emphasized the Belgian neutrality In the final dealings, to the exclusion of almost everything else. England knew well, that Germany "in defence"' would quickly turn "to attack" ; that a man or a nation, fight- ing for its life, must anticipate the enemy's move and not wait for it. In view of the French activities in Bel- gium during times of peace, it was reasonable for Germany to assume that Prance would not hesitate to violate the neutrality in times of war. It was essentially a measure of defense on the part of Germany, and as the results show, an important part in the general strategy of the war. England never objected to France overseeing the military policy of Bel- gium. Would England have warred on France If France had violated Bel- gium's neutrality in actual warfare? Is there anything In the "White Paper" to indicate that England applied the same hypocritical morality to France and Russia which It adopted towards Ger- many? Do we find any sharp English comment on the embargo placed on a German wheat shipment to Belgium previous to the outbreak of hostilities? Belgium was a convenient excuse, a very flimsy one at that, of English diplomatic hypocrisy. Perflde Albion! It would be well for we Americans, before rashly condemning Germany, to recall the many emergencies we had to meet in connection with the Panama Canal. We took the larger view of the situation and overlooked the technical- ities. The United States, Columbia, Panama, and the Hay-Pauncefote treaties present many analogies with the Belgian situation. The men who were intrusted with the safeguarding of Germany were actuated by a high consciousness of their mobilizations towards Germany. However imperative from a purely military point of view, the passage through Belgium may have been. It was undertaken with the greatest re- luctance and with every desire to avoid friction. The Belgian resistance is one of the most regrettable features of the war. BELGIAN NEUTRALITY A MYTH AND A SNARE 61 FURTHERING GERMAN "KULTUR" German OflBcers give Instructions in a School In Brussels (By Courtesy of the "Chicago Abendpost") BELGIUM'S CHANGE OP POLICX. Translation of Editorial Which Ap- peared in German in the "Illinois Staats-Zeitung," Cliicago, September 9, f914. The latter part of June, 1908, or more than six years ago, an article appeared in the Antwerp Matin, which read thus: "Belgium recog- nizes the value of Germany's constant mode of dealing governed as it is by a spirit of loyalty ; Germany wants no foreign property, and impressed with a regard for the rights of na- tions, would not impose on a weaker nation. England, according to U. S. Senator Harrison, has cast a longing eye on Belgian Congo, which lies be- tween English possessions and for that reason is an obstacle in the building of the railroad from the Cape to Cairo. She wants to wipe out the Congo as she did the Trans- vaal and Orange Free State and with this object began a campaign of def- amation, describing the Belgians as corrupt and cruel colonizers. If in the pursuit of her selfish policy Eng- land should be the cause of any more difficulties, we will be forced to talce the initiative and appeal to the states that took the place of god-father at the baptism of the Belgian kingdom, and ask them to decide, whether or not we had violated the articles of the Treaty of Berlin and sinned against civilization. Then with the mighty aid of Germany, on which we rely as we do also on the justice of our cause, righteousness will gain a victory over a policy, the brigandish aim of which is only too apparent." The Brussels "L'gtoile Beige," a paper that is entirely influenced by Parisian baiters, designated the above article as an excellent essay. Six years ago then Germany, in the eyes of the Belgian people, was the guardian of the rights and peace of nations. England on the other hand, the agent of a piratical policy. Has even the slightest evidence been fur- nished of German's intention of a similar policy as that England is charged with by the Belgians? No, indeed. The only increase, during this time, in German's colonial pos- sessions was a stretch in French Congo, and the Belgians well acquainted with the character of the backwoods in their own African colony, are best able to conceive that only a desire to keep peace could have induced Germany to accept this swamp and fever-ridden district in exchange for her claims on Morocco. Now when the imperial govern- ment in the early days of August solemnly assured the Belgian govern- ment that it had no intention of seizing Belgian territory and added that it would at the close of hostili- ties with France immediately with- draw all its troops from Belgian soil and make full reparation for any damage done, Belgium had no cause to doubt these assurances. The fact is, that Belgium which in the mean- time had completely succumbed to British and French influence in case of war was to figure as an ally of these powers, and by pretending to uphold their neutrality, aid in veiling the extensive strategic plans of the French military. The tales of the violation of Belgian neutrality by Germany, of the disregard and in- fringement of the rights of nations shown by this same Germany, of the desperate struggle of the Belgian's against suppression, should finally disappear from the columns of Amer- ican newspapers. Germany has hun- dreds of witnesses to testify that on the eve of August 1st, the railway station at Exquelinnes had already been occupied by French troops. Even those, whose fanatical hatred of Germany would not admit that an alliance between Brussels, Paris and London existed, must confess that this was undoubtedly a violation of Belgium's neutrality by the French. Although King Albert made no attempt to call on Germany, one of the Treaty powers for protection in this war, in addition to Servia, the country of assassins, Belgium has assumed the most disgraceful and treacherous role, in that, being too cowardly to confess its alliance with England and France, demands strict neutrality of Germany, after having basely violated it herself. It would be well to compare the statement of the Antwerp paper with the charges now brought against Germany by Belgium, in order to fully judge the faithlessness of Belgium and the in- credibility of her accusations. 62 THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM" THE CAT IS LET OUT OF THE BAG. Translation of Editorial, niinois Staats-Zeitung, Chicago. An article appearing in the "Taeg- liche Rundschau." a Berlin newspa- per, in which it is said to advocate the annexation of that part of Bel- gium occupied at the present time by the German troops, has aroused the ire of our anglo-American colleague, "The Chicago Tribune." Our col- league assures us that such an act would prove Germany unworthy of the sympathy of the Americans which they are catering to, because, as the "Tribune" further reasons, Belgium should not be punished for having fulfilled her international duty in such a heroic manner. We do not know to what extent the "Taegliche Rundschau" is justified in its as- sumption that Germany will annex Belgian territory, but we do know, that if Belgium's fulfillment of her international treaty" were reviewed through a strong lense another con- struction would be put on it. We have shown in a previous article that Belgium was not entitled to a guar- antee of neutrality by another power until it had given absolute proof of its intentions to remain neutral. Bel- gium has done just the reverse, for she has not made the slightest pro- test against the massing of French troops on her border and she was stricken with blindness when French aviators crossed through her prov- inces to spy on the movements of German troops. Belgium saw no breach of neutral- ity whatever in permitting French troops to further strengthen her for- tifications. Only when the Germans ask permission to march through her territory, vouching full reparation for any damages done, did she remember that strict neutrality had been guar- anteed her, while Belgium with the aid of guns was trying to maintain her neutrality so far as Germany was concerned, she made no attempt to conceal her recent negotiations with France and England and offered no protest when France claimed her as an ally. And now the cat has been let out of the bag. Now that the Belgians after suf- fering heavy losses have been van- quished by the Germans and the rem- nants of her army found their way to the French, the Germans in pos- session of almost her whole kingdom, now again Kaiser Wilhelm proffers his hand for peace. The Kaiser notes that the honor of the Belgian army has been preserved by their heroic deeds on the field of battle and has appealed to the king and the government of Belgium to avoid fur- ther unnecessary bloodshed. He as- sured them that any agreement with Belgium would be acceptable, that would not interfere with the war with France, and that he has no in- tention whatever of annexing Belgian territory, and that as soon as condi- tions will permit all German troops will be withdrawn from Belgium. More generosity could hardly be expected from a victor, but Belgium has rejected the generous proffer. She is determined to continue her struggle against Germany in conjunc- tion with Prance and England. Thus, Belgium is not defending its neutral- ity. It is an ally of the Triple En- tente. Will our esteemed colleague, the "Tribune" still feign indignation that Germany is treating a foe as a foe? And will our worthy anglo- American contemporary ape England, that she make Belgium a pretense for renouncing her friendship for the Germans? The "Tribune" should submit the neutrality cat that has been let out of the Belgian bag to a closer inspection before she expresses an opinion. AN AUTHORITY ON NEUTBAXITY. THE "LOQUACIOUS" AMBAS- SADOR. (From "The Fatherland," New York, September 23, 1914.) The anti-German press is pleased to refer to Count Bernstorffi as Ger- many's "loquacious" ambassador. The Russian and the English am- bassador, we are told, do not talk half so much. But we feel sure that both England and Russia would be mightily pleased if their ambassadors could talk half so well and to such excellent purpose. Everything that Count Bernstorff has touched has been successful, just as the mythical touch of Midas turned all things upon which he laid his hands into gold. Count Bernstorff asked for the opening of the wireless station at Tuckerton; his request was granted. Count Bernstorff protested against the habit of regarding this country as a naval base for belligerent pow- ers; his protest was heeded. Count Bernstorff protested against the arming of British commercial ves- sels leaving from American ports; again the American Government, with admirable fairness, met the am- bassador's wishes. Bernstorff's articles in the Times and in the Independent have already been too widely printed to need re- capitulation here. All in all, Ger- many is to be congratulated on pos- sessing so wide awake a spokesman. Count Bernstorff owes his success to his moderation. He never speaks without just cause; he never asks unless his request is righteous. There is nothing back-handed in his methods, he meets America fairly and squarely, in the same spirit in which our own Government is accus- tomed to act. No wonder England and Russia would like to cut the freedom of speech of the German ambassador as they have cut the German cable. Note: Moreover, it requires the greater diplomat to talk freely and unhampered and yet discreetly and wisely! Any fool can play doctor by looking wise and saying nothing. — Editor. Probably by this time the "movie" actors are fighting European battles in New Jersey. — From "Waterville Sentinel." Milwaukee Free Press. To the Editor of the Milwaukee Free Press: Anent the hue and cry raised by the Anglo-American press against the German violation of Bel- gium neutrality — the protection of which was England's only pretext for entering the war — a quotation from a well-known English political writer. Homer Lea, in his "Day of the Saxon," published in 1912, is extremely apropos. On page 213, he says: "The neu- trality of a minor state once it is included in the theater of war waged between greater nations, becomes an anomaly. A kingdom in such a po- sition invariably constitutes an area over which war is waged until one or the other combatants is capable of incorporating it within his base and forcing the confiict into the ter- ritories of the enemy. The neutral- ity of these three countries (Bel- gium, Holland and Denmark) has increased, not diminished the prob- abilities of war." On page 215, "The northern stra- tegic sphere (for England in time of war) includes military control over Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark." On page 226: "The occupation of the Persian and Afghanistan fron- tier prior to the war with Russia, or the European frontiers (Belgium, Holland and Denmark) in a con- flict with Germany, arouses in the British nation an appearance of great opposition to the violation of neutral territory. "This is false for the empire has never been moved by the sanctity of neutrality. "It is only a means of evading responsibility and shifting it upon these nations, deluding themselves with the belief that such declarations are inviolable; whereas no nation has violated neutral territory and denied their obligations more fre- quently than England." On page 227: "Neutrality of states under the conditions just men- tioned has never heretofore nor will in future have any place in inter- national association in time of war. Such neutrality is a modern delusion. It is an excrescence. "In 1801 Maderia was taken pos- session of by the British without any previous communication to the court of Lisbon, in order that it should not fall into the hands of the French, observing in this action the true principle governing such activities in war. "In 1807 the British flieet, without any notification, with no intimation given of hostile intentions, no com- plaint of misconduct on the part of Denmark, entered the Baltic, seized the Danish fleet and blockaded the island of Zealand on which is situ- ated the city of Copenhagen. "The purpose of this attack was to anticipate the occupation of Den- mark and the use of her fleets by France. So correct is the principle of this initiation that it stands out with remarkable brilliancy in the darkness of innumerable military er- rors made by the Saxon race. BELGIAN NEUTRALITY A MYTH AND A SNARE 63 "It England were therefore Justi- fied in seizing Denmark in the be- ginning of the nineteenth century for no other heason than to prevent the employment of the Danish fleet by the French, bow much more is she justified during peace in the twentieth century, In the occupation of its southern frontiers. . . ." "That this principle was applicable in the beginning of the nineteenth century, but is not so under the civ- ilization of the twentieth, is an er- roneous conception of the principles that direct the conflict of nations. While England and other nations violated both peace and neutrality in the beginning of the nineteenth century, we flnd Russia and Japan doing the same thing in China and Korea in the beginning of the twen- tieth." "Wars Involving neutral states are governed by the following principles: "1. Whenever a minor state rests between the bases of two combat- ants and constitutes a portion of the subsequent theater of war, it is es- sential to seize that state prior to or at the beginning of a war, either for one's own advantage or to pre- vent it from falling in the hands of the enemy. "2. When the neutrality of a minor state constitutes an element of weakness to a great power, those frontiers from which arise the weak- ness should always be subject to the control of the military power. "3. When the continental neu- trality or independence of a minor state threatens the existence of a great power, as Korea threatened Ja- pan, it should be deprived of its In- dependence and absorbed by the greater power." Now, Mr. Editor, it is a poor rule that doesn't work both ways. It strikes me this is a case of sauce for the goose — and another example of England's hypocrisy. MARY BLAKE BROECKER. Milwaukee, Sept. 27. AN EXCUSE FOB A MINISTER'S MISTAKES. C. L. B. How would you justify von Bethmann-Holweg's reference to "a scrap of paper"? I would justify it on the ground that the Chancellor of the German Empire knew exactly what he was talking about and was man enough to speak the truth. That the treaty which guaranteed Belgian neutrality had been rendered of no more value than the paper upon which it was written, by England, France and Bel- glum, was known to him when he made the remark and has since be- come known to the world at large. The blunt frankness of the Chan- cellor has been worked to death by England and will probably live in her histories along with the distorted "blood and iron" of Bismarck. It will live, however, as a monument to the frank and open diplomacy of Ger- many, in contradistinction to the se- cret intrigues of England, Russia and Prance. — From the "Questions and Answers" column of the "New Yorker Staats-Zeitung," October 27, 1914. — The Publisher of "War Echoes." Illinois Staats-Zeitung, Chicago. Horace li. Brand. The "Literary Digest" is the name of a weekly magazine published in New York by the Funk & Wagnalls Company. We reprint below from its issue of September 26, 1914: "Thus a bitter objection to the intervention of England in the Eu- ropean struggle is expressed by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, a labor member of Parliament, who published in the "Labor Leader" (Manhattan, Eng- land) the following severe criticism of Sir Edward Grey: "The justifications offered are nothing but the excuses which min- isters can always produce for mis- takes. It has been known for years, that, in the event of a war between Russia and France on the one hand, and Germany on the other, the only possible military tactics for Germany to pursue were to attack France hot- foot through Belgium and then re- turn to meet the Russians. The plans were in our war oflice. They were discussed quite openly during the Agadir trouble, and were the subject of some magazine articles, particu- larly one Mr. Belloc. Mr. Gladstone made it clear in 1870 that in a gen- eral conflict formal neutrality might be violated. He said in the House of Commons in August, 1870: "I am not able to subscribe to the doctrine of those who have held in this house what plainly amounts to an assertion, that the simple fact of the existence of guarantee is binding on every party to it, irrespective al- together of the particular position in which it may find itself at the time when the occasion for acting on the guarantee arises." "Germany's guarantee to Belgium would have been accepted by Mr. Gladstone. If France had decided to attack Germany through Belgium, Sir Edward Grey would not have objected, but would have justified himself by Mr. Gladstone's opinion." Thus far the words of Mr. Ram- say MacDonald, labor member of the British Parliament. Mr. Keir Hardie — says the Lit- erary Digest — also a labor member of Parliament, is a "brilliant sup- porter of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald." It is common knowledge that the English people are NOT a unit in favor of England's participation in the war. But the "official class" in England is also divided, for two members of the British Council (viz: Lord Morley and Hon. John Burns) resigned their portfolios rather than follow Sir Edward Grey in his war upon Germany. And now we learn that a labor member of Parliament openly ac- cuses his government of making the so-called "violation of Belgian neu- trality" an excuse "for mistakes made by ministers." And England's own great states- man, Gladstone, made it clear that "in a general conflict formal neutral- ity might be violated." Therefore Germany — according to the English view in 1870 — was justi- fled "in a general conflict" of violat- ing the neutrality of Belgium. Why is the English view in 1914 differ- ent? Because in 1870 England feared Prance more than Prussia and want- ed to see France crushed. But in 1914 England feared Germany most and WANTED TO ENGAGE GER- MANY IN WAR, so as to help Prance and Russia crush Germany's military power, while England destroyed its navy and commerce. But the ILLINOIS STAATS ZEI- TUNG has repeatedly printed proof that Belgium had committed breeches of her neutrality long before German soldiers set foot upon Belgian soil and Prance violated Belgian neutral- ity because French troops crossed the Belgian frontier even before Germany declared war on Prance or France on Germany. Thus England can find neither reasonable justification nor a plaus- ible excuse for warring upon Ger- many, because "Belgian neutrality was violated by Germany" and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald is another Eng- lishman who is brave enough to tear the mask from official England's hypocritical face. IN DEFENSE OF CIVILIZATION? Editorial in The Chicago Tribune, August 26, 1914. The assertion ascribed to the Taeg- llsche Rundschau that Germany would retain all of Belgium which she occu- pies in this war is not consistent with the claims for American sympathy made by Germans and by German- Americans. The kaiser would have not a moral leg to stand on if he absorbed Belgium. His case against her is of the weakest. It is merely a case of mil- itary necessity, a case that may be con- ceded, for the time being under the law of self-preservation. But if Germany asserts that she has a right to punish Belgium with the loss of her Independence because Belgium refused to assent to the nul- lification of her pledged neutrality and thus to become a passive ally of Germany against a nation with which she was at peace, then Ger- many will forfeit the approval of the neutral world. Let there be no doubt about this. If there is one nation in the Euro- pean conflict which has the unmeas- ured sympathy and admiration of the American people it is Belgium. She has done her full duty under inter- national law, and she has asserted her independence with splendid gal- lantry and heroic sacrifice. If there is any excuse for Germany's action against her it is only that of the di- rect necessity, and such excuse ceases with a German triumph. If, then, Germany insists upon taking Bel- gium, she will be punishing Belgium for doing her duty. With such action Germany's policy would be stripped naked of moral claims and stand forth in the ugly guise of remorseless conquest. There would be nothing left of her claim, then, that she is defending civiliza- tion from barbarism, even if there were much to it now. 64 THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM" THE EXPOSURE OF THE BEIiGIAN NEUTRAIilTY FRAUD. An astounding discovery has been made by the German authorities in the Belgian capitol. Amongst the archives of the military staff in Brussels, our authorities found nothing more nor less than a neatly vpritten agreement between Belgium and England in which Belgium (Belgium, who was, oh ! so neutral) is assigned the part which she was to play in the war against Germany. The "Nordd. Allg. Zeit." gives us the following information with regard to the discovered documents : The English assertion that the in- fringement upon Belgian neutrality by Germany caused England's interfer- ence in the present war, is proven to be false by Sir Edward Grey's own statements. By means of the discovery made by the German authorities in the archives of the military staff in Brus- sels, a new light has been cast upon the pathos of moral indignation, with which Germany's invasion of Belgium was used by England, for the purpose of stirring up wrath against us. By the contents of a folio which bears the superscription, "English intervention in Belgium," it is plain to see that as long ago as 1906 the sending to Belgium of an English expedition corps was planned in case of a war between France and Germany. According to a document written to the Belgian Min- ister of War, on April 10th, 1906, it is to be seen that the Chief of the Belgian Military Staff, in conjunction with, and on the repeated advices of, Lieutenant Colonel Barnardiston, who was at this time English Military Attache in Brus- sels, had worked out a definite plan for the combined operation of an Eng- lish army-corps of 100,000 men, with a Belgian army-corps against Germany. The plan received the approval of the Chief of the Military Staff, Major Gen- eral Geierson. The Belgian Military Staff was furnished with all informa- tion regarding the strength and mem- bership of the English troops, as well as to the formation of the expedition corps, points of embarkation and exact calculations for the time necessary for transport, etc., etc. With this information as a founda- tion, the Belgian Military Staff had prepared, in a detailed manner, plans for the transport of English troops, and for their shelter and maintenance. Co- operation was carefully planned far down to the very minutest details. The English army was to be supplied with a number of Belgian police, and the necessary interpreters and maps. Prep- arations were even made for the care of the English wounded. Dunkirk, Calais and Boulogne were designated as points of embarkation for the troops. From there they were to be transported by the French railways. The intended disembarkation in French harbors, and the transport through French territory, showed that these English-Belgian agreements had been preceded by ar- rangements with the French military staff. The three powers had made definite plans for the co-operation of the "combined armies." as the docu- ment reads. This is also made evident by the fact that to the secret papers a map of the French plan of march is joined. The above mentioned docu- ment contains some material of par- ticular interest. In one place we read that Lieutenant Colonel Bernardiston has stated that the support of Holland could not be relied upon. He also, communicated confidentially that the English govern- ment intended to transfer to Antwerp, the basis for reinforcements, as soon as the North Sea was cleared of all German warships. The remainder of the article consisted of suggestions made by the English Military Attache, for the establishment of a Belgian spy- ing agency in the Rhein Provinces. An important complement to this material was furnished by the discovery of a document amongst the private papers of Baron Greindl, for many years the ■Belgian Minister to Berlin. In a com- munication to the Belgian Minister of the Exterior, the hidden designs which formed the foundation for England's offers are exposed with great acute- ness. The Ambassador points out here the earnestness of the situation in which Belgium has placed herself, by assuming a partial attitude in favor of the powers of the Entente. In the detailed report dated Dec. 23, 1911, the full publication of which is withheld. Baron Greindl goes to say that the plans of the Belgian Military Staff for a defense of Belgium's neutrality, in case of a German-French war, touch only upon the question of the meas- ures to be followed, in case of Ger- many's infringement upon Belgium's neutrality. The hypothesis of a French attack upon Germany through Belgium is equally probable. The Ambassador continues as follows : "From the French side, the danger threatens not only from the south from Luxembourg; it threatens upon all of our mutual boundary lines. This statement does not rest upon surmises ; we have posi- tive grounds for it." The thought of an encircling from the North doubtlessly originated with the combination of the Entente Cordiale. Had this not been the case, the plan to fortify Flushing would not have caused such an alarm in Paris and London. They made no secret whatever of their reasons for the Schelde to remain undefended. They expected to be able to transfer without hindrance an English garrison to Antwerp,, as well as to establish a base of operations for the offensive, in the direction of the lower Rhein and Westphalia, and in this way to be able to take us Germans by storm, which would not have been difficult. For, after having surrendered our national place of retreat, and having allowed their entrance, we would, by our own fault, have deprived ourselves of every possibility of offering resistance to their exactions. At the time of the founding of the Entente Cordiale, the utterances of Col. Barnardiston, which were as naive as they were perfidious, showed us Ger- mans plainly what we had to expect. As it became evident that we were not intimidated by the supposedly threatening danger of the closing of the Schelde, the plan was, to be sure, not given up, but changed, in so far as that the English auxil- iary army was landed, not on the Belgian coast, but in the nearest French harbors. Evidence of this is also found in the utterance of Capt. Faber, which were denied to the same extent, as were the reports in the papers, which con- firmed and completed the statements. The English troops which were to be landed at Calais and Dunkirk were not to have marched along the borders to Longwy, in order to reach Germany ; they were to force their way directly into the country from the northwest. This would give them the advantage of being able to meet the Belgian army in a region where we Germans would have no fortifications upon which to reply, in case we risked an encounter. It would make it possible for them to occupy provinces rich in all resources, and in any case to prevent our mobilization or to allow it, only after we had pledged ourselves to take up arms with Eng- land and her allies. It is earnestly advised to draw up a plan of action for the Belgian army in case of this event. This is necessary in the interest of our military defense, as well as for the carrying on of our foreign policy, in case of a war be- tween Germany and France. These utterances, from an impartial IK)int of view, confirm In a most con- vincing manner the fact that England, the same England which is now play- ing the part of protector of Belgian neutrality, had advised Belgium to as- sume a partial attitude in favor of the powers of the Entente, and that it had even planned an infringement of Hol- land's neutrality. For the rest, it is clear that the Belgian government, by succumbing to the enticements of Eng- land, committed a serious offense against its duties as a neutral power. The fulfillment of these duties would have required that the Belgian govern- ment forsee in her plans for the de- fense, the possibility of an infringe- ment of her neutrality by France, and that in this case, she would have made certain agreements with Germany, as well as with France and England. The discovered papers form a documentary proof of the fact of the Belgian con- nivance with the powers of .the En- tente, which fact , was known by the German authorities before the outbreak of war. They serve as a justification for German military action, and they confirm the information which the Ger- man military authorities have received regarding France's intentions. May these facts serve to enlighten the Bel- . gian people, as to whom thanks is due for the catastrophe which has over- taken their unfortunate country ! — "Hamburger Fremdenblatt." ENGLAND THE ARCH CONSPIR- ATOR. The Fatherland, New York. Ijmportant revelations are forcing their way into publicity in spite of widespread prejudice, and gradually the truth concerning those who in- spired the European war is coming to be understood. The finger of guilt is pointing at England as the arch conspirator. For weeks the American press or- gans of London and Paris had it their own way. This was a war of con- quest by the Kaiser, a dynastic war, the war of organized militarism, and an unpardonable breach of neutrality BELGIAN NEUTRALITY A MYTH AND A SNARE against Belgium, designed to over- whelm Prance and promote the ter- ritorial aggrandizement of Germany. To England was assigned the role of a benevolent power forced to take up arms in behalf of inoffensive Bel- gium, just as Russia was forced to take up arms in the defense of little Servia, threatened with national ex- tinction by Austria-Hungary. It was useless to quote from the London dispatches to the New York "Evening Post" that England had assembled her fleet in the North Sea, weeks before the war, in order to be ready to carry out her part in the preconcerted attack on Germany. It was useless to point out that the Paris "Gil Bias," a year before the war, announced that Maubeuge had been made a military emporium for British ammunition against the day when Germany was to be assaulted through Belgium, or that the Belgian forts were garrisoned with French troops, the French officers in Ger- man uniforms had been arrested at the German-Belgian frontier before a single German soldier had crossed the French border, and many other incidents proving that but for the prompt action of the German Government these various plans of invasion would have resulted in im- mediate disaster for the German na- tion. We now have even more conclu- sive evidence that Belgium was not an innocent victim of a land-hungry War Lord, but a designing party to a preconcerted conspiracy to crush Ger- many. This evidence consists of important documents discovered by the German military authorities in the archives of the Belgian General Staff at Brus- sels, documents found in a portfolio inscribed: "Intervention Anglais-Bel- gique." One of these documents is a report to the Belgian Minister of War, dated April 10, 190 6, which gives the result of detailed negotia- tions between the Chief of the Bel- gian General Staff and the British Military Attache at Brussels, Lieut.- Col. Bernardiston. This plan is of English origin and was sanctioned by Lieut.-Gen. Sir James M. Grierson, Chief of the Brit- ish General Staff. It sets forth the strength and formation, and desig- nates landing places for an expedi- tionary force of 160,000 men. Continuing, it gives the details of a plan for the Belgian General Staff to transport, fieed and find quarters for these men in Belgium, and pro- vides for Belgian interpreters. The landing places designated are Dun- kirk, Calais and Boulogne. Lieut.-Col. Bernardiston is quoted as having remarked that for the pres- ent Holland could not be relied upon. Another confidential communica- tion declares that the British Govern- ment, after the destruction of the German navy, would send supplies and provisions by way of Antwerp. There is also the suggestion from the English Military Attache that a Belgian system of espionage should be organized in the Prussian Rhine- land. A second document is a map show- ing the strategical positions of the French army and demonstrating the existence of a Franco-Belgian agree- ment, and a third is a report from Baron Greindl, the Belgian Minister at Berlin, to the Belgian Foreign Of- fice, dated December 23, 1911. Be it. said to the credit of the Belgian Minister, Baron Greindl, at Berlin, that he seriously objected to the fa- mous "Conversations." (See "Case of Belgium.") — Editor. The discovery of these incriminat- ing documents follows within six days of the denial made by the Lon- don official press bureau — not the foreign office, he it remembered — that England had stored ammunition at Maubeuge prior to the outbreak of the war. To this denial was added the statement that "the determina- tion to dispatch an expeditionary force to the Continent was not reached until Germany had violated the neutrality of Belgium, and Bel- gium had appealed for aid." There is further evidence of Ger- many's honest conduct in the recent Russian Orange Book, an analysis of which appeared in the London "Econ- omist" of September 12, and is all the more curious coming as it does from an organ of Russia's ally. We quote from it as follows: "The reason for the Russian mobil- ization is somewhat surprising. Ac- cording to the Orange Book, the gen- eral mobilization orders were signed in Austria on July 28, whereas, ac- cording to Baron de Bunsen, our Am- bassador in Vienna (White Paper No. 127), general mobilization in Austria was ordered on August 1. Since the necessity for the Russian mobiliza- tion was based on the Austrian mo- bilization, and since the general Rus- sian mobilization was the direct cause of the German mobilization . . ., which made war inevitable, it would seen to be important that this point should be cleared up. A further telegram, in the Orange Book, frorn Berlin, describing the issue of German mo- bilization orders some time before it actually took place, suggests that the Russian envoys were occasionally mistaken in their information." That Germany wanted this war is so generally accepted that it is in- teresting to read what the Belgian Charge at St. Petersburg, M. De L'Es- calle, wrote to his government at Brussels July 30th in an exhaustive report on conditions in the Russian Capital, in part as follows: "The days of yesterday and today have been spent In the waiting for events that must follow the declara- tion of war by Austria-Hungary upon Servia. What is incontestable is, that Germany has striven here, as well as at Vienna, to find some means of avoiding a general conflict. "This morning an official communi- que to the newspapers announces that the reserves have been called under arms in a certain number of govern- ments. Knowing the discreet nature of the official communiques, one can, without fear, assert that mobiliza- tion is going on everywhere. "England began by allowing It to be understood that she did not want to be drawn into a conflict. Sir George Buchanan (British Ambassa- dor) said that openly, today one is firmly convinced at St. Petersburg ■ — one has even the assurance of it — that England will support France. This support is of enormous weight, and has contributed not a little to give the upper hand to the war party." So here we have it that England would support Prance under any cir- cumstances, whether Belgian neu- trality were violated or not, and that this attitude of England was "of enormous weight and has contributed not a little to give the upper hand to the (Russian) war party." Germany, then, was expected to butt its brains against the Frenoh line of forts while England secretly landed her 160,000 men at Dunkirk or Calais and with her French ally attacked the German forces in the flank through Belgium. This, too, in shameful disregard of Mr. Gladstone's avowed conviction that treaties of neutrality were not considered bind- ing by England in an emergency such as confronted Germany in this in- . stance. We may well repeat here Mr. Gladstone's utterances in 1870 when the Belgian neutrality treaty was un- der discussion: "There is, I admit, the obligation of the treaty. It is not necessary, nor would time permit me, to enter into the complicated question of the na- ture of the obligation under that treaty. But I am not able to .sub- scribe to the doctrine of those who h.xve held in this house, what plainly amounts to the assertion, that the simple fact of the existence of a guar- antee is binding to every party to it, irrespective altogether of the particu- lar position in which it may find it- self at the time, when the occasion for acting on the question arises. The great authorities on foreign policy, to whom I have been accustomed to lis- ten, such as Lord Aberdeen and Lord Palmerston, never, to my knowledge, took that rigid, and, if I may venture to say so, that impracticable view of the guarantee." How baseless the assertion, so often repeated, that Germany's aim in the war was to subdue Belgium despite her statement to the contrary on August 2 that it felt obliged to prevent an attack from France through Belgium, and despite her of- fer to respect the integrity of the kingdom and its possession in return for the unobstructed passage of Ger- man troops, is shown in a new light by evidence developed since the fall of Liege. After that catastrophe, which should have satisfied the Bel- gian government of the futility of further resistance as well as satisfied the demands of national honor in fighting for a principle, Germany ad- dressed to the King's government a further note, as follows (Belgian Gray Book) : "The fortress of Liege has been taken by assault after a courageous defense. The German Government regrets that such bloody encounters should have occurred. It is only by reason of the military measures of Prance that it has been forced to take the grave determination of en- 66 THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM" tering Belgium and of occupying Liftge as a base for her further mili- tary operations. Now, that the Bel- gian Army has in heroic resistance against great superiority maintained the honor of its arms in the most brilliant fashion, the German Gov- ernment prays his Majesty the King and the Belgian Government to avert from Belgium the further horrors of war. The German Government is ready for any agreement with Bel- gium. Once more Germany offers her solemn assurance, that she has not been actuated by any intention to appropriate Belgian territory and that such intention is far from her." From these official statements and documentary evidence it requires a peculiarly warped mental attitude to gather the conclusion that Belgium was not hand-in-glove with England and France in a colossal conspiracy to destroy the German Empire. The proof of a military plan of co-opera- tion is in the hands of the German Government; Russia in her Orange Book deliberately sets back the date of Austrian mobilization three days in order to make it appear that she did not mobilize until after Austria; the Belgian Charge bears out the German White Book that Germany strove "to find some means of avoiding a gen- eral conflict" both in St. Petersburg and Vienna; Mr. Gladstone, it is shown, would not have respected the neutrality of Belgium under circum- stances such as environed Germany; England would have gone to war upon any other pretext, since she had her fleet assembled in the North Sea for the intended destruction of the German navy and the landing of marines at Antwerp, and Winston Churchill was quoted in London dis- patches to New York papers as "de- lighted at a bare prospect of demon- strating England's naval might at Germany's expense." (New York "World" London cable.) And fin- ally, so desirous of sparing Belgium was Germany that she sent another note to the Belgian Government after the fall of Liege and in the moment of an unexampled victory offering to make peace and disavowing all de- sire to appropriate Belgian territory. That, in brief, is the sum and sub- stance of this official manifest of Ger- many's enemies. BELGIUM NEUTRALITY MYTH, SAYS EMBASSY Von Bernstorff Says Documents Prove Compact With England (Reprinted from the "Milwaukee Free Press," October 4, 1914.) Washington, Oct. 13. — Count von Bernstorff, German Ambassador, to- day issued a statement in connec- tion with a telegram from Berlin an- nouncing the finding in the archives of the Belgian general staff at Brus- sels by the German military author- ities of documents which, it was claimed by Berlin, showed that de- tails of the plan for landing an ex- peditionary English force in Belgium had been provided for long before the war. The statement follows: "Neutrality Did Not Exist." "The German ambassador drew special attention today to the tele- gram which came from German headquarters. This telegram proves the German contention that the allies did not intend to respect Belgian neutrality. It even proves more — namely, that Belgian neutrality prac- tically did not exist and that the Belgian government was conspiring with the allies against Germany. Notwithstanding the denial coming from French sources, it Is a fact that French prisoners were taken at LiSge and at Namur who acknowledged that they had been in those fortresses be- fore the German troops entered Bel- gium. The Chancellor's Error. "On the French side it has been asserted that the German chancellor in parliament had acknowledged that Germany was doing wrong in violat- ing Belgian neutrality.* It must, however, not be overlooked that the chancellor further said: "We know that the allies do not intend to re- spect Belgian neutrality, and Ger- many, in the position she is in, at- tacked from three sides, cannot wait, while the allies can wait.' At that time the Belgian archives were not at the disposal of the German govern- ment." Chinese Neutrality Assailed. It the chancellor had known at the time he made his speech that Belgium was not neutral he would certainly have spoken of the alleged Belgian neutrality in a different way. "Germany has violated the fron- tiers of no really neutral country," the statement concludes, while the allies are on record for disregarding all obligations toward China. *We quote the following from an editorial entitled "Belgium the Step- Child of England. The Myth of Bel- gian Neutrality," In "The Father- land" (New York), for October 21, 1914: The "violation" of Belgian terri- tory by Germany is still unforglven by those who have failed to grasp the full significance of the events leading up to the German invasion. We are told again and again that they admitted that Germany was commit- ting a "wrong" In trespassing upon this "neutral" kingdom. The facts In the case are that Bethmann-Holl- weg. Inspired by the same ethical spirit in International nolltlcs which dominates President Wilson, made an honest but Injudicious admission. He suspected that Belgium was no longer neutral. In the old days the suspicion itself would have justified the German raid. England would not have hesitated a minute in such a case. But, Bethmann-Hollweg, German Imperial Chancellor, over- scrupulous, made no accusation against Belgium. Even If his evi- dence had been incontrovertible, he would still have maintained his pe- culiar point of view. The Chancellor of the German Empire is certainly not a Nletz- schean. Bernhardi leaves him cold. He does not lean on Treltschke. In fact, Bethmann-Hollweg Is more of a moralist than a diplomat. To his mind two wrongs do not make a right. Belgium wronged Germany. Justice demanded a reparation. Ger- many's supreme duty of self-pres- ervation made such a reparation im- perative. Nevertheless the Chancel- lor held that such an action on Ger- many's part, even if practically nec- essary and entirely defensible from the point of everyday ethics, was wrong from the point of view of the new statesmanship which applies even to statecraft the tenets of Christianity. Belgium smote Ger- many on the left cheek. The Chan- cellor realized that from a certain idealistic point of view it would have been noble to turn the right. For practical reasons, Germany decided otherwise, and hit back. Hitting back may not be ethical, but it is Inevitable, sometimes. An English statesman In Beth- mann-Hollweg's place would have explained that it was Germany's "moral" duty to invade Belgium, but the German temperament de- spises hypocrisy. As a matter of fact, the Chancellor would have been justified if he had made such a state- ment. It WAS the moral duty of Germany to save the Belgian people from the intrigues of her ministers who played into the hand of the allies. When the Germans reached Belgium and, more recently In Ant- werp, they found incontrovertible evidence, cited by Dr. Dernburg and others, that Belgium had violated her neutrality, that she was conspir- ing with the enemy, that she was merely England's cat's paw in the great war game. This discovery justified any act of reprisal on the part of Germany. If It had not been for the flagrant breach of neutrality on the part of Belgium and the sniping of German soldiers, Germany would have been even more lenient In her treatment of the misguided people. As it was, after the fall of Liege, and before the fall of Brussels, Germany again' and again offered Belgium guaran- tees of her national Integrity and compensation for her losses, if she would desist from her unneutral policy into which her rulers, hiding behind a somewhat shadowy treaty, had plunged her. The neutrality treaty was Invalid legally, for it had never been signed by the German empire. The German empire was legally no more respon- sible for the action of the North Ger- man Confederacy than the United States assumes responsibility for the actions of states before their Incorpo- ration into the Union. Belgium's only claim was a moral claim. But even that was forfeited by her alli- ance with the enemies of Germany. In view of her unneutral acts the treaty, already antiquated, was in- deed a mere "scrap of paper." — From "The Fatherland." — Editor. America has two things to be thankful for In the present time of armed uproar. One is the Atlantic ocean and the other is the Pacific ocean. — From "The Daily News." WHY BELGIUM WAS NOT PROTECTED 67 The Heroic Deed of Protecting a Neutrality that was not Good Will and Ability to Protect Belgium ! BERNARD SHAW SHOWS UP ENGIiAND'S HYPOCRISY. Ijondon, February 21. — The "Nation" publishes the following from Bernard Shaw : "Neutrality Is an utter humbug. That is my position. There is no such thing as a breach of neutrality, because there is no such thing as neutrality. I hope that is clear enough. "The importance of bringing this simple and natural fact home at pres- ent arises from three considerations : "1. The danger of obscuring the real issue by the false issue of the neutrality of Belgium. "2. The danger that, instead of real terms of peace, flctitlous terms in the form of fresh guarantees of neutrality may be accepted as valid. "3. The general objection to throw- ing stones when you live in glass houses and are allied to Eastern Powers, whose whole history is a huge cucum- ber frame. Committed to These Propositions. "Those who insist that neutrality is real and sacred are committed by the facts to the following propositions : "1. Germany has not violated Bel- gian neutrality. She has made war on Belgium, which her guarantee of Bel- gium's neutrality in no way abrogated her right to do ; and her guarantee of Belgium's neutrality still stands in spite of the war. and actually entitles her to treat the violation of it by an^ other Power as a casus belli. "2. France and England have vio- lated the neutrality of Belgium by in- vading her and fighting on her soil, though they do not war upon her. "3. Germany offered to keep the peace with Belgium on condition of that right of way which Great Britain was the first to demand and enforce by war in China. "4. Great Britain and France re- fused to respect Belgian neutrality ex- cept on a condition which they knew would not be fulfilled, and which, in any case, Belgium could not control ; namely, that Germany would keep peace with Belgium. "5. Germany offered peace in Bel- gium. "6. Great Britain ordered war per- emptorily. Discredits Belgian Pretext for War. "I defy any international jurist to put a creditable complexion on these propositions, except by showing that they are the reductio ad absiirdum of the theory of neutrality, and by admit- ting that Belgium might as well have been a free country as a neutralized one, for all the use that the guaran- tee proved. And it is because I am not duped by that theory that I have set myself to discredit the Belgian pre- text for war, and to induce our min- isters and newspapers to drop it. "I did so even before the documents found in Brussels by the Germans left the foreign office so completely bowled out of the Belgian point by the Ger- man Chancellor that it had not a word to say, and was reduced to hiring a street boy to put out his tongue at him. That was what came of not taking my advice and evacuating an untenable position. "I pass on to the Monroe Doctrine, cited as the supreme modern case of neutralization. The Monroe Doctrine is balderdash. It is not a doctrine at all. Its validity to any intelligent per- son is exactly what it was to Cortez and Pizarro and the Mayflower Pil- grims, to Clive, to William the Con- queror, Caesar, Napoleon, Hengist and Horsa, Joshua in Canaan, Henry V. in France, Kitchener in the Sudan, Kruger and Cecil Rhodes in South Africa, Strongbow in Ireland, Edward in Scot- land, Russia in Siberia, and Japan in the advantage she has taken of the war to make a startling Frederican grab in Mongolia and Manchuria, which has just leaked out after months of con- cealment by our Government. WUl Not Notice Monroe Doctrine. "I have as much right to annex and ravage the State of Colorado as Rocke- feller. If the British Empire ever de- cides to annex the United States, say, with a view to improving the local Government, it will not take the slight- est notice of the Monroe Doctrine, nor will the public opinion of the world be in the very faintest degree biased by it by the breach thereof. "If the United States should ever de- cide to annex Canada or Alaska, on the ground that the Monroe Doctrine obviously requires the extrusion of Great Britain and Russia from the North American Continent, they will have to take exactly the same steps as if the Monroe Doctrine had never been formulated or thought of. The Monroe Doctrine did not help the red- skins against the white man, and it will not help the redskins' conqueror when his turn comes. "Why is it that the European mili- tarists who annex every country they can conquer are not at all likely to annex America, and even pretend to respect the Monroe Doctrine as an ex- cuse for not trying to? Because they are afraid of the army and navy and people of the United States. "Why did Germany make war on Belgium? Because she was afraid to delay the rush to Paris by attacking France through Lorraine and Alsace. "Why did she attack France? Be- cause she was terrified by Russian mobilization, and afraid France would strike her from behind when she was attacked by Russia. "Why did we attack Germany? Be- cause we were afraid of her growing naval strength, and believed she would be irresistible if she conquered Russia and France, and thus left us without effective allies. "Frightened animals are dangerous, and man is no exception. We in the west of Europe are all fighting because we were afraid not to. If the war is to be concluded on ethical principles of any sort, then the settlement will be exactly what it would have been if there had been no war."— The Cru- cible. GERMANY AND BELGIUM. Editorial. The Chicago Tribune. The German defense for its inva- sion of Belgium seems to be as mo- bile as its wonderful army. The most loyal pro-German must "move lively" to keep up with it. As we have understood the German position, it is about like this: In the first place, Germany invaded Bel- gium because necessity knows no law, and, regretting the wrong done her and Luxembourg, compensation would later be given. Second, Ger- many invaded Belgium because it was certain that Prance would invade Belgium to attack Germany. Third, Germany invaded Belgium because France had invaded Belgium first. Fourth, and latest, Germany's inva- sion of Belgium was not a breach of neutrality, because Belgium was not neutral, but had entered into a plot with England to help her in an at- tack on Germany. Doubtless in due time the reason why Germany invaded Belgium will become clear and settled, even in Germany.' In the meantime the world will continue to sympathize pro- foundly with the unhappy Belgian people, and attempts to fix upon them or even their government, responsi- bility for their tragic misfortunes will have to be sustained by the most indubitable of proofs if they are not to react against the German appeal to the world conscience.' 'If the hysterical editorial writer of "The Tribune," who seems to take delight in sneering at Germany, would shed fewer crocodile tears for "poor, unhappy little Belgium," sympathize in less high sounding phrases, and would, instead, have told his audience in plain English what he knew about the sacredness of Belgian neutrality, there would not have been any necessity for his readers to be in doubt as to the Bel- gian neutrality myth. "The reason why Germany invaded Belgium" does not seem "clear and settled" to "The Tribune's" editorial writer at as late a date as October 15. He should have informed him- self and his readers by availing him- self of Professor Burgess's article, "Belgian Neutrality, Its Real Mean- ing," which, "The Vital Issue" says, was released to the press of this country the latter part of September, i. e., some three weeks before "The Tribune's" champion of "poor, un- happy little Belgium" wrote that "at- tempts to fix upon them (the Bel- gian people) or even their govern- ment, responsibility for their tragic misfortunes will have to be sustained by the most indubitable of proofs if they are not to react against the German appeal to the world con- science." Facts are what the American peo- ple want, not crocodile tears or hys- terical editorials. Pacts, cold facts. 68 THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM' are contained in Professor Burgess's article which is reprinted in this section. Why did not the editorial writer of "The Tribune" or, as far as that goes any other Anglo-American edi- torial writer in Chicago, refer to Pro- fessor Burgess's article which cer- tainly throws the true light on "Bel- gian Neutrality?" Because it does not suit their pol- icy that the American people should know the whole truth! But all of the American people cannot be fooled all of the time. The anti-German editorial propa- gandists are finding this out. Apropos these sentiments, in Ger- niany, "why Germany invaded Bel- gium" has always been entirely "clear and settled." Any doubt about this "existed" only in the per- verse minds of the German-hating press on both sides of the water. — Editor. =We reprint below the first part of an editorial entitled "Belgium The Step Child of England — The Myth of Belgian Neutrality." This was pub- lished by "The Fatherland" (New York) in its issue for October 21. This may counteract in a measure the effect of the hysterical editorials written by fanatical writers, such as "The Chicago Tribune's" editorial writer and others of his ilk. "The Fatherland" says: "Antwerp has fallen after a brave defense by the Belgians (and fif- teen thousand English). Germany crushed the last stronghold of Bel- gium. "We are sorry for Belgium. But Antwerp was one of the strong- est fortresses in the world, second only to Paris. The 'little' Belgian nation has been annihilated by the Germans. But as far as numbers were concerned the Belgians and their allies outnumbered the Ger- mans. 'Little' Belgium stood alone. Possibly. But, behind her in battle array, were three of the greatest na- tions of Europe. To compare their defense of Antwerp to Thermopylae or to William Tell's defense of Switzerland is silly. The Spartans at Thermopylae and the Swiss under Tell were not financed, fed, sup- ported on land and sea by seven war- ring countries. The Belgians made a valiant defense of their country, but King Albert and a large part of his army fled from the invader un- like those braves of Leonidas, to whom the New York 'Evening Sun' lachrymosely compares them. How far more glorious, how far more heroic is the defense of Kiauchau, that lone lost German fortress in the Far East, battling without hope of relief, far from home, against the combined attacks of Japan, BngJand and Russia. Here indeed is a mod- ern parallel with Thermopylae and all the valiant deeds of history. For the little German garrison, posted there, is defending not only its own existence and the flag of its country, but civilization itself. "We do not know what sinister ad- vices were responsible for the action of Belgium. Surely it would have been wiser, and no less compatible with honor, to observe a benevolent neutrality, granting the passage of German troops through Belgium, than to subject the country to the devastation of modern warfare. When Belgium considers her situa- tion calmly she will realize that she has more to hope from Germany than from the Allies who first goaded her into war and then thrice betrayed her. They betrayed her when their armies fled from Belgium for 'strat- egic' reasons, leaving the little coun- try to her fate and to the German siege guns. They again betrayed her when they refused, for 'strategic' rea- sons, to come to her relief when Ant- werp was threatened. But worst of all is her final betrayal by England, who would rather see the last Bel- gian starve than one German sol- dier fed. "London reports that Brussels is fearing a famine. Yet, now that Bel- gium's usefulness is exhausted, Eng- land refuses to send food. She even refuses to permit ships carrying food supplies to land, unless Germany gives assurances that she will not supervise the division of the food. Inasmuch as Belgium is at present a part of the German Empire, Ger- many can give no such assurance. Hence John Bull permits four hun- dred thousand Belgian women and children to starve to death. Not that he loves Belgium less, but that he hates Germany more. England is not the foster-mother but the step- mother of Belgium. Fortunately Belgium can look to Germany for succor. She will not. starve as long as she remains under German rule, in spite of reports to the contrary. Betrayed, forsaken, bleeding, Bel- gium begins to realize her mistake. She will see that Germany holds her promises sacred, even if she calls them 'scraps of paper.' England calls them by all sorts of holy names, but has no compunction whatever to violate her most sacred obligations, if it suits her convenience." TREATY VIOIiATIONS. The Fatherland, New York. It is funny to hear England, France and Russia express their in- dignation over Germany's violation of written guarantees. Not one of these countries was ever known to keep a promise or a guarantee it suited her to break. The late Empress Dowager of China issued an edict against the cultivation and use of opium in the Empire, and provided for its com- plete extermination within ten years. Many Governments, including the United States and Great Britain, agreed to help enforce the edict. It seemed that the day of deliverance had come. But Great Britain broke faith in the matter, as she has done many times before. The Indian government, which receives a revenue of more than $10,000,000 a year from the opium traffic, is not willing to relin- quish that advantage and opium in enormous quantities is still being shipped into China in defiance of all protests. The island upon which Hongkong stands, giving British foothold in China, was exacted as indemnity for several shiploads of opium that were destroyed by the Chinese to prevent their accursed cargoes from reach- ing the people. Of late we have been hearing much of the Aland Islands, where the Ger- man ships were reported to have de- feated a Russian squadron. In 1907 or 1908 the Russia Duma appropri- ated a large sum of money for the fortification of the Aland Islands, ly- ing off the coast of Finland in the Baltic Sea. As these islands lie nearer Sweden than Finland, and as Russia, by the treaty of March, 1856, pledged herself not to fortify them, representations were at once made to the St. Petersburg Government from Stockholm calling Russia's at- tention to the treaty and declaring that Sweden's defense would be se- riously menaced by such fortifica- tions. Sweden did not feel herself strong enough to go to war over the ques- tion, and as her protests were dis- regarded, she forthwith appealed to France and England, who were also signatories of the treaty of 1856, which specifically declared that "the Aland Island shall not be fortified and no naval or military force shall be established there." The appeal placed both England and France in an embarrassing position. Both countries guaranteed the perpetual neutrality of Sweden, but both were most favorably disposed toward Rus- sia; France on account of the dual alliance and England because of the Anglo-Russian agreement. And Stockholm was justified in her fear that neither France nor England would interfere, especially because the fortification by Russia of the is- lands in question served to diminish the preponderance of German influ- ence in the Baltic. Sweden ceded Finland, with the Aland Islands, to .Russia in 1809. Twenty years later, Russia proceeded to fortify the islands. England there- upon objected, but without avail. During the Crimean War, Bomarsund was built, and a combined French and English fleet had to blow its forts to pieces. France and England conveniently ignored Sweden's appeal, and per- mitted Russia to fortify the island against the day when they would be , joined in war against Germany. When Secretary Hay established "the open door in China" as a prin- ciple of American policy, the only nation that supported him was Ger- many. It still remains in active force. In total disregard of the United States, Russia seized Port Ar- thur and Ta-Lien-Wan and other Chinese possessions, but guaranteed to observe all treaty rights. But no sooner had she taken forcible pos- session of Manchuria than she showed her hand. Instead of keep- ing the door at Port Arthur open, the Russian Consul at Tien-Tsin one morning startled his colleagues by announcing that foreigners could not be allowed at Port Arthur or at Ta- Lien-Wan without passports issued WHY BELGIUM WAS NOT PROTECTED 69 by him. Both Chinese and foreigners bitterly complained, but no heed was paid to them. That was one reason why the United States strongly sym- pathized with Japan in her war with Russia. No doubt that in this country, a few years ago, thousands of honest people believed that Great Britain's war upon the Dutch republic in South Africa was a righteous and high-minded crusade. One heard on all hands that once more "dear old England" had taken up the banner of civilization and consecrated her- self to the salvation of mankind. The Boers were obstacles in the path- way of human progress. Down with them! We heard it in the clubs; we read it in the administration organs; we saw it in our foreign policy. NEUTRAMTY AaOIiATED BY ENG- LAND CUTTING CABLE. Translation of Editorial Which Ap- peared in the "Illinois Staats- Zeitnng," Chicago, August 8, 1914, in German. England accuses Germany of vio- lation of neutrality laws, as has been previously reported, in order to cloak the definite objects and well formed plans for and by which it has for scores of years paved the way for war with Germany. At the same time it commits a more important breach of the laws of neutrality by cutting at the Azores the cable which connected Germany with America. Although the proposal of Cyrus Field in 1872 to place all transatlantic ca- bles in neutral zones during wars was not adopted at the third tele- graphic conference in Rome, still in Paris in 1884 the protocol of the convention of submarine cables was signed by thirty-eight states, among' which England was included; which convention established not only the political and commercial rights of the owners of submarine cables but also recognized the demands of cultured nations to possess rapid means of communication. The cutting of the German cable by the English warships was a dis- graceful act, and it shows up the English hypocrisy of striving for ideals of humanity, in its own mis- erableness. We German-Americans especially, but really the entire world outside of the Triple Alliance, are thus robbed of the possibility to obtain a true, un- colored picture of the events which are taking place upon the European battlefields, which we could have hoped to obtain only via the German cable Emden-Azores. The last possibility is now re- moved. To be sure the wireless sta- tion at Nauen, near Berlin, is able to send messages to the stations at Tuckerton and Sayville upon the At- lantic Ocean, but our government seems to intend to stretch its per- fectly proper stand of strict neutral- ity to such an extent that the suc- cessful operation of these stations will be stopped.* We must therefore be prepared to learn of a superabundance of vic- tories won by the English, French, Russians, Belgians, Servians and Montenegrins. We do not like to make bets, but we will bet a German battery against a Russian pocket pis- tol that such reports will be lies, and intended only to picture Germany as a forlorn loser. One feels so confi- dent that these barefaced lies cannot be controverted through any German corrections, that one only yesterday tried to convince us (Americans) that two German cavalry regiments attempted to capture the forts at Li&ge and thereby were totally anni- hilated. From such ridiculous state- ments we can judge how much cre- dence we can give to the reports emanating in the near future from English sources. *Since this editorial was pub- lished, these two wireless stations have been allowed to operate under the surveillance of U. S. Government officials in order to prevent messages from being sent to German warships at sea. This act would constitute a violation of U. S. neutrality. How- ever, some apparatus of the powerful Tuckerton station, which is the only one that can send as well as receive messages from Germany, has broken down, and up to the time of our go- ing to press with "War Echoes" it has been impossible to remedy the accident. We understand that the Sayville station can only receive mes- sages, as its apparatus is not power- ful enough to send them. — Editor. But on July 9 th the station was again taken over by the United States military authorities, evidently to act as a censor on the messages sent. — Editor, War Echoes. HAS GERMANY VIOLATED BEL- GIAN NEUTRALITY? Herman Schoenfeld, Ph. D., LL. D. Professor of Germanics, George Washington University. The Fatherland, New York. Of all the insinuations and asper- sions against Germany's sinful ag- gression none remains but the viola- tion of Belgian neutrality. It does not suflBce to exonerate Germany by stating even the true facts that Ger- many never guaranteed Belgium neu- trality, but Prussia did, and that Prussia's guarantee could not be binding upon the other twenty-four sovereign states of the empire. This would stand in law, but would not stand in ethics. Nor does it suffice to prove that French aviators used Belgian territory in all its breadth, without protest, to enter Germany and drop bombs on Cologne. Even the established fact that Bel- gium has for years leaned strongly on France, even if there did not exist a formal military convention, has ac- cepted French money and French of- ficers and engineers for building of gigantic fortifications against Ger- many, did not necessarily vitiate Bel- gian neutrality, since a neutralized state has the right to make its neu- trality respected. It is true that a question arises here in international law, whether a permanently neu- tralized state, by strong fortification and military armament, does not in- vite attack, since such military acts constitute a priori a contradiction of neutrality, and may be rightfully con- strued as a revocation of neutrality treaties by the neutralized state it- self, especially if the latter racially, politically, and in a military way has for years veered manifestly towards powerful, antagonistic and now open- ly hostile states, like France and England. The British pretext of war against Germany on the score of the viola- tion of Belgian neutrality sounds false and rings untrue on the part of England, which in a very much slighter emergency, without word of warning, steamed into the port of Copenhagen, carried away the unsus- pecting Danish fleet and occupied the port herself till after the Napoleonic wars. And when the British gov- ernment, upon the direct question of the German ambassador, Prince Lich- nowski, absolutely refused to bind it- self to respect Belgian neutrality to the end of this war, the powerful port of Antwerp in the hands of the Brit- ish being nothing less than Hamburg in the hands of the strongest naval enemy, it would have been absolute folly, on the part of Germany, still further to consider Belgium a neutral state. Even more hypocritical than the English standpoint towards the sa- credness of Belgian neutrality, has been the position of France toward it since the very inception of the ille- gitimate birth of that state. In an essay, "Theoretical Perma- nent Neutrality in Political Prac- tice" (Geo. Washington Univ. Publi- cations, Politics and Diplomacy Se- ries, vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 25-40, January 1906), I have proven, I believe, that Belgium was founded as a neutral state solely to save her from the cu- pidity of France. The declaration of Belgium inde- pendence and neutrality in London, November 15, 1831, by the represen- tatives of England, Austria, Belgium, France and Russia (no Prussian rep- resentatives being present) was con- sidered merely the lesser evil; the other alternative was absorption by France. The Memoirs of Prince Tal- leyrand reveal unmistakably the fact that the French government fostered the plan, of the partition of Belgium. The Austrian envoy, Weissenburg, reported to Vienna: . . . "France arms from head to foot and burns with impatience to cross the frontier of Belgium." But this may seem old history. More recent events will be more con- vincing In my work, Bismarck s Speeches and Letters, D. Appleton & Co., New York, p. 314 ff., it is men- tioned that the revelation of secret state documents by Bismarck proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that an alliance with Prussia had been eag- erly sought by the French govern- ment for the entire acquisition or the partltionment of Belgium. These revelations, conclusive as they are, furnish one of the most painful chap- ters in diplomatic history, with re- gard to the French greed of terri- torial expansion, and the cruelty with which the iron chancellor exposed the unsatiety of French appetite. The condemnation of French perfidy 70 THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM' against Belgium's treaty rights was universal, and the purpose of her in- tegrity was attained. In a circular dispatch of July 29th, Bismarck revealed the existence of several draft treaties written by Count Benedetti on the official paper of the French embassy. All Europe was amazed when the London Times printed the draft treaty of the au- tumn of 18 6 6 which promised Prus- sia a free hand to deal with Germany as she pleased, for one compensation — Belgium. "From this time on," Bismarck writes, "the French ambassador never ceased to tempt us by offers at the expense of Germany or Belgium. The impossibility of accepting any offers of that kind was never doubtful to me; but I deemed it useful in the in- terest of peace to leave to the French statesmen the illusions peculiar to them, as long as this would be possi- ble without giving them any, even oral promises. I supposed the de- struction of every French hope would endanger the peace, to preserve which was to the interest of Germany and of Europe. "I was not of the opinion of those statesmen who advised not to try to prevent the war with France, because it was inevitable. No one penetrates so surely the purposes of divine providence with regard to the future, and I consider even a victorious war per se, as an evil which a wise states- manship must endeavor to spare to the nations. I had no right to cal- culate without the possibility that in the constitution and politics of France changes might take place which might have led the two great neighboring peoples above the neces- sity of a war — a hope which was benefitted by every delay of a rup- ture. For this reason I was silent concerning the suggestions made, and treated them in a dilatory way without, on my part, ever giving as much as a promise. I have the im- pression that only the definite convic- tion of France's inability to attain an extension of her boundaries with us, led her to the resolution of obtain- ing it against us. I have even good reasons to believe, that, if the pub- lication in question had not appeared, France would have offered to us, af- ter the completion of her own and our armaments, to carry out in com- mon the propositions made to us for- merly, as against unarmed Europe, at the head of a million of armed warriors, namely, to conclude a peace after or before the first battle, on the basis of Count Benedetti's prop- ositions, at the expense of Belgium. "After the negotiations with the king of the Netherlands concerning the purchase of Luxumburg had failed, the French proposals com- prising Belgium were constantly re- peated. "At this juncture occurred the communication of the Benedetti manuscript. "It was indicated to me that in the case of a French occupation of Bel- gium we should find our Belgium somewhere else ("nous trouverions notre Belgique ailleurs" ). "Concerning the text of these pro- posals, I remark that the draft in our hands is written from beginning to end by the hand of Count Benedetti, on the paper of the French Ambas- sador, and that the ambassadors, or envoys, of Austria, Great Britain, Russia, Bavaria, Belgium, Hesse, Italy, Saxony, Turkey, Wiirttemberg, who have seen the original, recog- nized the hand-writing." Bismarck's revelations, simulta- neously in Berlin and in London, as afore-mentioned, with regard to the French attempts at Belgian indepen- dence, produced a profound agita- tion in Belgium and in all Europe. It is more than likely that a differ- ent statesman from Bismarck might have succumbed to the almost irre- sistible temptaiton, and the French plot for the partitionment of Belgium would have succeeded then and there. And it is certain that against such a combination of force as France and Prussia, united would have offered, any protest from the other signatory powers would have been ineflicient, especially if means and ways had been found to equalize "the balance of power" by other compensations. But to the eternal glory and honor of Bismarck and Prussia be it said, the great chancellor built the German empire without sacrificing any Bel- gian territory to perfidious France, saving Belgium and frankly warning her of her danger. Knowing history and knowing the hankering of France for Belgium, the German government in the extreme hour of necessity pleaded with Belgium for a right of way, vowing every possible compen- sation and security and territorial in- tegrity, but the Belgian king and government, with that blindness which so often dooms — as it were, through the powers of darkness — • those who are ripe for a fall, pre- ferred to throw their country into the arms of their worst enemies and de- stroyers. When the French statesman. Count Benedetti, promised Bismarck, "You shall find your Belgium somewhere else," he did not dream that the no- ble kingdom, which was industrially, culturally, and politically one of the most advanced and progressive states in Europe, would be hurled by its own demented rulers into the arms of France, its destroyer and plotter, even before It emerged from the womb of time. There lies the viola- tion of Belgium neutrality, not in Germany's procedure, to whom she owed her independent existence, and who was eager and determined to guarantee it again and forever. GREAT BRITAIN'S CASE. New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, New York. Herman Ridder. It is interesting to note that while our cousins across the water are at- tempting to open our eyes to the German propaganda, they are allow- ing no grass to grow under their own feet. There is little to be gained now by saying that Germany was the first — as she was not — to seek the moral support of the American peo- ple by such means, or that England was the first. Both nations have stated their case, each from its own point of view, for our benefit. The appearance, therefore, of "Great Britain's Case," the collaborated ef- fort of certain members of the Fac- ulty of Modern History at Oxford, has no external significance other than that England now confesses that she is calling upon her last line of reserves to carry the day. We welcome the brochure, not that we need it, but as additional evidence of the terrible sincerity of England's present day desire to chain us to her chariot wheels. As yet we haVe but the excerpts from the pamphlet made public by the British Embassy in Washington. We may with reasonable justice, however, assume that these contain in a large measure the cream of the pamphlet itself. And among these excerpts there is much that is good history and much that is not, and less that is good argument. My eye was caught by the following state- ment, in particular: "It is desirable to point out that Bismarck, in 1870, made full use of the Belgian treaty to prevent England from supporting the cause of France. The result was that Germany and France entered into an identical treaty with Great Britain (August, 18 70) to the effect that if either belligerent violated Belgian territory, Great Britain would co-operate with the other for the defense of it." This is unques- tionable good history. So let us profit by it. The neutralization of Belgium was accomplished originally by a treaty, concluded in 1839, to which England, Prussia, Russia and France were all signatory. By the time the Franco-Prussian war came upon the tapis, this treaty was ad- mittedly of little value for the par- ticular purpose for which in part it was written. England, with an eye ever to the sustenance of Belgium as an independent state to buffer the English coast, used the threat of in- terference to secure from both of the then belligerent nations a further guarantee of the integrity of Bel- gium. If we but apply the attitude of Gladstone to the conditions which existed immediately prior to the out- break of the present war, we are forced to a conclusion which absolves the Belgian question from any con- nection, except that of pretext, with England's motives for going to war with Germany. The offer made by the German Emperor on August 1, 1914, through the Imperial Chancel- lor and the Ambassador at London, of the unconditional guarantee of Belgian neutrality in return for the neutrality of England, was in no es- sential sense different from the writ- ten agreement entered into by Bis- marck in 1870. The outcome has proven but one thing: that England, seeing in Germany nothing but dan- ger to her own ill-gotten Empire, reading in Germany nothing but the vaporings of the "Prussian School of History," had attired her attitude on the subject of Belgian neutrality, and no longer content with preserving the integrity of Belgium as a buffer state, was prepared to use the viola- tion of Belgian neutrality as an ex- cuse to be in "at the killing." She WHY BELGIUM WAS NOT PROTECTED had the same offer given her In 1914 that was given her in 1870. Can her able defenders explain why she did not accept it? Again, in a very unhistorical man- ner, these historians formulate a journalistic phrase of convenience: "The war, in which England is now engaged with Germany, is fundamen- tally that of raison d'fitat (right of the state) against the rule of the law. One nation claims a preroga- tive to act outside and above the public law of Europe in order to se- cure the 'safety' of its own state, while the other stands for the rule of public law." Apparently the Oxford professors are eager to prove their Introductory assertion that "We are not politicians." They show them- selves hopelessly out of touch with the actualities of government; as we are indebted to the English, not to the German, Government, for the enlightening expression of the "Su- preme Duty to insure National Safety." The British Government has certainly acted more exclusively on the principle of "raison d'etat" than has Germany, which has been trying to make the sometimes in- evitable clash between raison d'fitat and the rule of the law least destruc- tive. It is necessary only to recall the conciliatory notes addressed by Berlin to Brussels. We have heard of no such considerate requests be- ing addressed by London to Con- stantinople in connection with the raison d'etat diplomatic expulsions from neutral Egypt or of such con- ciliatory requests being addressed by London to the powers which neu- tralized the Suez Canal in connection with the raison d'&tat use of the Suez Canal as a military base. We are unaware of any English protest against the Japanese raison d'6tat violation of Chinese neutrality or of an explanation of the" raison d'etat sinking by the English of the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse within the three mile limit of a neutral country. It is unfortunate that England should have found for her ultimate defense men apparently so little qualified to realize hard facts. It is, in turn, not surprising that Treitsohke and Bernhardi have once more been brought into the fray. Apparently quite a number of Eng- lishmen, now well advanced in years, were in Berlin when, 30 or 40 years ago, Treitsohke was at the height of his always limited popular- ity, based chiefly, as I said the other day, on his brilliant, but very nar- rowly limited exposition of the forces of the young Empire. As to Bernhardi, it is worth while to re- peat, that up to the beginning of this year six editions only had ap- peared of his work on "the next war." The edition of a semi-scien- tific volume consists usually of about 1,000 copies. It is clear, therefore, that very few Germans had, before the war, read Bernhardi's book. But enough has been said In the press on this point to make the outsider real- ize that neither Treitschke nor Bern- hardt can be fastened upon the Ger- man people as a typical representa- tive, any more than H. G. Wells and the others of his ilk can be made out to be typical representatives of the English people. Another item of important news, with reference to the causes of the war, is the discovery in Brussels of certain documents which clearly show a military understanding of some age between England and Bel- gium. The English government, in its attempt to explain away the sig- nificance of this discovery, admits that "some notes with reference to the subject may exist in the archives of Brussels." It merely deprecates their importance and seeks to show that they were of a defensive and not of an aggressive character. It con- tends that such arrangements with Belgium were justified in view of the provocation of Prance by Ger- many in the Morocco imbroglio, and of the construction by Germany of military railroads to the Belgian frontier. It tries, in other words, to shift the blame to Germany. It con- siders its action as one brought about purely by a desire to oppose German aggression. The action of Germany in the Morocco trouble was caused directly by the agreement between France and England allotting Moroc- co to the French sphere of Influence and Egypt to the English sphere of influence. As far as the construction of strategic Railroads is concerned, such railroads as exist from Germany into Belgium merely serve the enor- mous interchange of peaceful trafiic which has been growing in recent years at an amazing pace. There are no railroad lines to the Belgian frontier which can be designated as "strategic." Only a railroad which fails to maintain Itself in times of peace and which is at the same time of paramount value In times of war, may be called a strategic line. The notes dealing with the military arrangements between Great Britain and Belgium, may, when fuller re- ports become available, contain other interesting facts. One thing is already clear: the arrangements for the pro- tection of Belgian neutrality con- templated a co-operation with France against Germany, but not one with Germany against France. Why did the cherlsher and defender of small nations. Great Britain, arrange in so one-sided a manner for the main- tenance of the integrity of Belgium? Why did Belgium continue such a one-sided arrangement with Great Britain, when Belgium's own Min- ister reported on the "danger of French attack, threatening us not only near Luxemburg, but on the whole length of the common fron- tier," and impugned the motives of the French and English in volunteer- ing as special "protectors" of Bel- glum? AH that Germany has ever contended is proved by that part of these Brussels dispatches which has been accepted by England. Germany has maintained only that she had the gravest of reasons for assuming the existence of military plans prepared by the English and French and in- volving a passage through Belgium. For its conclusions, Germany had no other mode or code of reasoning than that adopted by England and France. England and France acted as soon as they thought that they detected Ger- man aggressiveness. Germany acted as soon as she thought she detected English and French aggressiveness. The General Staff of all of these countries had worked out plans against attacks by the others through Belgium. When Germany's repeated offers of neutrality for Belgium, France and England were rejected, she had no other choice than to in- terpret the Belgian, English and French military conventions as hos- tile rather than defensive. So, in the light of these latest disclosures and of England's comments thereon, all possible favorable allowances for the French and English having been made, neither the action of Germany nor that of England can be arraigned without the arraignment of bothr. POIVSONBY'S THIRTEEN QUES- TIONS. Translation of Editorial. Illinois Staats-Zeitung, Chicago. The London government is BtiU pleased to adopt a loud tone when the final result of the war is discussed and displays an absurd self-conceit that con- trasts strangely with the successes of Great Britain in this war. Facts speak louder and clearer than all assurances of the government and the continual loss of British ships has brought the war closer to the minds of the masses in England. The evident dissatisfac- tion and mischief brewing among these masses has reached such a state that it was considered necessary in London to divert the rage of the mob, which was directed against the government. In consequence of this policy we hear to- day of the pillaging of all business houses in London that belong to Ger- mans. People who can think for themselves are not affected by such actions and when we consider the rapidly growing feeling against Britain's war policy we feel justified in asking how long these fathers of the war will continue to di- rect England's policy. The most severe criticism of England by an English- man may probably be found In the thirteen questions published by Mr. Ponsonhy, a member of parliament "If we," Mr. Ponsonby says in his ob- jections to England's participation In the war,, "who think that many fatal errors have been made would remain silent any longer these errors would never become known to the public and there would be no hope for enlight- enment in the future." Ponsonby then puts the questions and the answers Im- mediately following the questions show his views as well as those of his parti- sans. 1. Does the corresjxmdence contained In our White Book show that we had assumed great obligations and become entangled in a net we had prepared ourselves? — Yes. 2. Is it just or even prudent to form alliances with one na- tion, without informing other nations thereof? — No. 3. Has our government emphatically declared it was under no obligations In case of war? — Yes. 4. Would we have declared war on France if that country had considered it neces- sary for Its own safety to send an army into Belgium? — No. 5. Was Germany aware that we had bound ourselves to support France and did Germany want 72 THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM" a war? — No. 6. Would Germany's at- titude not have been entirely different had she known our Intentions from the start? — Yes. 7. Was it not above all an attack by a Slavic race, that Is Russia, that Germany feared? — Yes. 8. Is our support of Russia not equal to the strengthening of Russian auto- cracy and militarism and thereby ob- structing the development of the Rus- sian people? — Yes. 9. Would not Rus- sia's success in this war cause her to acquire new territory and would this not be a calamity? — Yes. 10. Is It possible or desirable that the German Empire be overthrown and that it cease to flourish? — No. 11. Is it probable that Germany would become an in- active and subordinate state by losing all her colonies? — No. 12. Was there any ill feeling towards the Germans shown by the British people at the out- break of the war? — No. 13. Have w« any reason to think that oflBclal Eng- land was pursuing an anti-German pol- icy? — Yes. Ponsonby's questions and answers cover all charges directed against Eng- land by the Germans and these objec- tions raised by an Englishman against the actions of his own country is a great moral support of the justice of the German joint of view. They show no more and no less than that England labored continually and systematically to bring about this war and started it by a false pretext. Germany has no occasion to parade this English witness in public because she requires no T«t- erences for the honesty of her policy: neither can she hope to gain by it, for words and declarations of sympathy, even though they come from the camp of the enemy, will have no influence on military events. But as an evidence of the growing feeling in England these questions and answers are interesting and even of historic value as Mr. Pon- sonby has for the past six years been one of the most prominent members of the liberal party, the party now in power and his utterances are all the more important as he, in his capacity as private secretary to the former lib- eral leader Campbell-Bannerman, has considerable influence. GREAT BRITAIN'S REAL MOTIVE FOR ENTERING THE WAR. New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, New York. Herman Ridder. The veil of hypocritical altruism which the British Government has hung between its real motives for entering the present war and the searching eye of the world, torn asunder by the cold, crude and, in the logic of Great Britain, condemna- tory fact that in the twenty-five years from 1887 to 1912 the exports from the German Empire increased from $734,000,000 to $2,239,000,000 while British exports advanced from $1,134,000,000 to no more than $2,486,000,000. Although Great Britain still leads in total value of exports, her rate of increase during these years has been so insignificant in comparison with Germany's as to give cause for serious alarm not alone to the British merchant but to his Government as well. This steady forging ahead by Germany in the world's markets, unassisted by extensive colonies such as Great Bri- tain possesses, has been for years in- terpreted in every conceivable man- ner by the British press. The phrase "Made in Germany" was coined to kill German trade, but today it is the coals of fire which are returning to burn the heads of those who coined it. That this is no unfounded as- sertion may be read in the British papers which have come to us since the beginning of the war or in that element of the American press which has joined in the campaign to sweep German commerce from the seas. The leading British newspapers find their one triumphant note in the thought, expressed in headline after headline, that out of this conflict will come the recapture of the fields lost to their merchants in the years of Germany's peaceful expansion. What she could not do by the fair means of commercial competition. Great Britain has set about to do by war. Baffled at every turn by German brains and enterprise, it was the only recourse left to her. The story of British diplomacy during the last years coincident with Germany's tremendous cutting down of Britain's commercial supremacy is punctuated with every conceivable form of possible interference with her rival's legitimate line of trade expansion. It was all done under the cover of that shibboleth of Downing Street "the status quo," but like other fabrics stretched to cover too much, the "status quo" became at last transparent. When that point was reached, war sooner or later was inevitable. It was Edward VII, who main- tained the "status quo" in northern Africa by bargaining with France for Egypt and giving in return a free hand to the French in Morocco, and thus closed both of these countries to German trade. The Treaty of Algeciras which subsequently "guar- anteed" the open-door in Morocco was never intended by Prance and Great Britain to be anything but a mantle to cover the insidious work- ings of French subtlety. Sir Edward Grey, with the same "status quo" ever uppermost in his mind, divided Persia between Russia and Great Britain and closed another door in the face of German expansion. In China the same objective was aimed at. There was not one field beyond her own borders in which Germany was unopposed not simply by the com- mercial competition of her rival but by all the diplomatic forces that could be brought to bear against her. Germany knew this, and Great Brit- ain knew that she knew it and that the hour of reckoning could not be long postponed. When her chain of allies had been completed. Great Britain needed only a pretext. The "White Paper" issued by the British Foreign Office and the tele- grams exchanged between Downing Street and the British Embassy in Washington show where this pretext was found and throw a strong light upon the principles which actuated Great Britain to declare war on Ger- many. The excuse given by Sir Ed- ward Grey for the declaration of war was the violation of the neutrality of Belgium, but anyone who can read will see for himself how little such altruistic motives moved the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs at a time when it was in his power to prevent the violation of Belgium soil. The following statement sent by the British Foreign Office to its Em- bassy in Washington subsequent to the seizure of the two warships building in British shipyards for Turkey enunciates a policy which exactly covers Germany's action in Belgium. "In accordance with the recog- nized principle of the right and su- preme duty to insure national safety in time of war. His Majesty's Gov- ernment took over two ships which were building in England for the Turkish government, but had not yet been delivered to them. "His Majesty's Government has not only offered to pay in full and return the ships in good condition after the war, or supply equivalent new ones, but also additional and generous compensation for the use of the preempted ships during the war." No simpler justifications of Ger- many's passage through Belgium could be supplied than this state- ment by the British Foreign Office. How much in harmony it is with the views of those responsible for Great Britain's policy and, as a conse- quence, how hypocritical their pro- fessed motives of highest interna- tional morality are, is best shown by quoting verbatim from the British "White Paper." These quotations clearly show that Great Britain WANTED to go to war and was merely looking, as usual, for the proverbial sheep-skin, in which to parade before an applauding audi- ence. Sir Edward Grey to Sir F. Goschen, London, Foreign Of- fice, Aug. 1st, 1914. Sir: I told the German Am- bassador today that the reply of the German Government with regard to the neutrality of Bel- gium was a matter of very great regret, because the neutrality of Belgium affected feeling in this country. He asked me whether, if Ger- many gave a promise not to vio- late Belgium neutrality, we could engage to remain neutral. I replied that I could not say that ; our hands were still free. The Ambassador pressed me as to whether I could not formulate conditions on which we would remain neutral. HE ■ EVEN SUGGESTED THAT THE INTEGRITY OF FRANCE AND HER COLONIES MIGHT BE GUARANTEED. I SAID THAT I FELT OBLIGED TO REFUSE DEF- INITELY ANY PROMISE TO REMAIN NEUTRAL, AND I COULD ONLY SAY THAT WE MUST KEEP OUR HANDS FREE." WHY BELGIUM WAS NOT PROTECTED Sir Edward Grey to Sir F. Berite. ( Telegraphic. ) London, Foreign OJfice, Aug. 2nd, 1914. After the. Cabinet Meeting this morning I gave M. Cambon the following memorandum: "I am authorized to give an assurance that, if the German fleet comes into the Channel or through the North Sea to under- take hostile operations against French coasts or shipping, the British fleet will give all the protection in its power. "This assurance must not be taken as binding his Majesty's Government to take any action until the above contingency of action by the German fleet takes place." M. CAMBON ASKED ME ABOUT THE VIOLATION OF LUXEMBURG. I TOLD HIM THE DOCTRINE ON THAT POINT. HE ASKED ME WHAT WE SHOULD SAY ABOUT THE VIOLATION OF THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM. I SAID WE WERE CONSIDER- ING WHETHER WE SHOULD DECLARE VIOLATION OP BELGIAN NEUTRALITY TO BE CASUS BELLI." There appears to have been neither logic nor decisiveness in the attitude of Great Britain on the question of Belgium's neutrality. On the other hand, the question of na- tional safety is clearly expressed and unmistakable. Great Britain was ready to do anything to insure her national safety. Placed in a posi- tion similar to Germany's she could not but have announced to the world: "In accordance with the recognized principle of the right and supreme duty to insure- national safe- ty in time of war. His Majesty's Government was obliged to enter Belgium. "His Majesty's Government has not only offered to pay in full and return everything in good condition but also additional and generous compensation for the use of Belgian territory during the war." There is a great deal of hypocrisy about the value of international agreements. If all nations respected their treaties and conventions there would be no longer cause for war. The seizure of the Turkish ships was a necessity to England, and the oc- cupation of Belgium a necessity to Germany. Tlie extenuation of the German action is contained in these words of the British "White Paper": "Germany had consequently to dis- regard Belgian neutrality, it being for her a question of life or death to prevent French advance." When we have discarded the non- essential, the facts that stand out boldly are that Sir Edward Grey still had it in his power on August 2nd to determine whether Great Britain "should declare violation of Belgian neutrality to be casus belli,"* that he refused to give the German Ambassa- dor any satisfaction on this vital point, and that when the time was ripe he used the fa/it accompli of the German movement through Belgium, under circumstances warranted by his own pronunciamento in the case of the Turkish war-ships, as the pre- text so long sought to strike at Great Britain's commercial enemy. ♦Consult the INDET for "An Au- thority on Neutrality" on this subject. —The Editor of War Echoes. UNFAIR AND INSINCERE. Editorial from the "Milwaulcee Free Press," October 13, 1914. Every civilized human being de- plores and regrets the destruction wrought by this European war. Whether it be the home of a peasant or a monument of ancient architec- ture that is damaged, the sentiment of mankind responds either on the human or on the aesthetic side, as the case may be. Admitting that and approving it, why should American publications generally sound this note, and at the same time either charge or insinuate that the Germans somehow are to blame for the destruction that is tak- ing place in France and Belgium? Pick up the "Saturday Evening Post," the "Literary Digest," "Col- lier's Weekly," in fact nine out of ten American publications devoted to current events — to say nothing of the newspapers — and we see articles and pictures emphasizing the destruction wrought by the war and always with this implication of German responsi- bility and German blame. We cannot help but wonder what these same publications would be do- ing if the French and English, or the Russians, ■ were fighting on Ger- man soil, if they were besieging and taking German cities. The same de^ struction that is now visited on Ant- werp or Rheims would then be the lot, say, of Strassburg or Hamburg. But would the lamentings of the American press be quite as loud as they are today? Let us hope so. And yet, when we think of the wide publicity given to alleged German atrocities, while sim- ilar charges, far more authentic, against the Belgians and Russians, have been passed over in compara- tive silence, we become a little doubt- ful. War is an engine of destruction, and the soil which has the misfortune to become its theater must bear the consequences. Germany did not invite this war. It was forced upon her. The prime mover was Russia. Had France, had England thought more of the de- struction that threatened their cities and their citizens, than they thought of inflicting destruction upon Ger- many, they would not have been found hand in glove with Russia's purpose; To expect Germany, fighting as she is against a world of enemies and for her very national existence, to bom- bard threatening cities with confetti and spare churches, when they are used by the enemy for military pur- poses, is to expect something pathet- ically absurd. She is doing only what that enemy would be doing were he fighting for advantage on German soil. If the French or the Belgians think more of their cities than they do of their strategic importance, all they have to do is surrender them before the work of destruction commences. The horror and the waste of war cannot be minimized, but it is no evidence of either the sanity or fair play of certain numerous American journals when they emphasize the havoc wrought by the triumphant German arms as if somehow that re- flected upon the character of their warfare or the civilization of the na- tion. GERMANY'S GEOGRAPHIC POSITION CONSEQUENTLY HER PLANS OF MILITARY STRATEGY GERMANY'S HONORABLE PROPOSAL TO BELGIUM EVEN AFTER BELGIUM HAD BROKEN FAITH WITH HER NEIGHBOR And Belgium finally Plotting Secretly against Germany Evidence of Secret Negotiations with France and England to this End Colossal Machinations and Intrigue against the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Consequently Against Germany KING AIjBERT'S POIilCT. By the Editor. The Open Court. It Is strange that although Bel- gium's policy is well known in Eu- rope and the questionable character of Belgium's neutrality is recognized hy Sir Edward Grey himself, yet in this country Belgium is persistently made the main reason for keeping up a propaganda against Germany and condemning her as the most faithless and barbarous of nations. Almost all my critics fall back on Belgium and treat the discoveries in the Brussels archives either as inventions or as of no significance. Nor have our daily papers been sufficiently unprej- udiced to publish the facts which speak loudly against British policy. One of the most important docu- ments discovered by the Germans in the Brussels archives is a letter writ- ten by Baron Greindl, Belgian am- bassador at the court of Berlin, who claims that in planning to enter into a close alliance with the Triple En- tente and open its country to a Brit- ish army for the purpose of proceed- ing against Germany, the Belgian government has violated the laws of neutrality and has thereby exposed herself to the danger of surrender- ing her fortresses to her foreign friends whom he deems not less dan- gerous than the Germans. The letter reads in part as follows: "From the French side danger not only threatens us in the south, by way of Luxemburg, but also along our whole common frontier. This assertion is not based on conjectures alone; we have positive support for it. An encircling movement from the north forms without doubt part of the scheme of the entente conliale. If that were not the case, the plan to fortify Flushing would not have raised such a hue and cry in Paris and London. There the reasons have by no means been kept secret, why it was desired that the Schelde should remain with- out defense. What-they wished was to be able to transport English troops to Antwerp without hindrance, i. e., Albert — King of Beleiunc to create with us a basis of opera- tion for an offensive movement against the Lower Rhine and West- phalia, and then to compel us to fall in line, a thing which would not have been difficult, for in handing over our national stronghold we should have deprived ourselves, by our own foolhardiness, of every possibility of resisting the demands of our ques- tionable protectors, once we had been so unwise as to let them in. The overtures, as perfidious as naive, of Colonel Bernardiston at the time of the conclusion of the entente cordiale have shown us plainly how the mat- ter really stood. When, eventually, we allowed ourselves to be intimi- dated by the pretended danger of a closing of the Schelde, the plan in- deed was not given up, but so altered that the English auxiliary army was not to be landed on the Belgian coast but at the nearest French ports. For this we have as witness the disclos- ures of Captain Faber which have 74 been contradicted just as little as the reports in the newspapers, by which they were confirmed or sup- plemented in individual points." We will not here condemn Bel- gium for breaking her neutrality, for to remain absolutely neutral un- der such circumstances is very diffi- cult and actually prevents the self- assertion of a small nation. Belgium had been Intended as a buffer state. It was established for the purpose of separating the frontiers between France and Germany and its estab- lishment was mainly in the interest of England, whose policy is well de- scribed in the recent article of Field Marshal Earl Roberts in the "Hib- bert Journal" of October, 1914.' England naturally has an interest in the coast of the continent facing her own shore and has always been anxious that it be retained in the hands of a weak nation. An invasion of Belgium is felt by English states- men as an invasion of English ter- ritory, and we must understand that this feeling is a sort of Monroe Doc- trine to Great Britain. This explains why the English could go to war in defense of Belgium. Upon the whole England has al- ways favored the smaller countries on the continent and has always been the enemy of whatever power took the lead in continental politics. Originally the neutrality of Belgium was aimed against Prance, but since the establishment of the German em- pire the tables turned and it was intended to be used against Ger- many. But just here lies the equivo- cal nature of England's attitude. She wished to use Belgian neutrality against either France or Germany, but did not intend to respect it her- self; this two-faced policy is posi- tively proved by the documents found in Brussels and is plainly indicated in Baron Greindl's letter. King Albert is apparently an am- bitious monarch. King Leopold, his uncle, had a keen mind and enriched himself as well as enlarged Belgium by the acquisition of African terrl- REASONS FOR GERMANY IN THE WORLD WAR 75 tory. Experts in international law have considered that this step threw doubt on the old neutral character of Belgium or even entirely disposed of it, and this view was shared by no less an authority than Gladstone. King Leopold's policy induced Glad- stone to establish a new treaty dur- ing the war of 1870-1871, which was to last for one year after the close of the war. A correspondent of mine who prefers that his name be omitted, writes to me as follows: "It has often occurred to me that very little explanation has yet been offered as to the real reason for Belgium's siding with the allies. They must have had more motives than just plain neutrality. Is there anything in the fact that the throne of Belgium personally owns such large tracts in Africa that, had the throne been neutral in spirit, they would have been endangered by the English and French? Might it not be a purely selfish motive which in- duced the king of Belgium to join with the Allies, believing that he would thereby avoid losing his estate, which I understand is the largest in the world?" Of whatever value, or lack of value, the old treaty concerning Bel- gium's neutrality may be. King Al- bert has certainly not respected it. He has been on very friendly terms with England, and this in itself is certainly commendable; but he has also shared the view of the British government which regards Germany as the main foe of English suprem- acy on the seas and is expressed in the formula, Germania est delenda. He did not doubt that Germany could easily be crushed between Prance and Russia. He seemed fully con- fident that Belgian forts could resist invaders for an indefinite length of time and could not be taken except at an enormous loss of life, and so he saw no danger in joining the Al- lies. He even ventured so far as to extend his own influence over the other small powers by proposing to establish an alliance among them of which he was to be the leading spirit. This in itself was also a breach of neutrality. Like the English he re- garded the neutrality of Belgium as a protective measure against Ger- many; he saw in it a privilege, not a duty. The alliance between the small states, however, fizzled out because Holland, which was the very first one approached, became suspicious of its purport and hesitated to join. And since Holland was more important to Belgium than Denmark, Sweden or Norway, and since the latter were in- fluenced by Holland's misgivings, the whole scheme was abandoned. We do not know what part Albert will play in the future, but it is cer- tain that he is a unique character not to be underrated. His wife, too, is a distinguished woman. She is the daughter of that Bavarian Prince, Rupert, who studied medicine and practiced among the poor just like any other physician except that he would not take fees. He lived like a civilian, and, among his children, the present Queen of Belgium was brought up like a professor's daugh- ter. We will repeat in extenuation of King Albert's mistakes that it is by no means an easy matter to play a truly neutral part; and while his am- bitious plans for an alliance of the smaller states failed, he has cut a dashing figure in recent history, and has shown sufficient energy to over- come even the traditional antipathy against royalty in democratic Bel- gium. He has never been so popular as now in times of war, and his popu- larity has spread into Prance so that in the present dissatisfaction with the republican government isolated voices have been heard which would wel- come him to the throne of Prance. MORE ENGLISH FAITHLESSNESS. Translation of Editorial. Illinois Staats-Zeitung, Chicago. Just now Edward Grey is indulg- ing in filthy remarks about German violations of treaties, the expiation of which England must make a task of a lifetime. The fairy story of Bel- gian neutrality has already become stale and lost its attraction. All sorts of interesting secrets have reached us from the diplomatic world, that show that this Belgian neutrality was two-sided. Among the papers of General Bri- aillant, the constructor of the forts at LiCge and Namur, was found a statement, that work on these forts — intended to check a probable Ger- man invasion — was not begun until King Edward urged their erection. Colored sheets, showing all the dif- ferent uniforms worn by French and English troops, were found in pos- session of Belgian soldiers, and Bel- gian prisoners asserted, that they have to be instructed to become fa- miliar with the styles of these uni- forms. And finally we learn from the columns of Paris papers that dur- ing the months of May and June large quantities of ammunition for English cannon and small arms had been stored at Maubeuge — a prepa- ration for the war that was begun in August, which, according to Grey, England had not decided upon, until Germany avowed its inability to re- spect Belgium's neutrality. History then will be the unbiased judge in this case of breach of neutrality, violated tenfold in the grossest man- ner by the other party with a view of overthrowing Germany. The longer England parades this ghost of neutrality, the less the dread of it, while on the other hand her faithlessness and violations are more and more brought to light. In East Africa for instance, the English have bombarded Bar-es-Salaam, cap- tured the steamer "Herman Wiss- man" on the Victoria Nyanza, and with the aid of native troops de- stroyed German settlements. These actions of England are serious viola- tions of international treaties that had been proposed by her. Article 11 of the Congo Act stipulates, that colonies lying in the central African free trade zone, among them Ger- man East Africa, should in case of war between their respective mother countries be considered neutral and enjoy all the rights of a neutral state. This was determined upon to avoid endangering European authority and as a show of regard for the natives. It equals throwing the principles of colonial policy to the winds when colored troops are brought in to fight in the battles of the white races. The history of the Boer war could have taught Germany, that England after having proposed such precautionary measures would entirely ignore them should it be to her momentary ben- efit to do so, but this present war has again shown that Germany's worst fault is her strong faith in others. The history of the near future will prove England guilty of show- ing outrageous disregard for her African treaties. If she teaches the natives of her colonies to use their arms against white people, she will not be spared the mortification of seeing the negroes make no distinc- tion between Britons and Germans. For the present the Germans will see to it, that England's brigandish policy will affect her stomach. After the British excesses, the weak forces of East African home guards crossed the frontier, took Poweto, levied contributions and destroyed sections of the Uganda railroad. Prom South- west Africa German troops have in- vaded Batshumland and their ad- vance has been such a rapid one, that the London diamond trust is fearing for the safety of its Kimber- ley mines. No doubt this advance of the Germans was undertaken in the hope of arousing the Boer element of South Africa, which as yet has not become reconciled to the English government. * * * Official Despatch of Belgian Charge d' Affaires in Petersburg to Minister of Foreign Affairs in Brussels. The semi-official Norddeutsche AUgemeine Zeitung of September 12th publishes the following highly interest- ing article: BELGIAN DIPLOMAT ANENT GERMANY'S EFFORTS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OP PEACE. On July 31a letter was mailed in Berlin, bearing the following address: Madame Costermans, 107 Rue Proissard, Bruxelles, Belgique. Since as is known, a state of threatening danger of war was declared on the same day, for the territory of the German Empire, on account of which the transmission of private mail to foreign countries was suspended, the 76 THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM" Le 30 juillet 1914. Belgian Legation, St. Petersburg. 795/402. (TRANSLATION.) The political situation. July 30, 1914.' letter in question was returned to the place of dispatch, viz., Berlin. There the letter was kept in the Dead Letter Department, and after the expiration of the prescribed term, was opened by the competent postal authority in order to ascertain the name of the sender. It was found that inside the envelope there was a second envelope, bearing the following address: ,, . ^ . "Son Excellence Monsieur Davignon, Ministre des Affaires Estrangeres." Since this envelope did not bear the name of the sender any more than the outside envelope, the letter was then opened It contained an official dispatch of the Royal Belgian Charge d'Affaires at St. Petersburg, Mr. B. de I'Escaille concerning the political situation in the said capital on July 30, which, in view of its political importance, was handed over to the German Foreign Office by the postal authorities. This dispatch reads: (ORIGINAL.) Legation de Belgique, > a St. Pgtersbourg. 795/402. Situation politique. Monsieur le Ministre: Les joumfies d'hier et d'avant-hier se sont pass^es dans I'attente d'gvgnements qui devaient suivre la declaration de guerre de rAutriche-Hongrie a la Serbie. Les nouvelles les plus contradictories ont circuit sans qu'il soit possible de d6m€ler exactement le vrai du faux touchant les intentions du Gouvernement Imperial. Ce qui est incontestable c'est que I'Allemagne s'est efforcee, autant id qu'd, Vienne, de trouver un moyen quelconque d'eviter un conflict general, mais qu'lle a rencontre d'un cot6 I'obstination du Cabinet de Vienne a ne pas faire un pas en arrigre et de I'autre la mefiance du Cabinet de St. Petersbourg devant les assurances de I'Autriche-Hongrie qu'elle ne songeait qu'a punir la Serbie et non a s'en emparer. M. Sazonow a declare qu'il etait impossible a la Russie de ne pas se tenir prete et de ne pas mobiliser, mais que ces preparatifs n'6taient pas diriges centre I'Allemagne. Ce matin un coromunique official aux journaux annonce que "les reser- vistes ont ete appeles sous les armes dans un certain nombre de Gouvernements." Connaisant la discretion des com- muniques officiels russes, on peut hardiment pretendre qu'on mohilise partout. L'Ambassadeur d'Allemagne a declare ce matin qu'il etait a bout des essais de conciliation qu'il n'a cess6 de faire depuis samedi et qu'il n'avait plus guSre d'espoir. On vient de me dire que I'Ambassadeur d'Angleterre s'etait prononce dans le mgme sens. La Grande Bretagne a propose derniferement un arbitrage, M. Sazonow a depondu: "Nous I'avons propose nous m6mes a I'Autriche-Hongrie, elle I'a refuse." A la pro- position du'me Conference, I'Allemagne a repondu par- la pro- position d'une entente entre cabinets. On peut se demander vraiment si tout le monde ne desire pas la guerre, et tache seulement d'en retarder un pen la declaration pour gagner du temps. L'Angleterre a commence par donner a entendre qu'elle ne voulait pas se laisser entrainer dans in conflict. Sir George Buchanan de disait ouvertement. Aujourd' hui on est ferme- ment convaic-u a St. Petersbourg, on en a mSme I'assurance, que VAngleterre soutiendra la France. Get appui est d'wn poids enorme et n'a pas peu contribue a donner la haute ma/in OAi pa/rti de la guerre. Le Gouvernement Russe a laisse dans ces derniers jours libre cours a toutes les manifestations pro-Serbes et hostiles a I'Autriche et n'a aueunement cherche a les etouflfer. II s'est encore produit des divergences de vues dans le sein du Conseil des Ministres qui s'est reuni hier matin; on a retarde la publication de la mobilisation. Mais depuis s'est produit un revirement, le parti de la guerre a pris le dessus et ce matin a 4 heures cette mobilisation etait publiee. L'armee qui se sent forte est pleine d'enthousiasme et fondee de grandes esperances sur les enormes progrfis realises depuis' la guerre japonaise. La marine est si loin d'avoir realise le programme de sa reconstruction et de sa reorganisation qu'elle ne peut vraiment pas entrer en ligne de compte. C'est bien la le motif qui donnait tant d'importance a I'assurance de I'appui de I'Angleterre. Comme j'ai au I'honneur de vous le telegrapher aujourd'hui (T. 10) tout espoir de solution paciflque parait ecarte. C'est I'opinion des cercles diplomatiques. Je me suis servi pour mon telegramme de la voie via Stock- holm par le Nordisk Cabel comme plus sure que I'autre. Je confie cette depeche a un courrier prive qui la mettra a la poste en Allemagne. Veuillez agreer, Monsieur le Ministre, les assurances de mon plus profound respect. (gez.) B. de I'Escaille. Yesterday and the day before have passed in the expecta- tion of events which were bound to follow Austria-Hungary's declaration of war against Servia. Such conflicting news was circulated that it was not possible to disentangle the true from the false concerning the intentions of the Imperial (Russian) Government. Only one thing is incontestable, and that is, that Germany has made efforts, here as well as in Vietvna, to, find some means of avoiding a general conflict, and that she has met, on the one hand, with the Vienna Cabinet's obstinacy not to yield one step, on the other hand, with the distrust of the St. Petersburg Cabinet toward the assurances of Austria-Hungary that she intended only to punish Servia and not to seize her territory. Mr. Sazonow has declared that it was impossible for Russia not to hold herself in readiness and not to mobilize; that, however, these preparations were not directed against Ger- many. This morning an official communication to the news- papers declares that "the reserves have been called to the colors within a certain number of provinces." However, whosoever knows of the reticence of Russian official "com- muniques," can boldly assert that the mobilization is general. The German Ambassador declared this morning that he was at the end of his endeavors at conciliation, which he has not ceased making since Saturday, and that he scarcely enter- tained any more hope. I just hear that the British Ambassa- dor has expressed himself to the same effect. Great Britain has recently proposed arbitration. Mr. Sazonow replied: "We have ourselves made such a proposition to Austria-Hungary, but she declined." To the proposal of a conference, Germany answered by proposing an entente between the Cabinets. One can really ask one's self whether everybody does not want war and is only trying to postpone its declaration a little in order to gain time. England commenced by making it understood that she would not let herself be drawn into a conflict. Sir George Bu- chanan said this openly. Today, however, everybody in St. Petersburg is quite convinced — one has actually received the assurance — that England will stand by France. This support is of enormous weight and has contributed largely toward keeping the war-party above water. During the past few days the Russian Government has left free rein to all pro-Servian and anti-Austrian demonstrations, and has in no way attempted to check them. However, there were still differences of opinion within the Council of Min- isters which met yesterday morning; the publication of the order of mobilization has, therefore, been retarded. But since then a change has set in, the war-party has obtained the upper hand, and at 4 o'clock this morning, the order for that mobili- zation was given out. The army which believes itself strong, is full of enthusiasm and bases great hopes upon the enormous progress that has been made since the Japanese war. The navy is still so far removed from the realization of its plans of renewal and reorganization, that it can scarcely be counted upon. Just here lies the reason why tJve assurance of English support is of such great moment. As I had the honor to telegraph (T. 10) to you today, every hope of a peaceful solution seems past. That is the opinion of the diplomatic circles. For my telegram I used the route via Stockholm over the Nordick cable, because this is safer than the other. This dispatch I am entrusting to a private courier, who will mail it in Germany. Please accept, sir, the assurance of my most profound re- spect. B. de I'Escaille. REASONS FOR GERMANY IN THE WORLD WAR 77 The Norddeutsclie Allgemeine Zeitung comments on this official dispatch in the following manner: "Today our enemies declare to the whole world deceitfully and with most practiced reversal of the true facts that the powers of the triple entente had worked until the last moment toward the preservation of peace, but through Ger- many's brusque attitude, which made every agreement impossible, were forced to war; Germany had, forsooth, in her wild lust for conquest, wanted the war under all circumstances. In comparison to this, the document in hand is valuable as a proof that even on July 30, two days before the German mobilization, the diplomatic circles in St. Petersburg were convinced that Germany had made the greatest effort, both in Vienna and St. Petersburg, to localize the Austro-Servian conflict and to prevent the outbreak of a world war. It is, furthermore, valuable as a proof that these same circles were already at that time convinced that England had strengthened the side of the Russian war party and hence added materially to the calling forth of the war, through her assurance that, in case of war, she would not remain neutral, but would support France against Germany. And, finally, this document is also of interest to us, because its diplomatic author believed that he should report to his government that he considered the assur- ance of Russia that troops were called to arms in only a few provinces, and that a general mobilization would not take place, a fraud." — Reprinted from the "News of the War in Europe," supplied by "The Fatherland," New York. A BOER'S OPINION. Prom the "lUinois Staats-Zeitung," Chicago, October 1, 1914. Editor "Illinois Staats-Zeitung." Sir: In reply to the German Im- perial Chancellor, Sir Edward Grey, British Foreign Secretary, authorized this statement: "The Imperial Chancellor refers to the dealings of Great Britain with the Boer republics, and suggests that she has been false therein to the cause of freedom. Without going into controversies now happily past we may recall what General Botha said in the South African Parliament a few days ago when expressing his conviction of the righteousness of Britain's cause and explaining the firm resolve of the South African Union to aid her in every possible way." He, Botha, used these words: "Great Britain had given them a constitution under which they (the Boers) could create a great nation- ality and had ever since regarded them as a free people and as a sister state. Although there might be many who in the past had been hostile towards the British flag, he (Botha) could vouch for it that they would ten times rather be under the British flag than under the German flag." This talk of Botha and his British boss, Edward Grey, about "constitu- tion" and "great nationality" is very much like the bunk which the Czar of Russia used a few weeks ago in his proclamation to the Poles in or- der to gain their loyalty. The voice of Botha is not the voice of the Boer people, who at meetings all over South Africa under the lead- ership of ex-President Steyn, General de Wet, General Andries Cronje and General Hertzog unanimously con- demned Botha. Boers do not want a British consti- tution which compels them to fight in an unjust war or throw down their positions. Nor do they want the German flag or the British flag. What they want is the free constitu- tion of the late South African Repub- lic and a BOER FLAG (the vierkleur of Transvaal) which freedom-loving Britain ruthlessly destroyed. Boers also want full compensation for all the destruction wrought by British troops, and will never be sat- isfied with the British sops which left many of them virtual paupers. The so-called "free" British South African constithtion enables Botha and the British Governor General, Lord Buxton, to override the wishes KIXG ALBERT IN GERMAN LNIFORM Receiving the Ofiicers of the Regiment, whose Chief he has become as a matter of honor in peace time before the War (By Courtesy of the "Open Court") of the Boer people and follow a megalomaniacal policy of British im- perialism and British navalism, a navalism which has been a ten times greater menace to the nations of the earth than the "awful" German mili- tarism. (Recently, when free tolls for American ships through the Pan- ama Canal was the bone of conten- tion, it was so menacing that even the President of the "mighty Amer- ican nation" had to beg Congress to ignominiously hand-up to John Bull, no matter whether Uncle Sam was "right or wrong," rather than face and fight that awful big British navy and its faithful Japanese ally.) Under this free British constitu- tion, General Hertzog while Minister of Justice and member of Botha's cabinet had to resign his position and was kicked out of the cabinet because he had protested against South Af- rican contributions to Britain's big navy and against the imperialism of Botha, who a few years ago said that he would help to expand the British Empire, which, according to Sir Wil- fred Laurier (ex-premier of Canada, and another loyal British imperialist, who no doubt has caught the spirit of the song, "Rule Britannia, Britan- nia rule the waves"), is destined "ONE DAY TO RIVAL THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN ALL ITS GLORY." What is so wonderful to me is that British liars, with the help of Botha and others, in the face of the fact that Britain's big navy bristles with more guns and other engines of de- struction than are found in the com- bined German and Austian navies and armies, are trying to intimidate Boers with German flags and Ger- man militarism, and that even here in America they are trying to insult the intelligence and frighten the manhood of a "mighty nation" by ex- hibiting the old bogey, German flag and militarism, under big scare-heads in the pro-British section of the American press. There are no Boer papers in Amer- ica to coritradict the many falsehoods and misrepresentations of British statesmen and others called from South Africa and England about the Boer people, so I trust you will pub- lish this letter also, hoping it will help in the difiicult task of catching and nailing a few of the numerous British lies. Thanking you in anticipation, I re- main. Sir, Yours truly, lOHAN P. A. DEMPERS. THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM" A Sketch of Belgian History Belgium Vicissitudes for a Century— Neutrality and International Law THE NEW BELGIAN BANK COMMISSION (By Courtesy of the "Chicago Ahendpost") WAR HYPOCRISY UNVEILED. An Essay on the World Conflict. By Albert E. Henschel. (Another point of view as to Germany's cause and justice in the war. Published by Mr. P. Hansen, 170 Chambers Street, New Yorlt City. Five cents per copy. This article furnishes most remarkable evidence of the greatest political and diplo- matic frame-up against Germany in his- tory. — Editor.) In these rancorous days when much is heard to break down the fair Ger- man name and to give a talse idea of German national ambitions, when this nation is depicted as a horde of Huns and A'^andals, delighting in destruction from sheer lust and malice ; when their military system is held up to oppro- brium — and the subtle suggestion is sought to be instilled that if they are successful, America will be nest In turn to feel the lance of the invading Uhlan — it is proper that we settle down to some sober thinking and ask ourselves whether these blood and thunder stories are not part of the general warfare to destroy the credit and good name of the most powerful antagonist of the Allies. The constant reiteration of the story of the violation of Belgian neutrality; of German militarism ; of the Prussian- izing of the world; of tales of cruelty and barbarism, is all intended to have a battering effect upon the unbroken amity that has characterized the his- torical relations between the German and American people. The cutting of the German-American cable at the beginning of the war left the Germans helpless during the forma- tive period of American public opinion. The English had the monopoly of press news and drew almost exclusively on their imagination. They dreamed of the multiple deaths of the German Crown Prince ; of the defeat and sui- cide of Gen. von Emmich ; of the Fall of Allenstein and Konigsberg, and they were not slack in the invention of Ger- man atrocities and vandalism. It was not until a considerable time that Americans had the opportunity — which is the sine qua non of all justice and fair play — of "hearing the other side," Then, among others, such distinguished Americans as Professor Burgess and Professor Sloane, as well as Dr, Dern- burg, who is almost an American in spirit, took up the cudgels for "fair play" to a nation of 70 millions, whose highest moral and material interests are inextricably interwoven with our own, A False and Malignant Analogy. Every type of virulence is still vying to exhaustion to arouse prejudice against Germany — prostituting the highest faculties "to make the worse appear the better reason." One of the more conspicuous of the scorpion- penned baiters of Germany had the nonchalant temerity to suggest to the American public, that, on the same pi-iuciple that Germany deemed herself forced in self-protection to invade Bel- gium, she would be justified, after hav- ing captured Paris and invaded Eng- land, in invading the United States as a base of operations for the con- quest of Canada, As an example of the absurd methods employed to in- flame American feeling, and of the lit- tle respect that is shown to American intelligence, this false and far-fetched analogy is quite in line with the general concerted attacks upon Germany. A True Analogy. In place of this most unfair analogy, let us suppose that your house was afire with the only means of escape over your neighbor's roof. Would you dally over the question of the "neutral- ity" of your neighbor's house — consid- ering that his home is his castle? — or would you simply go over his roof and save yourself and .vour family? But what did the Germans do? Did they rush helter-skelter into Belgium without so much as saying: "By your leave"? Justice to Belgium. No. To the honor and dignity of Human Nature be it said, that in that time of imminent peril, they did what no other nation has ever done ; they delayed sufficiently — when every mo- ment was precious — to ask permission of Belgium and to give assurance that her integrity and independence would be protected and reparation made for all losses. The future historian will refer to this act of Germany as a mani- festation of a sublime sense of justice. When this offer was refused, Ger- many did what any other European nation would have done in the first A SKETCH OF RECENT BELGIAN HISTORY place. She went into Belgium to save herself from destruction. There is no doubt that Belgium had the right to refuse permission and to resist invasion. But, when she made her choice, which involved war with Germany, she cannot complain of the war thus invited. When she took her position with the Allies she understood the war risks she was taking. If she had followed the example of Luxem- burg she would have saved herself from calamity. If we assume that Belgium was loyal to her neutrality and did not conspire with France and England to take part in the war, it would bring home to us, "That the real tragedy of history is not the struggle of right against wrong, but the conflict of right against right." England's Benevolence Towards Egypt. Since we are on the subject of anal- ogies, let us select one, not from fiction but from fact. Let us compare "Ger- man's Crime Against Belgium" with "Great Britain's Benevolence Towards Egypt." In July, 1882, England invaded Egypt because that country thought it had the right to improve its fortifications at Alexandria. On the 6th of July Admiral Seymour demanded instant cessation of the work on the forts, under penalty of bombardment. On the 10th of July he insisted on the surrender of the forts at the mouth of the harbor as a material guarantee. The Egyptian ministers strove to nego- tiate, but the Admiral was firm in his resolution. Early on the morning of the 11th, eight British ironclads and five gunboats fired on the forts, and in a few hours they were battered down. The other powers did not interfere, because the British invasion of Egypt was to be merely temporary and "to secure British interests and restore order." Mr. Bright, one of England's most noble statesmen, resigned his seat in the Cabinet because he was shocked by such brutal and uncalled-for viola- tion of international law, and because he would not stand for governmental policies of sordid graft upon weaker nations. On July 17th Mr. Bright entered the House of Commons and stated the rea- sons that impelled him to resign. His speech was punctuated by such ap- plause as showed that the acts of the British Government were not approved by popular judgment. This came out clearly thereafter, when the British Parliament would not consent to re- ward Admiral Seymour with either a peerage or a pension, both having been proposed by Mr. Gladstone. England Violates the Moral and In- International Law. Mr. Bright, in part, spoke as fol- lows: "I have endeavored from time to time to teach my countrymen an opin- ion and doctrine which I hold, which is that the moral law^ is not intended only for individual life, but is intended also for the life and practice of States. I think in the present case there has been a manifest violation of international law and of the moral law, and therefore it is impossible for me to give any support to it. I cannot repudiate what I have preached and taught during the period of a rather long political life. I cannot turn my back upon my belief and deny all that I have taught to many thousands of others during the forty years I have been permitted in public meetings and in this house to address my country- men. One word only more. I asked my calm judgment and my conscience what was the path of right to take. They pointed it out to me with an un- erring finger, and I am humbly endeav- oring to follow it." A nation that, through her Govern- ment, has been guilty of such notori- ous violation of neutrality, should not be taken too seriously when she ap- points herself as Guardian-in-chief of public rights and Interpreter-General of International Law. Furthermore, this "Temporary Possession of Egypt" was made Permanent in December, 1914. German Culture. The English seem very anxious to free the German people from the mili- tary despotism that has been grinding them into the greatest commercial and cultural power in Europe. A great mysterious fear has been aroused that the Germans are going to impose their culture on other people. What is called German culture is really the eclectic product of all the culture that may be found anywhere. It is merely the syn- thesis of all that can be, and ought to be, known and done, within the lim- its of present civilization. No man is more modest than the German pro- fessor, who seeks the light of the lamp of knowledge in the most obscure cor- ners of the earth. Instead of trying to force knowledge on the rest of the world, the authorities have been com- pelled to restrict the pressure of for- eign students in order that their home students may not be crowded out. If German culture, as manifested in German life, means to give govern- mental aid to struggling farmers, through long-time loans at low inter- est — to give them agricultural instruc- tion by which poor land is made enor- mously productive — to abolish the slums in the cities— to bring whole- some conditions to smile upon the abodes of the laborer — to banish the vagrant and beggar by affording every man the opportunity to work — to re- ward the toiler with a reasonable share of the values he helps to bring forth — to provide Insurance against the shocks of fate and misfortune — to encourage out-door recreation among the people — to stimulate the sense of the beautiful by architecture and the wise planning of cities — to extend facilities for the acquirement of every kind of useful knowledge — to infuse respect for law and order — to discipline the young to habits of thrift, industry and useful- ness^ — to plant in their hearts the seeds of kindness, courage, honor and integ- rity — and to inspire a love and devo- tion to their country that makes all Germans one family ready to sacrifice all that is near and dear for the pres- ervation of the Fatherland — then we have a kind of culture that cannot be imposed — which springs from the heart, the genius, the virtues of a people, and cannot be attained without inward grace, labor, sacrifice and struggle. German Leaders of Liberty. It has been intended to create the impression that the German people are ruled by a military autocracy to which they supinely yield in terror of the ruthless fist of their government. Noth- ing could be farther from the truth — the suggestion of Tacitus that the an- cient German peoples considered the truth as the noblest of their virtues and freedom as the most valuable of their possessions, still holds good among them. The union of German thought and aspiration always made for an advance in the cause of liberty. Dur- ing our Civil War we had the moral and material aid of Germany in fur- therance of the Union and of the lib- eration of the slaves. Kant, the great leader of German thought, traced the beginning of the State from the free- dom belonging to the individual as his birthright. He opposed paternal gov- ernment, the imperium paternale and demanded the imperium patrioticiMn, where everyone sees in the common- wealth the Fatherland whose stability must be protected by laws enacted by their collective will. He demands equality for the people as a result of the liberty that is born with them, and emphasizes the right of free speech as the palladium of liberty. Wilhelm von Humboldt declares that the purpose of man is to attain the highest and most proportionate devel- opment of his powers as a whole, and to accomplish this. Freedom is the first and most indispensable requisite. He also was a firm supporter of representa- tive government. Herder demands that all the fac- ulties of the individual, and of the people as a whole, be brought to har- monious development. Goethe said : "To this thought I cling, with virtue rife. Wisdom's last fruit profoundly true. Freedom alone he earns as -well as life. Who day by day must conquer them anew." Schiller : "Political and individual freedom re- main ever and eternally the holiest of all possessions, the worthiest aim of all endeavor, and the great center of all culture." Geripan Forces of Democracy. These writers, and others like them, are the constant forces that animate the independent, liberty and freedom- loving Germanic spirit. Against the titanic and all pervading influence of such heroic moulders of German character and thought, the writings of Treitschke and Bernhardi are but feeble and ephemeral manifes- tations — not at all representative of that sturdy, peace-loving people. The Hanseatic League — a German institution — was of great commercial and civilizing value — while the three free cities, Hamburg, Bremen and Lti- beek, were German Republics. In fact, the laws and free institutions of Eng- land, upon which those of our own land are based, are essentially German in origin, for it was the German stock that came over into England, in a long- continued immigration which practi- cally drove out the aboriginal Briton, and planted the pluck and brawn and THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM" hardihood that constitute the strength and bigness of the English people. In viewing German political institu- tions, it must be borne in mind that a country that was split up into so many kingdoms, duchies and petty principalities, could not readily develop a general freedom. It is only since 1S48 that they have a constitutional form of government. Since the union of their Empire they have made giant strides in the progress of political lib- erty. The Germans appreciate liberty and freedom as much as any other na- tion. Schiller's play of William Tell, which breathes the spirit of liberty, is truly typical of their national yearn- ing. We are indebted to the "Yellow Book" of Tfrance, published in (the "Times" of December 13, 1914 (sec- tion 9, column 3, page 1), for an eluci- dation of the progress of popular rule in Germany. The document tells of the state of German public opinion in April, 1914. It speaks of "the demo- cratization of Germany and the grow- ing force of the Socialist party." It then treats of the nobility as follows : "Not only are its material interests threatened by a formidable movement against agrarian protection, but its po- litical representation diminished in every legislature. In the Reichstag of 1878, in a House of 397 members, 162 were drawn from the ranks of the nobility ; in the Reichstag of 1898 there were 83 ; in that of 1912, 57, of whom only 27 sat on the right, while there were but 14 in the center, the 7 on the left, and 1 on the Socialist benches." This French authority indicates fair- ly well the German trend towards democracy, and may help to allay any possible fears that a victorious Ger- many is going to overturn the general freedom of the world. German Militarism. The militarism of Germany has never wrought itself into such a pitch of ex- altation as the French displayed in cast- ing anathema upon any one seeking jus- tice in the Dreyfus case. A whole na- tion almost gone mad in behalf of a military system that protected a traitor and degraded an innocent man. After years of suffering he could get no fair play at the hands of the military courts. It remained for the civil courts to reinstate him. Do we hear a word against French militarism? It is a patent fact that the mili- tarism of Germany has neither op- pressed their people, checked their growth, nor in any-wise undermined their prosperity. What, then, becomes of the altruistic argument of those al- leged friends of the Germans who say that Germany should be defeated in order to save the good German people from the crushing weight of their mili- tarism ? Neither the alleged evils of German militarism, nor the cruelties and bar- barism now so well advertised to a gullible public — nor any of their other vices improvised for the occasion — ^have made Germany uninviting to the large permanent American colonies there, nor to the vast stream of American travelers who find it their profit and delight to visit and revisit Germany on every available occasion. Germany the Only World Power That Has Kept the Peace for a Generation. Were it not for the German military machine, which, by the way, is not disproportionate to the wealth, com- merce and population it is designed to protect, Germany's independence and commercial expansion would be at the mercy of rival nations. The army and navy establishments, under existing conditions, are just as necessary to the nations as safe-deposit vaults are to banks and financiers, for protection. And it cannot be honestly said that Germany has used her military strength for any but strictly defensive purposes. If we sift all the muck and mire that has been cast upon Germany we can find nothing that stands out against the all-convincing fact — that Germany is the only world-power that in the past generation has not engaged in war. Our own President Wilson is fond of the pertinent expression, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Baron Steuben's Militarism. If the militarism of Germany is of a sort that keeps that country at peace for 44 years, while almost all others, without that pernicious militarism, have been rampant for war, conquest and spoliation of weaker territories, I am very much inclined to recommend the German brand of militarism to all countries who wish peacefully to de- velop their resources and reap the hon- est fruit of their industry and labor. Were it not for the eflacient bit of militarism "made in Germany," that Baron Steuben, as Adjutant-General, infused into Washington's army, and the militarism of a French army and navy, together with the potential mili- tarism afforded by the monetary loans given by France and Holland, it is doubtful whether the American Colo- nies would have attained their Inde- pendence. Rev. Dr. Hillis in a recent article gives an illuminating account of what German militarism has done for the general physical and moral ef- ficiency of Germany. It is quite evi- dent, from the general conditions of that country, that its militarism has gone hand in hand with universal prog- ress and development, and that in the matter of actual happiness and con- tentment of its people and their pros- perity, Germany takes a front rank among the nations. In considering the future of German militarism let us not forget that much good may be expected of a people who were the first to set up the requirement that a soldier must be a gentleman. That there are faults in the military system of Germany, as in all other systems, may be freely admitted. I hold no brief for military, or for any other kind of perfection. We must leave it to the intelligence and spirit of the German people to work out their problems. It strikes me as absurd to ask American approval of British militar- ism on the sea and condemnation of German militarism on land. England has used her militarism to challenge every weak and unprotected spot on earth, while Germany has been con- tent to use hers as a guardian of the general peace until overwhelming cir- cumstances forced her to unsheath the sword in self-protection. Policy of Justice to All Nations, The world-policy which controls the German Empire was thus set down by its diplomatic founder and greatest statesman : "We ought to take trouble and weaken the bad feeling which had been called out through our growth to the position of a real great Power, by hon- orable and peaceful use of our influ- ence, and so convince the world that a German hegemony in Europe is more useful and less partisan and also less harmful for the freedom of others than a French, Russian or English. That respect for the rights of other States in which France especially has always been so wanting at the time of its supremacy, and which in England lasts only so long as English interests are not touched, is made easy for the Ger- man Empire and its policy, on one side, owing to the objectivity of the German character, on the other by the fact (which has nothing to do with our deserts) that we do not require an in- crease of our immediate territory and also that we could not attain it with- out strengthening the centrifugal ele- ments in our own territory. It has always been my ideal aim, after we have established our unity within the possible limits, to win the confidence, not only of the smaller European States, but also of the great Powers, and to convince them that German pol- icy will be just and peaceful, now that it made good in the injuria temporum,, the division of the nation." The Emperor a liover of Peace. This fair and honorable policy to- wards other nations has been followed by the present German Emperor, who frequently went out of his way to pour oil on the troubled political waters, and to preserve peace when war seemed inevitable. These peaceful proclivities of the Em- peror, if any proof were needed, are clearly attested in several of the con- fidential reports published in the "Yel- low Book" of France. The subjoined extracts from the Em- peror's addresses embody the national aspirations of the German people, and are in line with his consistent efforts to reach an amicable understanding with France and Great Britain, and to preserve friendly relations with all other countries. , From the Emporer's Addresses. "Germany is in no need of fresh military glory, nor does she require any new conquests, for she has already obtained once for all, on the field of battle, the right to exist as a united and independent nation." "There is no work in the field of modem research which is not pub- lished in our tongue, and no discov- ery in science which we are not the first to turn to account, to be subse- quently adopted by other nations. Such is the World Power to which the German Spirit aspires." The "Yellow Book" Versus the Neu- trality Issue. The pretended reason given by Eng- land, with such flourish of trumpets, as to why she went to war, namely, ^ A SKETCH OF RECENT BELGIAN HISTORY the protection of the inviolability of treaties and the neutrality of a small state, receives a knockout blov?, vehen we read the Yellow Book of France. Document 66 shows that before the Belgian question came up, Sir Edward Grey stated that if Austria invaded Servia "A European question would be raised and a war would ensue, in which all the powers would take part." Document 110 : Sir Edward Grey said "that if the struggle became gen- eral England coul.d not remain neu- tral." Document 143 : "If the German fleet cross the Straits or go North in the North Sea in order to double the Brit- ish Isles, with a view to attacking the French coasts or the French navy, or to disturbing the French mercantile marine * * * from that moment on England and Germany would be In a state of war." Annex No. 123: Sir Edward Grey: "He (the German Ambassador) asked me whether, if Germany gave the prom- ise not to violate Belgium's neutrality, we would engage to remain neutral. I replied that I could not say that; our hands were still free and we were considering what our own attitude should be." These ofiBcial records dispose of the pretense that Britain went to war in defense of the cause of Belgium. The Father of International Ijaw on Neutrality. The oft-repeated misrepresentations of Germany's rights and duties with regard to Belgian neutrality render it desirable that the controlling princi- ples of international law, as well as the facts to which they apply, should receive careful consideration. Was Germany's invasion of Belgium justified? This question is answered in the af- firmative by Grotius, the recognized Father of International Law, in "Eight of War and Peace" (Chapter 2, Par. 7), who quotes Seneca as follows : "Necessity, the great protectress of human infirmity, breaks through all human laws, and all those made in the spirit of human regulations." And then proceeds (Par. 10) : "Hence It may be inferred, that, in the prosecution of a just war, any power has a right to take possession of a neutral soil ; if there be real grounds, and not imaginary fears for supposing the enemy intends to make himself master of the same, especially if the enemy's occupying it would be attended with imminent and irreparable mischief to that same power." Belgium Bellicose. It will be expedient to pass in hasty review the historical data selected from authentic sources, which show the march of events that finally led up to the Treaty of Neutralization. The reader should distinguish between the ordinary neutrality, that is, the normal condition of every country not at war, and the extraordinary state of neutral- ization imposed upon a smaller state by the great powers and requiring upon its part a studious and conscientious observance of impartiality and a scru- pulous avoidance of war-like operations. At this point it may be well to Inquire whether Belgium has not forsaken the paths of neutrality by sending, in 1865, a body of troops to Mexico in aid of Emperor Maximilian against President Juarez, violating the Monroe Doctrine; by participating in the war on China in 1900, during the Boxer Rebellion; and by acquiring the Congo Colonies, where the practice of atrocities upon the natives aroused general indignation and led to international friction. Points in Belgian History. In Roman times Belgium was part of Gaul. In 870 the portion east of the river Scheldt was made part of Germany, the western division part of France. In 1482 we find it in the hands of the Hapsburgs ; in 1555 in possession of Philip II of Spain, who, in 1598, ceded it to his daughter, Isabella, when it became an independent Kingdom. On the death of her husband, Albert, it fell back to Spain. By the Treaty of Utrecht, 1713, it was given to Aus- tria. During the War of the Austrian Succession, almost the whole of it fell into the hands of France, but was, in 1748, peacefully restored to Austria by the Treaty of Aix La Chapelle. In 1790 it revolted, declaring independence. In the course of the same year Austria succeeded in regaining possession. By the War of the French Revolution peace was again interrupted. In 1794 Belgium was conquered and subse- quently added to France. After the fall of Napoleon, it was united with Holland and its boundaries defined, in 1815, by the Congress of Vienna. Without being consulted, the Bel- gians were placed under the sceptre of the King of Holland, no regard being paid to national history or ideals, but merely with a view to setting up a bar- rier against the power of France. This scheme was mainly due to the efforts of British statesmen, working in con- junction with the Prince of Orange, who was settled in England. Great Britain received as her reward the Cape of Good Hope, Guiana and other colonies, on the pretense that they were being held in pawn for a liberated Hol- land, while Belgium was treated as a conquered country to be disposed of by the great Powers as they pleased. The Belgians and the Dutch did not prove to be good yoke-fellows. Dis- agreements between them finally led to riots and disturbances in 1830, as the Belgians complained of unequal repre- sentation and unfair apportionment of the national taxes and debt. A Na- tional Congress of Belgians convened in Brussels, which declared their inde- pendence of Holland. But Belgium was not allowed to control her own affairs. The Powers assumed a guard- ianship over the destinies of Belgium. On January 20, 1831, the London Con- ference decided that the frontier of Belgium should not be as their people desired, but should be that of 1790; that her neutrality should be guaran- teed; that the navigation of her rivers should be free, and that the public debt should be divided with Holland. Luxemburg was given to Holland as part of the Germanic Confederation. These proceedings, however, did not meet with the approval of the Brussels Congress, which protested against them. Holland refused to accept the settlement made by the Powers and de- clared war against Belgium, whose army was beaten. Dumortier in his work, "Belgium and the 24 Articles," page 3, refers to this Treaty of 1831 as being arranged by the Powers solely with reference to their own interests, "determined to dispose of Belgium, not absolutely without her consent, but at all events, in a manner essentially op- posed to the interests and wishes of the vast majority of the nation." It was not until March 14, 1838, that the Dutch finally accepted the condi- tions imposed by the great Powers. Then followed the Treaty of 19th April, 1839, based on the 24 Articles of the Treaty of 1831. Article VII of the 1839 treaty, states that "Belgium, within the limits specified in Articles 1, 2 and 4, shall form an Independent and perpetually Neutral State. It shall be bound to observe such neutrality to- wards all other States." At this point arises the pertinent in- quiry, whether Belgium's conduct and attitude towards Germany were con- sistent with her duties as a neutral. In the course of the negotiations be- tween . the great Powers, serious dis- agreements arose, during which an Eng- lish fleet blockaded the Dutch ports and a French army besieged and took Antwerp. Queen Victoria on Belgian Neutrality. Queen Victoria's Letters, Vol. Ill, pages 218, 219, give an interesting statement on Belgian Neutrality : "Belgium was declared a neutral State in order to make it impossible for France to annex the country, or obtain any power in it. The Belgians did not, themselves, desire to have their country made neutral, or put under the protection, which in some ways meant ' the tutelage of the Pow- ers." Treaty Conceived in Tyranny and Bom in Bloodshed. Thus was Belgium unwillingly sub- jected to a state of neutralization by coercion of the Powers that consulted only their own interests. From what one hears about this treaty, one would be led to believe that the high con- tracting parties had been inspired by some noble, altruistic resolve, that war shall be no more, and that Belgium shall be perpetually consecrated to the holy cause of peace. But that was not the motive at all. Each was afraid that th^ other might seize Belgium, so it was agreed that none shall have it. This was the genesis of the Treaty of 1839. Now all the guaranteeing powers are banded in groups straining to destroy each other. And this is the treaty, conceived In tyranny and bom in bloodshed, the sanctity of which is to be vindicated — after the lapse of generations — by making the whole world run red with the blood of inno- cent peoples ! The Germany of today did not exist in 1839, but Prussia, now a part of Germany, signed that treaty. Assum- ing that the German Empire took over the treaty obligations of the several states forming the union, it was a blanket adoption of such foreign obli- gations in whatever condition of valid- ity they happened to be at the time. Such omnibus adoption cannot be con- strued as strengthening or confirming the treaty obligations, which, for any cause, had become modified or obso- lete. 82 THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM" That this treaty of 1839 had in fact become obsolete is apparent from the conduct of the parties on every occa- sion when the subject became of para- mount interest, as, at the beginning of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, and again, at the opening of the present world-conflict. It is to be noted that, from the first, England was the power that took chief interest in Belgian neu- trality. British Interest in Belgium. The reason for this is well explained by Col. C. F. R. Henderson in his "Science of War." He refers to the constant influence of Antwerp on the destinies of the British Isles and quotes from Alison's history, as fol- lows: "Nature has formed the Scheldt to be the rival of the Thames. Flowing through a country excelling even the midland counties of England in wealth and resources, adjoining cities equal to any in Europe in arts and com- merce; the artery at once of Flanders and Holland, of Brabant and Luxem- burg, it is fitted to be the great organ of communication between the fertile ■fields and rich manufacturing towns of the Low Countries and other maritime states of the world. Antwerp, more- over, the Key of the great estuary, is eminently adapted for the establish- ment of a vast naval arsenal, such as it became under Philip II of Spain and again under the First Napoleon. It is the point from which in every age the independence of these Kingdoms has been seriously menaced. Sensible of her danger, it has been the fixed policy of Great Britain for centuries to prevent this formidable outwork from falling into the hands of her ene- mies, and the best days of her history are chiefly occupied with the struggle to ward off such a disaster." Col. Henderson then shows that it was to protect Antwerp from the French that Charles II sided with the Dutch in 1670 ; that Anne declared war on Louis XIV in 1704; that Chatham supported Prussia in 1742, and that Pitt fifty years later, took up arms against the French Revolution. It is thus easy to understand why Great Britain does not want Belgium or Holland to fall Into the possession of any of the great Powers and why British statesmanship is just now, so deeply solicitous about the sanctity of treaties and the protection of small countries. UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE POWERS SINCE 1839. Practical Intei-pretation of 1839 Treaty. The way the old neutrality treaty was regarded in 1870 by the guarantee- ing powers is a fair criterion of its status and value at that time. When at the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War it was generally understood that neither Prance nor Prussia would re- gard the old treaty as having any bind- ing force, what did the guaranteeing powers do? Did they protest? No. No one took up the matter except Eng- land. Even England was not of one mind; there were several members of the Cabinet who did not favor the tak- ing of any action. On August 4, 1870, Gladstone wrote the following to John Bright in rela- tion to a new treaty intended to secure Belgian neutrality during the Franco- Prussian War: "The recommendation set up in oppo- sition to it generally is, that we should simply declare we will defend the neu- trality of Belgium by arms in case it should be attacked. Now the sole or single-handed defense of Belgium would be an enterprise which we in- cline to think Quixotic." This again shows what England thought of the chance of getting her co-guarantors to help her defend Bel- gian neutrality under the old worn-out treaty. England then proposed a new treaty to Prussia and France, providing that If the armies of either violated the neutrality of Belgium, Great Britain would co-operate with the other for its defense, but without engaging to take part In the general operations of the war. The treaty was to hold good for twelve months after the conclusion of the war. A saving clause was added, that thereafter the rights of each shall continue to rest upon the old treaty. If there were no such rights, their reservation was, of course, only of paper value. It meant merely a reser- vation of any rights that might have existed at the time. That clause was an obvious formality, as is frequently put into legal documents, not to Indi- cate the existence of rights, but to save rights that may possibly exist. If Old Treaty Valid, No New Treaty Necessary. If, in the future, Belgian neutral- ity is "to continue to rest" upon the disclosed virtues of the old treaty, does it not mean that a special treaty will have to be made every time such neu- tralisation is to be assured? When the new treaty in 1870 was submitted to Bismarck he assented at once, but France hesitated. After the battle of Woerth she made no more dif- ficulty and the treaty was signed on August 9th. If the old treaty had been in full force and effect, why did England in- sist on a new treaty? Is it not clear that if the guarantors under the old treaty stood ready to enforce the guar- antee that it would have been super- erogation to propose a new one to cover the identical purpose of the treaty of 1839, the neutralization of Belgium? Would a tenant who had a five year^ lease visit his landlord after the first or second year to demand a new lease covering identical premises, terms and conditions? We have seen that when the practical test of the old treaty came in 1870, the guarantors failed to make good their guarantee. A treaty of guar- antee without ready and willing guar- antors, is like the play of Hamlet with Hamlet left out. It is a euphemism to call such a treaty obsolete; "dead" is the proper word. New Treaty of 1870 Does Not Revive Old Treaty of 1839. But it has been claimed in this con- troversy that the new treaty of 1870, covering the war and only twelve months thereafter confirmed or revived the old treaty of 1839. This claim is untenable because a recognition of the old treaty to have any such effect would require the united act of all the orig- inal parties. Three powers cannot bind five. The same objection was made In the British Protest of 23 Nov., 1846, against the annexation of the Free State of Cracow (declared neutral and inde- pendent by treaty May 3, 1815), by Austria, one of the guarantors. The Protest declared : "It is not competent for three of those Powers, by their own separate authority to undo that which was established by the common engage- ment of the whole." The fact that all of the original par- ties did not see fit to join in the spe- cial treaty of 1870, or to insist on the enforcement of the old treaty, thus making a new one necessary, shows that there was no vitality left in that old treaty. Certainly it was not of a character to justify England In enter- ing upon a world warfare. A few days before the outbreak of the present war we find England again asking Germany what she is about to do with reference to Belgian neutral- ity. Some time before this Belgium made a similar inquiry and Germany then replied that the neutrality would be respected. The chancelleries of Europe must have been aware for some time that the political situation was approaching a crisis, and that an explosion might occur at any time. * * • Germany knew full well the militant preparations that had been going on against her and realized the keen meaning and object of Belgium's inquiry at that particular time ; It was not only proper but neces- sary for Germany to reserve to herself the true military information involved in the inquiry as to her future inten- tions. Germany was not bound to give points to her enemies. France Tries to Annex Belgiom in 1866. A brilliant sidelight upon the status of this neutrality treaty is shed by the French negotiations in 1866, when Em- peror Napoleon III treated with two of the guarantors themselves for the disposal of Belgium. Morley, in Gladstone's Life, Vol. II, page 340, comments on this as follows : "If France and Prussia agreed, how could we help Belgium, unless indeed Europe joined. But then what chance was there of Russia and Austria join- ing against France and Prussia for the sake of Belgium, in which neither of them had any direct interest?" The Powers Plotting Against Belgiiuu. Mr. J. de C. MacDonnell, a distin- guished author and publicist, in his work, "King Leopold II," page 80, speaks of the neutrality treaty as fol- lows: "It must be remembered that, except in so far as it rests on self-interest, the neutrality of Belgium is without a real guarantee, and must remain so as long as Belgium remains an independ- ent State. It cannot be forgotten that, from the moment the Great Powers guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium, they all of them — with the exception of England — began to plot with one another in secret for her occupation, her overthrow, or her partition among themselves." A SKETCH OF RECENT BELGIAN HISTORY 83 Enough has been shown that this old treaty, for all practical purposes, was dead. Neutralization in Practice. The subject of neutralization by treaty is a comparatively new thing in international law. It has been tried in only a few cases, and in these has met with little success. By the treaty of Amiens, March, 1802, Malta was neutralized but England took it and now holds it. The neutrality of Switzer- land was only then respected when she was able to defend it by force of arms. When France, in 1S60, took Savoy, which had been neutralized when it was part of Sardinia, the guarantee vouchsafed by the Vienna and Paris treaties was violated without much ceremony, and not one of the guaran- tors did aught to maintain the guar- antee. The neutralization by the Vienna Congress, 1815, of the Free State of Cracow was violated by the elimination of its neutrality and inde- pendence when it was arbitrarily an- nexed by Austria. An instructive Illustration of the practical working of neutralization is further afforded by the following: Russian Note, 31st Oct., 1870, de- nouncing the stipulations of the Gen- eral Treaty of 30th March, 1856: "His Imperial Majesty cannot admit, de facto, that the security of Russia should depend on a fiction which has not stood the test of time, and should be imperiled by her respect for engage- ments which have not been observed in their integrity." In a further Russian Note, 1st Nov., 1870, denouncing the same Treaty of 1856, Russia speaks of "the facility with which, scarcely 10 years after its conclusion, a solemn arrangement, clothed with an European Guarantee, has been infringed both in letter and spirit, under the very eyes of the Pow- ers who should have - been its guar- dians." , Coming down to the present we have good reason to doubt whether Eng- land will observe the neutralization of the Suez Canal, for she has threat- ened to seize her enemies' vessels that were stalled, at the beginning of the war, in this guaranteed neutral water- way. Earl Grey Says Belgium Mistrusted England in 1913. An interesting contribution to the literature of Neutralization was made by the British Foreign Office on last December 6th with reference to the statements implying that Great Britain had ever contemplated the violation of Belgian neutrality. A record is given of a conversation which Sir Edward Grey, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had with the Belgian Minister on April 7, 1913. In reporting the conversation to the British Minister at Brussels, Sir Ed- ward Grey said it had been brought to his knowledge that there was appre- hension in Belgium that England would be the first to violate Belgian neutral- ity. Sir Edward Grey denied that Eng- land would be the first to do such a thing. There must have been considerable apprehension in Belgium to cause it to be made the subject of diplomatic dis- cussion. This is another sidelight upon the faith Belgium had in the efficacy of its guaranteed neutralization. England Ready to Invade Belgium During Franco-Prussian War. Perhaps these apprehensions were aroused by a knowledge of what was going on behind the scenes. The late King of Belgium was never over- trustful of England's intentions. That these fears of Belgium as to what Eng- lish diplomacy would do, were not en- tirely groundless may lie conjectured from the reading of a passage in Vol. II, page 339 of Jonn Morley's extensive life of Gladstone. On July 16, 1870, Gladstone wrote to Cardwell at the War Office: "What I should like is to study the means of sending 20,000 men to Ant- werp with as much promptitude as at the Trent affair we sent 10,000 to Can- ada." England's willingness to violate Bel- gian neutrality was in no wise nega- tived by Gladstone's later letter say- ing: "It is only a far outlook which brings into view as a possibility the sending of a force to Antwerp.", Con- ditions may have changed, but the cause for apprehension was not re- moved. While all lovers of peace would wel- come the success of the neutralization idea, it seems that in practice it will hold good only so long as it does not interfere with military exigency or the good-will and convenience of the guar- anteeing powers. The neutrality of Switzerland was violated by French, Austrian and Russian armies during the period of the French Revolution. Neutralized Luxemburg was violated by France in the War of 1870 when her fleeing soldiers sought refuge in Luxemburg and recrossed into France and again fought with the French army. Treaties Affected by Changed Conditions. Hannis Taylor, a great American authority on international law, says that treaties of guarantee, like all other obligations of suretyship, are strictly construed. He shows that a treaty may become voidable through subseciuent events, and says (Sec. 394, Int. Public Law) that "so unstable are the condi- tions of international existence, and so diflicult is it to enforce a contract be- tween States after the state of facts upon which it was founded has sub- stantially changed, that all such agree- ments are necessarily made subject to the general understanding that they shall cease to be obligatory so soon as the conditions upon which they were executed are essentially altered." Mr. Taylor (Sec. 395) cites Russia's contention as to the Treaty of Paris. He says that in 1870, when Russia determined to repudiate some of the vital provisions of the Treaty of Paris relating to the neutrality of the Black Sea — by which she had been fettered at the close of the Crimean War and which her subsequent development had rendered unbearable — she rested her case, in part upon the ground of al- tered conditions, asserting that "the treaty of 1856 had not escaped the modifications to which most European transactions had been exposed and in the face of which it would be difficult to maintain that the written law * * * retains the moral validity which It may have possessed at other times." Nothing Perpetual Except Change In Conditions. Professor Pomeroy, another high American authority, after fullest con- sideration, supports Mr. Taylor in a way that must carry conviction. No one really believes there can be such a thing as a perpetual treaty. There is nothing perpetual in mundane af- fairs except change. Change and modi- fication make the music that beats to the march of time. The dead will not be allowed indefinitely to control the destinies of the living, nor to fetter the wings of progress or development. The English Statutes of Mortmain were passed to do away with the dead hand that gripped the land of the living. This principle, as applied to treaties, is thus explained in Pomeroy's Interna- tional Law, at page 352: "It should be remembered that the nature of treaties between nations dis- closes to us features which ought to distinguish these treaties from com- pacts between individuals. In fact, na- tions iiave an indefinite existence. All the generations to come, without having consented in person, find themselves bound, by the act of the generation which concluded the convention ; the stipulations of the treaty, by the lapse of years or by subsequent changes, may become so opposed to the manners, to the situation of the respective powers, to the state of their industry, of their commerce, of their forces of every kind, that, justly, these stipulations should no longer be maintained." In summing up the occasions when a treaty ceases to have binding force Mr. Pomeroy cites M. Pinheiro-Ferreira, one of the leading modern French writers on Public and International law, as follows : "I speak of those treaties which gov- ernments sometimes make with the clause that they are and shall remain binding forever, or at least until both contracting parties agree to rescind or to modify them. Such conventions never have been, nor should they be, taken literally, for it would be absurd to suppose that the present generation could have the right to bind future generations by conventions, good or bad at the time of their inception, that the posterity of one contracting party ought to be sacrificed to the posterity of the other. Treaties bind nations only so long as the principle upon which their validity rests continues to exist." The Bight of Self-Preservation. But, even, if it be granted for argu- ment's sake, that the validity of the old treaty was not affected by changed conditions, Germany still has an abso- lute and incontrovertible defense in the supreme law of self-preservation. The German ultimatum to the Belgian gov- ernment, Aug. 2, 1914, referring to the intended French invasion of Germany through Belgium, declares, "It is Ger- many's imperative duty of self-preser- vation to forestall this attack of the enemy." Germany invokes this rule, which is not only sanctioned by the principles of International Law, but which is di- vinely fixed in the instinct of every 84 THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM' thing th,at lives — the impulse of self- protection and of self-defense. It will be seen from the following expressions of the most eminent author-, ities on International Law, that the right of self-preservation precedes and underlies every other obligation. All treaties are subordinated and subject to this basic and inherent right. It is implied, and read into, every treaty and contract, anything to the contrary said, notwithstanding. This primary right of existence cannot be lost or bargained away. It is unalienable. Cyrus French Wicker, in his work "Neutralization," says, at page 49: "French enemies, would no doubt be justified in invading Savoyard territory, even though neutralized, if it became evident that France were utilizing the resources of the province for military purposes and there were any advan- tages to be gained from the attack." British Authorities on Law of Self- Preservation. 1. Phillimore, Int. Law, Chap. 10 (CCXI) : "The Right of Self-Preservation is the first law of nations, as it is of in- dividuals. * * * It may happen that the same Eight may warrant her in extending precautionary measures with- out these limits, and even in trans- gressing the borders of her neighbor's territory. For International Law con- siders the Right of Self-Preservation as prior and paramount to that of Ter- ritorial Inviolability, and, where they conflict, justifies the maintenance of the former at the expense of the latter right." Twiss, Int. Law, page 3 : "The State or Nation is thus under a primary obligation to preserve itself ; in other words, Self-Preservation is a primary duty of National Life." Page 4: "The right of Self-Preservation ac- cordingly gives to a Nation a moral power of acting in regard to other Na- tions in such a manner as may be requi- site to prevent them from obstructing its preservation or its perfection. (Vat- tel L II C4 Sec. 49.) This Right is a perfect Right, since it is given to sat- isfy a natural and indispensable duty." Hall, Int. Law, 4th Edn., p. 2S1 : "In the last resort almost the whole of the duties of states are subordinated to the right of self-preservation." L. G. C. Laughton (United Service Mag., Vol. 29 (N. S.), 1904, page 226, in a very interesting article on "'Bel- ligerents and Neutrals," says : "It is an axiom of international law that a State has the right to take meas- ures to secure its existence." The Right of Self-Protection NuUtaes Treaties. Pomeroy, Int. Law, 351, cites Mar- tens, Droit des Gens, Vol. II, Ch. II, Sec. 52: "* * * Nevertheless, the right of self-preservation authorizes a nation to recede from a treaty which it cannot fulfill without causing its own destruc- tion ; and this faculty is even a tacit condition in all treaties, and especially in alliances." Ortolan is then cited: "Nevertheless, some publicists have observed that when a treaty leads di- rectly to the destruction of the state, that state has the right to treat it as null. This is an evident and incon- testable fact, based upon the right of self-preservation. For moral beings, as well as for individuals, there can be no obligatory promise when this prom- ise is of suicide." Reasons Justifying Belgian Invasion. We shall now consider the facts upon which the German claim of self- preservation is based. At this point it may be well to recall that Germany's plea of self-defense was frank, direct, immediate, and not an afterthought. The German Chancellor, in his speech of August 4th, said: "We knew that France was ready to invade. France could wait, we could not. A French attack on our flank on the lower Rhine could have proven portentous for us. * * * Whoever is threatened as we are and battles for all that is sacred dare only consider how he will hack his way through. * * * We have assured the English Government that as long as England remains neutral, our fleet would not attack the northern coast of France and that we would not interfere with the territorial integrity and the independ- ence of Belgium. * * * We battle for the fruits of our peaceful labor, for the inheritance of a great past, for our future." Let us now consider the situation that confronted Germany at the begin- ning of this war. Were the conditions such as to justify her belief that it was necessary for her to use Belgium for the transit of her troops against France? If the German Chancellor is correct, then there can be no question that it was necessary to pass through Belgium in order to anticipate an at- tack from France through this same territory. Since that time, however, authentic plans and documents have been found in Brussels proving the cor- rectness of the German Chancellor's in- formation. Pursuant to a secret agree- ment of April 10, 1906, entitled "In- tervention Anglaise en Belgique,"* Eng- land and Belgium agreed to a "united operation of a British army of 100,000 men with the Belgian army against Ger- many." The plan was approved by the Chief of the British General Staff, Major-General Geierson. But, even if we assume that Germany's information as to the French intent was not posi- tive at the time, it was by all means her duty to take all precautions to defend herself from this peril. It was necessary to take this step, as a meas- ure of self-defense, because of the great delay that would be involved in the attempt to invade France across the strongly fortified French-German fron- tier. When a nation finds herself on the brink of a contest with a congeries of nations such as Germany would ex- pect to confront, immediate and quick action is the essence of possible suc- cess. Any delay, any hesitation to do everything to circumvent her enemies, would have been tantamount to suicide or insanity. The preponderance in financial resources, material wealth and population of Germany's enemies must have been present to the German mind when it came to decide upon the case of Belgium. Germany could not af- •Bnglish Intervention in Belgium. ford to make any mistake. Such er- rors as may be committed must be on the side of safety. The allies could expect, by the freedom of the seas, constantly to fill the gaps that their losses or errors might produce; while Germany, to have a reasonable chance to win at all, must be on the right and safe side practically from the outset to the end. It would, therefore, have been criminal folly to omit even the slightest precaution or advantage that the necessity of the situation imposed. I believe that, under the circumstances of a country hemmed in and sur- rounded by enemies as Germany was, it would have been in the nature of treason for the German staff to have respected a contract with the very ene- mies that were trying to get at her throat. The justice of Germany's con- duct can only be judged by her motive. If Germany was truly persuaded that her national existence was in danger, she is absolutely absolved and vindi- cated. Historical Instances of the Plea of Self-Defense. When the British invaded the United States during the Canadian Rebellion in 1838 and boarded the steamer Caro- lina and sent her adrift down the Falls of Niagara, the excuse was self- defense. Lord Ashburton, British Plenipotentiary, wrote on this matter to Secretary of State Webster, July 28, 1842 : "There are possible cases in the re- lations of nations, as of individuals, lohere necessity, which controls all other laws, may he pleaded." The same plea of self-defense was made by Great Britain, when In 1807 she demanded that Denmark, a neutral country, shall turn over to her the Danish fleet for use against France. When Denmark refused, an English army landed at Copenhagen and laid siege to the city and in that way com- pelled the Danish government to sur- render its entire naval force as the price of safety. The government 6t the United States likewise has had occasion more than once to appeal to the right of self- preservation. Kant for Perpetual Peace and Euro- pean Federation. As to the imminence of the danger to Germany there can be no question from the expressions of the leaders of public opinion among the great powers now at war with Germany, to the ef- fect that Germany must be destroyed. For years English, French and Rus- sian newspapers and periodicals were studiously employed in breeding hatred and jealousy against Germany. Of course, the German press retaliated, and thus, there was prepared that feel- ing of hostility which culminated in the war. The declarations of various statesmen, particularly the English, that this is a war in which the nations are fighting for the survival of the fit- test, corroborate the German conviction that they were in a struggle for exist- ence. It is becoming more and more rec- ognized that the way to have peace is to encourage sentiments of kindness, justice and helpfulness among the peo- ples of the world. A survey of history teaches us ■ that we can find no hopes A SKETCH OF RECENT BELGIAN HISTORY 85 for peace in the parchment and seals of treaties. Even the plan proposed by the great German philosopher, Kant, who sought his ideal of permanent peace in a European federation, seems hardly practicable, though its desira- bility admits of little question. Germany in Self-Defense. The immediate cause of the war was the refusal of Russia to demobilize the troops she was massing against the Austrian and German borders. Ger- many was engaged in the effort to me- diate between Russia and Austria and had made some progress, when Ger- many became aware that the time she was being induced to consume in trying to preserve the peace of Europe, was taken advantage of by her enemies in warlike preparations against her. It has been claimed that mobilization is not a cause for war, but an absolute right of a sovereign state. Neverthe- less, the massing of troops against a neighbor's boundary has ever been re- garded as a menace calling for expla- nation. It is equivalent to what would be the raising of a club by one indi- vidual against another. That would be an assault. The attack with the club would be the battery. Usually assault and battery follow in quick succession and the person threatened by the rais- ing of the club is not required to wait until he is struck before defending him- self. Thus, while it is true, that Ger- many stands before the world ostensi- bly the aggressor by . declaring war against Russia, the fact is that in the forum of law and conscience, the blame for the starting of this war justly falls upon Russia and her allies. Lieber, Vol. II, page 447, in his work on "Political Ethics," says : "A war may be essentially defensive, and yet we may begin it ; for instance, if w6 must prevent an invasion which is under preparation." Also Bentham in Vol. X, page 531, proclaims the same principle. _ A point of minor importance, but still worthy of consideration, is, that the occupation of Belgium was neces- sary to furnish an extended area for the deployment of the unprecedented number of troops that would be en- gaged. Germany also required the Bel- gian railroad connections as a means of transit into France and as a general base of operations. Moltke, in his work on the Franco-Prussian War, de- scribes the difficulty of the mobilization of the French troops by the clogging up of their roads. In 1870 it was pos- sible for Germany to carry the war directly into France; since then a for- tified barrier has been created by France on her eastern frontier, which made the use of Belgium by Germany an absolute necessity in an offensive campaign against France. General Pic- quart of the French Staff years ago prepared plans anticipating this situa- tion. England's preparation ■ for the landing of troops in Belgium is a corol- lary to this proposition. Neutralized State Must Be Impartial and Beyond Suspicion. It has been contended that the re- cently published documents on the Brit- ish-Belgian compact, do not violate Belgium's neutralized character, be- cause they are to be effective only in case Germany invades Belgium. This argument shows a total lack of under- standing of the idea of neutralization. The first and indispensable prerequi- site for a neutralized state is, that its character for impartiality must not 6e open to douM— it must be beyond all reproach and suspicion. It may have no favorites. As soon as it confides, as it were, the combination of the safe containing its military secrets, to one or more of the guaranteeing powers, but not to all, it has violated the faith that it owes to all, and becomes recre- ant to its neutral obligations. Morand (R. G. I. S. 522) lays down the rule of strict and perfect impar- tiality required of a neutralized state, as follows : "La politique de I'Etat neutre doit s' inspirer d'un spirit ds parfaite irnipar- tialite." ("The character of a neutral state must assure even the spirit of impoA-tiality." — Editor, "War Echoes") The British Government Wanted War — Not the British People. As the English, the Germans and the people of the United States are strongly inter-related in blood and in the com- mon aims of their culture and civiliza- tion it is our special duty to bring out good will and harmony among them. Let us hope that the German people — who were among the first to recognize the merits of great Englishmen like Shakespeare, Darwin and a galaxy of others — shall likewise recognize the full worth and value of the great Eng- lish people, and realize that their rank and file are not to be held responsible for the British precipitation into the war — that those members of the British Cabinet, in closest touch with the Eng- lish people^not only did not want the war, but resigned their seats as a pro- test against it. Germany Had No Desire for War, The German people are entitled to universal admiration for the way in which they have borne themselves in this, the supreme trial of their na- tional life. They stand together with a singleness of spirit that has rarely been equalled. Their unanimous conviction that they are engaged in a purely defensive war thrust upon them by the machi- nations of their enemies cannot be pred- icated upon the theory that they are spell-bound by some hypnotic illusion. They are too practical a people to chase after military glory and risk the assets at hand. No prospect could have been more promising or satisfactory than the continued peaceful operations that yielded such valuable dividends in everything that can make a people prosperous and happy. She was an acknowledged cultural center of the world. Her universities, art schools and art treasures attracted students from everywhere. Her manufactures reached every part of the globe, and her commerce, in rate of progression, was unsurpassed. In judging whether Germany was desirous of putting a quietus upon such a splendid status quo and risking the loss involved in war with the great world powers, we should reason upon normal probabilities and give such a people credit for more than a modicum of common sense. Such rushing into war against a world of enemies, except for self-de- fense, is unthinkable."" • A final topic of this article was re- moved to Chapter V of War Echoes, under Emerson on the Philosophy of Victory. Turn to the Reference now, In order to get the complete article. — Editor, War Echoes. Belgium's New Life since that Nation's Liberation from Holland in 1839 Neutrality Guaranteed, Treaties Made and Broken A BREACH OF NEUTRALITY AND THE WAR. This is the second article of a series on THE EUROPEAN WAR, tohich ap- peared in the Octolier Numter of THE OPEN COURT, under the title "A Breach of Neutrality," written, liy the Editor, Dr. Paul Carus. Consult the INDEX for the complete series, and, in order to see lohere, in the various Chapters of the toolc, the different articles of this treatise may be found, loolc for EUROPEAN WAR (THE). In this way the reader may read the entire series of articles in their original order, if he chooses to do so, lohile the present arrangement still gives him the advantage of bring- ing the various articles under their proper, respective Chapter-headings of the book. This is a series of exceptionally fine articles on, the subject in ques- tion, and they bear a unique and im- portant relation to each other. Be sure to read them, also -in their original order. — Editor, "War Echoes." Germany's breach of neutrality in Belgium was England's official and ostensible reason for war, but even in England the feeling prevails that this is a mere pretext, not the real and ultimate motive, for England herself has too often broken neutrality in her past history, to take a breach of neu- trality seriously. Think of the unjustifiable bom- bardment of Copenhagen by Nelson, of the annexation of Dutch colonies, especially the seizure of Capetown and other unexpected attacks upon peaceful nations. Who believes that the English would have declared war on France, if soon after the begin- ning of the war the French had broken through Belgium to outflank the German army? Did Great Brit- ain find fault with Japan for dis- regarding the neutrality of China? The United States too belongs to the signatory friends of the Chinese em- pire, and we have reason to dislike the Japanese policy, but we have pre- served our attitude of "watchful waiting." 86 THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM' "BUSY BERTHA" One of the German 42 Cm. Type of Mortar Siege Guns, hnmoronsly nicknamed, "Busy Bertha," the name of the heir to the colossal Krupp Estate, Bertha Krupp. — Note the Mischief "Bertha" has done at one of the Belgian Forts At the beginning of the Boer War, the English broke the neutrality of the Portuguese colony, the state of East Africa, by landing their troops in Delagoa Bay solely because the British army wanted to save going the roundabout way through British territory. There was no other ex- cuse, no urgent need, no threat that the Boers had conspired with the Portuguese, or could break neutral- ity later on. In the Encyclopedia Britannica (11th ed., s. v. "Neutral- ity," Vol. XXXI, p. 131) the incident is called "an important precedent."* What an atrocity of Germany not only to begin hostilities against France at once as soon as the war was plainly in sight, but even to tres- pass on Belgian territory and become guilty of a terrible breach of neutral- ity! What an atrocity! But there is one advantage for the English. As a result they were furnished with an excuse to justify their declaration of war, and the Germans, at the same time, had also to face the army of Belgium. There is no need of discussing the atrocity of a breach of neutrality, be- cause it is an acknowledged principle that In case of war the natural law of self-preservation demands of every power the completion of the war that has arisen or is about to arise, with the utmost dispatch and by the easi- est method. In the present case the Germans have carried the war through Luxemburg and Belgium be- cause that was to them the straight- est and safest way of attack. They would have been satisfied to have the Belgians assent to their march though the country and would have gladly paid every penny for food and forage or occasional destruction of property; but the Belgians re- fused and joined the French. We do not know all the secret oc- currences of European politics, but the probability is that the Belgians had agreed to allow the French to march through Belgium without any objection at whatever moment it would suit them; and that the Bel- gians intended to favor the French is fully proved through facts, mainly through the presence of French offi- cers, prior to the declaration of war, in Liege, where they helped their Bel- gian neighbors to modernize the Bel- gian fortifications and acted as gen- eral advisers for the approaching hos- tilities. Under the consideration that Bel- gium would be drawn into the war at a moment when it would suit the French best, it was preferable to the Germans to anticipate the French move and take Belgium first, and It is probable that the Germans were prepared to find the Belgians abso- lutely on the side of the French. The neutrality treaty of Belgium had been signed by England, France and Prussia, not Germany, for the present German empire did not exist at the time. But since Germany has inherited Prussia's policy, we are told that it was very objectionable for Germany to become guilty of this breach of neutrality. Indeed! But why should Germany keep this treaty concerning the Bel- gian neutrality under conditions so obviously changed? When Germany recognized this treaty, the German authorities believed that Belgium would try to be truly neutral and the hostility of Belgium seemed to be ex- cluded. On the other hand, the mere suspicion of a Franco-Belgian entente is sufficient to attack France through the territory of the Belgian frontier. There is no diplomat who denies the established right of any power to break all peace treaties in case of war — especially if conditions have changed to such an extent that to keep them would be dangerous.^ * The author of the article is Dr. Thomas Barclay, vice-president ot the In- ternational Law Association. ^ Note here Mr. Roosevelt's criticism of peace treaties which under serious condi- tions will have to be broken or might be- come disastrous. The duty of neutrality toward a buffer state like Belgium presupposes in its turn also the duty of a strict neutrality on the part of Belgium. Belgium has not maintained a rig- orous neutrality but concluded a friendship with the Triple Entente, especially with France, and this can- celed Germany's obligations. Never- theless, Germany was ready even then to respect Belgian independ- ence, provided Belgium would allow the German army a free passage through the country into France. If England had been fair and if she had first of all considered the welfare of Belgium, she would have advised Belgium to abstain from war under these circumstances and to be satis- fied with a formal protest. The atti- tude of Belgium during the war has justified German sufepicions. The German side of the question is set forth in a German telegram ad- dressed to Prince Lichnowsky, the German Ambassador at London.* "Please impress upon Sir E. Grey that the German army could not be exposed to French attack across Bel- gium, which was ijlanned according to absolutely vnimpeachahle informa- tion.- Germany had consequently to disregard Belgian neutrality, it being for her a question of life or death to prevent French advance." Why, when Germany, as stated in this message, claimed to know that the French were about to break Bel- gian neutrality, did not England then guarantee Belgian neutrality? Ger- many might not have believed Eng- land, but it would have been worth proving whether England was serious on this point of preserving the inde- pendence of Belgium. However, Eng- land gave no such assurance in time, for the declaration of Sir Ed- ward Grey came too late. Afterwards Sir Edward Grey de- clared in his answer to the German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg that A SKETCH OF RECENT BELGIAN HISTORY 87 England would have fought France to save Belgium but even Englishmen will find it hard to believe this state- ment of their leading statesman. Would the king of Belgium be ready to deny on his royal word of honor the fact that French officers had visited Belgium and had been in collusion with Belgian officers? Facts are becoming known which indicate that even the English themselves have broken neutrality. Dr. David S. Schaff of Allegheny, Pa., one of the leaders of Protestantism in the United States, who like myself, had been a friend of England, writes to "The Independent" (Sept. 21, 1914) as follows: "On August 1 the British ambas- sador was asked a second time whether England would remain neu- tral in case Germany respected the neutrality of Belgium and guaran- teed the integrity of France and also her colonies. Here England again said she must be free to act. "And, if the letter of the staff cor- respondent of the New York 'Even- ing Post' in London is to be accepted for the statement that Lord Kitchener was in Belgium two weeks before the war began 'to make disposition for English troops' — was not Belgian neutrality broken in principle? "An American student just re- turned tells me that he saw two trains of prisoners and wounded passing through Marburg the first days of the siege of Liege and Frenchmen were mingled with the Belgians, hav- ing been there before the declaration of war. "I was intensely adverse to Ger- many at first, threw up my hat when England declared war, but I have changed my mind. Mr. Carnegie's second dispatch to the 'London Times' is in the right direction." Both Prance and England had broken Belgian neutrulity before the Germans. What right have they to complain about it? In the present instance the Ger- mans did not do the English govern- ment the favor of being beaten as easily as was expected of them, and as a result official explanations have been proclaimed, how England had "the choice only between war or dis- honor," and "was bound to fight for Belgian independence." Sir David Lloyd-George in a reference to the case of Servia, quoting Czar Nich- olas as having boasted to the em- peror of Austria, "I will tear your ramshackle empire limb from limb," and, added Sir David, "he is doing it." These are the ipsissima veria of Great Britain's chancellor of the exchequer! It is commonly believed that Eng- land stirs others to war but is care- ful to keep out of it herself. In 18 64 the English encouraged Denmark to resist Prussia and Aus- tria on account of Schleswig-Holstein, and the Danes, relying on English assurances refused any compromise, the result being that they lost the duchies. A Danish friend of mine expressed himself very vigorously in condemning British statescraft, say- ing that the warfare of Prussia was square and honest, but the a,ttitude of England was unpardonable. The English did not want Prussia to lay the foundation of a naval power, so they proposed to protect the Danes, but they did not do it. If the Eng- lish, said my Danish friend, were not willing to fulfill their promises they ought not to have made them. The British "White Book" gives us a psychological insight into the man- ner in which the Russian minister in- duced Sir Edward Grey to join the French-Russian alliance. We read there that according to Russian opin- ion, the Germans would never be- lieve that the English would fight. The English had supported Servia in diplomacy, and the Russians hinted that after all the English would not be credited with making good by joining the fight, and it seems that the Russian suggestion helped to bring the English into line. The Russians remembered that the Eng- lish had encouraged the Japanese to fight Russia but the English kept out of the fray. A stray notice in the North Ger- man Gazette states on the authority of the Belgian ambassador at St. Petersburg that Russia did not ven- ture into the war against Germany until England had given a definite promise to take an active part in it. This time the English meant war and were ready to join France and Russia. England's intentions can not have been very pacific, for accord- ing to a statement published in the French paper "Gil Bias" of February 25, 1913, England had stored in the fortress of Maubeuge large deposits of ammunition for the English ar- tillery in case of a Continental war. Maubeuge is situated between Paris and the Belgian frontier, and what was the purpose of this unusual act? There is another objection hurled at the Germans; it is this: that they should not have started the war and should not have mobilized their army before the first enemy had dared to trespass on German territory. But such criticism can be made only by people who do not know that priority of attack may decide the whole war and the advantage of a position may save the lives of hundreds of thou- sands. If the Germans had waited until the French had joined the Bel- gians and surprised the Germans by a sudden and unexpected attack on Treves and Cologne, the first situa- tion of the war would have presented greater difficulties to the general staff of the Kaiser, and being con- fronted by other foes in the east might easily have led to ultimate de- feat. We ought to add here that later reports announce that Russians tres- passed upon Prussian territory on the day before the declaration of war; and how did they behave? One Russian general, now a prisoner in German hands, had the whole male population of a Prussian village slain, and some Russian officers had adopted the custom of carrying on their persons the fingers of their slain enemies, both male and female. It has become apparent that the Germans anticipated the French plan of campaign. A newspaper clipping on the subject reads thus: "We may assume that the French, just as did the Germans, during times of peace prepared a complete plan of campaign, and when hostilities be- gan they naturally attempted to carry out this plan, in order to be able to fight their battles on territory se- lected by themselves, which always means a considerable advantage over the adversary. "That such a plan was in existence is certain, and, as has been declared repeatedly from Berlin since the be- ginning of the war, the German gen- eral staff has proofs that this plan not only included a march through the alleged neutral territory of Bel- gium, but also that a real military convention with the Belgian gov- ernment was in existence under which Belgium granted free passage through her country to the French, but was going to resist by force a passage of the German troops, the French promising help in such a case. If this original plan of the French general staff had been realized, Ger- many actually would have been in a very bad position. Progress of the French to the Rhine could not have been prevented and the German troops certainly would have been compelled to evacuate Alsace-Lor- raine. "Contemporaneous with the pas- sage of the French forces through Belgium an attack upon Alsace and later upon Lorraine had also been planned. "The grand success of the German army is based upon the fact that its leaders succeeded in throwing over the whole plan of campaign so splen- didly elaborated by the French, by appearing first on the place where the Frenchmen intended to be in Bel. gium. The French mobilization probably did not proceed quite as smoothly as the German. "For, instead of bringing help to their hard pressed allies in Belgium, their southern neighbors kept back for weeks and gave sufficient time to the Germans to make that country the base of their operations. The ad- vance of the Germans showed itself as so strong that the approaching French armies and reinforcements were not able to withstand the at- tacks, but were pushed back step by step. "The knowledge of the French plan of campaign possessed by the German" general staff, the prepared- ness of the German army and the irresistible momentum of the Ger- man masses put into the field sud- denly ended the hopes of the French general staff, right at the beginning of the war, for the realization of their own plans and indirectly enforced very soon the evacuation of Upper Alsace by the French, without any larger battles at that point. "Notwithstanding all the apologies for the facts, as they have been of- fered by the French commander-in- chief. Gen. Joffre, the French have been restricted to a defensive war policy at nearly all points right from the beginning of the war. The Ger- mans have fought their battles ex- actly where they intended to, have driven their opponents where they wished to and will succeed in further driving them to a place where they can defeat them in the easiest man- ner. Upon the execution of this plan the splendid success of the Germatt THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM' FORT LOUOIN OF LIEiGE It is nothing short of bewildering to try to think of how any movable instrument can throw a missle weighing almost a ton and find its target in a most effective manner, as this picture clearly shows. This is only one of many similar wrecks made of the Forts of Germany's Enemies. (By Courtesy of the "Koelnische Zeitung") army is founded; upon the inability of the adversary to see beforehand the moves of the enemy or to cross them, the reverses of the French find their explanation." A Breach of Neutrality. And here is Mr. Jourdain's reply to the Editor's discussion of this subject. — Editor, War Echoes. The Editor claims that on the part of England, Germany's breach of neu- trality on Belgium was only an official pretest for the war, "not the real and ultimate motive." This certainly does not represent the attitude of England towards the neutrality of Belgium or Holland. Their independence had been for centuries considered as one of the strongest means for securing peace in Europe, as their position and conforma- tion rendered them the natural battle- field of Northern Europe; of this their troublous history is sufficient proof. "If it was made impossible for great powers to invade them, war would be- come increasingly difficult and danger- ous. With the growth of the idea of a fixed system of international law founded on treaties, the neutrality of Belgium had been devised as a perma- nent safeguard to this end. As such it had been consecrated by two inter- national treaties signed by all the pow- ers, and recognized by two generations of statesmen.'" As Sir Walter Raleigh says, it was a matter of common knowledge in England that one event would make it impossible for England to remain a spectator in a European war, — that event being the violation of the neutrality of Holland or Belgium.' There was never any secret about this and it was well known to many peo- ple who took no special interest in for- eign politics. The stress laid upon the importance of Belgian neutrality in speeches by Lord Granville in the House of Lords (August 8, 1870) and Mr. Gladstone in the House of Com- mons (August 10, 1870) is emphasized again in Sir Edward Grey's speech in the House of Commons on August 3 last.= The wrong done by Germany has no parallel in the instances of earlier breaches of neutrality quoted by the Editor.'" The only recent instance quoted is the landing of British troops in Delagoa Bay at the beginning of the ' "G. B. and the E. •"Might Is Right." 1914, p. 6. • "G. B. and the E. C. ""O. C," p. 601. •See Jourdain in Index for complete ref- erence. — Editor. p. 93. Boer war. Portugal is an old ally of England, and conceded permission to the British consul at Lorenzo Marques to search for contraband of war among goods imported there, and ac- corded free passage to an armed force under General Carington from Beira through Portuguese territory to Rho- desia. "The Portuguese government ex- posed itself to no international diffi- culty through allowing a belligerent, whose final victory was certain and of necessity entailed total suppression of the conquered belligerent, to cross its colonial territory,'" and this incident cannot be compared with Germany, one of the guarantors of Belgian neutrality, invading Belgium when that country, conscious of its duty, was "firmly re- solved to repel aggression by all pos- sible means." The earlier instances of breaches of neutrality instanced are the seizure of Capetown and the annexation of Dutch colonies. The Dutch colony of New Ne- therland was seized by England in time of peace, in 1664 — a discreditable action — but this and other political measures of the seventeenth century are no prec- edents for us to-day. Late in the eight- eenth century, when the organization of the united Netherlands was abol- ished, and they were transformed into the Batavian republic, in close alliance .with France, the Dutch participation in the wars of the Revolution nat- urally brought with it the enmity of England, and the seizure of all the Dutch colonies by the English. Further, the Editor writes that there is no use discussing the atrocity of a breach of neutrality "because it is an acknowledged principle that in case of war the natural law of self-preserva- tion demands of every power the com- pletion of the war that has arisen or is about to arise, with the utmost dis- patch and by the easiest method. In the present case the Germans have car- ried the war through Luxembourg and Belgium because that was to them the straightest and safest way of attack.'" It is significant to recall here that von Bethmann-Hollweg, the German im- perial chancellor, in his speech to the Reichstag on August 4, while laying stress on Germany's "state of neces- sity," confesses openly that the inva- sion of Luxembourg and Belgium is "contrary to the dictates of interna- tional law," a wrong committed. "It is true that the French govern- ment," he said, "has declared at Brus- sels that France is willing to respect the neutrality of Belgium as long as her opponent respects it. We knew, however, that France stood ready for the invasion. France could wait, but we could not wait. A French move- ment upon our flank upon the Lower Rhine might have been disastrous. So we were compelled to override the just protests of the Luxembourg and Bel- gian governments. The wrong — I speak openly — that we are committing we will endeavor to make good as soon as our military goal has been reached. Anybody who is threatened as we are threatened, and is fighting for his high- est possessions, can have only one thought — how he is to hack his way through." ' "Encyclopaedia Brltannica," 11th ed., Vol. XIX, s. V. "Neutrality," p. 477. »"0. C," pp. 601-2. A SKETCH OF RECENT BELGIAN HISTORY The Imijerlal Chancellor was, we see, unaware of this "acknowledged prlnciiDle" of the Editor's. As Mr. Lloyd George has said, "treaties are the currency of international states- manship," and it is obviously to the interest of each country to see that such international treaties are valid not only in peace (when nobody pro- poses to break them) but also in war. An apology advanced by the Editor is that Prussia and Germany had signed the neutrality treaty of Belgium, the present German empire not then exist- ing, and Germany need not respect the treaty "under conditions so obviously changed." Prince Bismarck in 1870, when there was war between France and Germany, "confirming his verbal assurance, gave in writing a declara- tion which he said was superfluous in reference to the treaty in existence — that the German confederation and its allies would respect the neutrality of Belgium." Bismarck here speaks not of Prussia but of the German confed- eration, representing the German em- pire of to-day. The present conditions appear closely parallel to those of 1870, and it was for such an event as a Franco-German war that the neutral- ity of Belgium had been devised as a safeguard. The Editor considers an important change in the conditions was created by "the suspicion,"' the "prob- ability" of a Franco-Belgian entente. "Suspicion in the German mind is not sufficient to justify such a breach of international law. No serious evidence is advanced of a Franco-Belgian eiv- tente, while, on the other hand, we have the French government's assur- ance that it would respect the neu- trality of Belgium in answer to Sir Edward Grey's inquiry : "The French government is resolved to respect the neutrality of Belgium, and it would only be in the event of some other power violating that neu- trality that France might find herself under the necessity, in order to assure the defense of her security, to act otherwise. The president of the repub- lic spoke of it to the king of the Bel- gians, and the French minister at Brussels has spontaneously renewed the assurance to the Belgian minister of foreign affairs to-day."' France could have no object in alienating the sym- pathies of England by violating Bel- gian neutrality, and Belgium on her side (August 1) intended to maintain her neutrality to the utmost of her power." On August 3° she even re- fused the five French army corps of- fered her through the French military attach^ for protecting her neutrality against the Germans, and did not "pro- pose to appeal to the guarantee of the powers." In the face of these facts we must dis- count unsupported stories such as that French officers were present prior to the declaration of war, in Li6ge, that ' "We do not know all the secret occur- rences of European politics, but the prob- ability is that the Belgians had agreed to allow the French to march through Bel- gium. . . .Mere suspicion of a Franco-Bel- gian entente is sufBcient to attack France through the Belgian frontier." "O. C," p. 602. The italics here used for emphasis were not in the original.* *"G. B. and the E. C," pp. 93-94. '"Ibid.," p. 67. ""Ibid.," p. 75. *See Jourdain in Index for the complete reference. — Editor. "Lord Kitchfner was in Belgium two weeks before the war began,'" if the letter of the staff correspondent of the "New York Evening Post" in London is to be accepted. The presence of Eng- lish and French oflicers in Belgium be- fore the Germans invaded that coun- try has been officially denied by the Belgian government. Assuming that England and France planned how they would act if Germany did precisely what she has done, "to say that it was a violation of neutrality for England and France to plan in advance how, if necessary, they would perform the duties put upon them by the treaty es- tablishing Belgian neutrality is to in- sult their intelligence." ' A German plan of campaign against the United States of America has recently been published, which has not yet caused that country to attack Germany on suspicion of hos- tile intentions. The argument that it was "preferable to the Germans to anticipate the French move and take Belgium first" errs like the German manifesto "To the Civil- ized World" in assuming an unproved and improbable French violation of Bel- gian neutrality. But even granted that this contention were true, what does it amount to? That Germany hurried to violate a law before some one else could do so ; and "if anybody was go- ing to murder Belgian neutrality she was going to be first at the job."* "A stray notice in the 'North Ger- man Gazette,' " "later reports," "a newspaper clipping" from a German paper, cannot be considered serious evidence. Information supplied from these doubtful sources is on its face doubtful. The statement ° that large deposits of ammunition were stored by England in the fortress of Maubeuge before the continental war, is officially denied. The giving of wide publicity to absurd stories such as the "later re- ports" that "some Russian officers had adopted the custom of carrying on their persons the fingers of their slain en- emies, both male and female" is to be deprecated. Stories of atrocities are circulated by all the combatant nations without exception ; and it is impossible to accept any without a careful pre- liminary investigation. The Editor quotes from the "Inde- pendent" (September 21, 1914) : "On August 1 the British Ambassador was asked a second time whether England would remain neutral in case Germany respected the integrity of France and also her colonies. Here England again said she must be free to act." This correctly summarizes Sir Edward Grey's earlier communication (July 30) in which a similar proposal '" is de- clared unacceptable. "For France, without further territory in Europe be- ing taken from her, could be so crushed as to lose her position as a great power and become subordinate to German policy." ' ' "O. C," pp. 602 and 603. '"The Nation" (New York), October 29, 1914. ♦Mr, Jourdain seems to overlook the fact that Germany was first concerned in saving her own ; and this point alone is sufficiently recognized to warrant refrain- ing from an attempt at giving further rea- son for the time being. — Editor, War Echoes. "Published in "Gil Bias," February 25, 1913. "> Except that in this case the French colonies were not safeguarded. 1 "G. B. and the E. C," p. 55. It is difficult to see where the Editor has gained "psychological insight into the manner in which the Russian min- ister induced Sir Edward Grey to join the French-Russian alliance. The Eng- lish had supported Servia in diplomacy, and the Russians hinted that after all the English would not be credited with making good by joining the fight,' and it seems that the Russian suggestion helped to bring the English into line." ' The suggestion that England acted from mere pique is naive and unsup- ported. The facts are that on July 24 and 25 M. Sazonoff, the Russian min- ister for foreign affairs, pressed Great Britain to make a declaration of soli- darity with Russia and France, adding that "unfortunately Germany was con- vinced that she could count on your neutrality." On July 29, Sir Edward Grey outlined to Sir F. Bertie, British ambassador at Paris, a conversation with the French ambassador' in Lon- don, in which he says clearly in what circumstances England would not inter- vene,* i. e., not in a dispute between Austria and Servia, nor in a dispute between Russia, Servia and Austria. Even if "Germany became involved and France became involved, we had not made up our minds what we should do ; it was a case that we should have to consider."" We see Sir Edward Grey moved by English interests and obligations. 'For the discussion of England's atti- tude during the Schleswig-Holstein com- plication ("O. C," p. 604) see below sec- tion on the "Foes of Germany." 2 "O. C," p. 604. ■" "G. B. and the E. C," pp. 9, 16. " "Ibid.," p. 46. By James O'Doimell Bennett. [War Correspondent of The Tribune.] AIX LA CHAPELLE, Germany, Oct. 6. — After spending ten days in covering the great triangle of farm- ing country, forests, cities, and Vil- lages bounded by lines reaching from Aix la Chapelle in Germany to Laon in Prance, from Laon to Brussels, and from Brussels back to Aix la Chapelle, I am in a position to exjwse a few more of the lies which have given an unprecedented touch of horror to the hostilities now convul- sing Europe.* The extent of my right to speak with conviction may be indicated by the fact that I have for the second time moved day and night within the German lines and often have talked with French prisoners and French villagers while no German officer was standing by. In northern France many of the peasants expressed satisfaction at the coming of the Germans because they were thus relieved of the presence of the French colonial Turcos, whom they dread more than they dread the enemy.* French Civilians Peaceable. The German columns which are moving like iron fingers through northern France have encountered practically no resistance from the population. The result is that the punitive measures which laid waste *Emphasized in bold type by the Publisher of "War Echoes." 90 THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM" many Belgian villages, where franc- tireurs fired upon German troops from cellars, garrets, hedges, and church towers, have not been neces- sary, and you may see more destroyed houses along the country roads east of liouvain in Belgium than I saw in the French cities lying between the Belgian frontier on the north and Reims on the south. In fact, the burned dwelling of a French civilian was the rarest of sights on the French countryside.* I spent hours in at least six Ger- man military hospitals in Belgium and Prance and observed that Ger- man and French wounded were treated precisely alike, receiving the same food and the same attention. Of the signal tenderness of a Ger- man doctor to a severely wounded Frenchman I shall give details in an- other dispatch. Germans Capture Dumdum Bullets. The use of dumdum bullets has added a fresh and dreadful element of suffering and hatred to the hos- tilities. In Maubeuge I saw boxes containing 60,000 dumdum cart- ridges. One of these boxes, selected at random, I helped to open and photogi-aph. The thirty-two boxes bore French labels and they fell into Gennan hands when the forts at Maubeuge were captured.* In one night at Maubeuge a Ger- man nurse attended sixty Germans who had been wounded on French soil. Of these cases she believed twenty were the result of dumdum bullets. The sister was careful to add that the next night she received only two dumdum cases. Her diag- nosis of the wounds as having been inflicted by dumdums was supported by a German surgeon. In Chimay, Belgium, I assisted at the photographing of two wounds ap- parently inflicted by dumdums. The nature of them was hideous beyond description. John T. McCutcheon, who has observed the effect of dum- dum bullets on African game, said that it was his conviction that the two wounds, which he also assisted to photograph, were inflicted by dum- dums. Reims Cathedral Not Wrecked. Reports of the destruction of the noble cathedral at Reims are prema- ture by what seems likely to be an- other 500 years. I have studied the cathedi-al through field glasses while I was standing on heights three miles from the city. The towers, which, it has been said, the Gennans blew down, are standing and seemed intact, but I thought I could observe that the parapet of one tower was a little damaged. The rest of the church stood four square to the wifte plain as it has for so many centuries. A German officer told me that the roof of the nave had been burned as a result of brands fiying from houses near by. These brands had caught in the wooden scaffolding erected for the purpose of carrying on repairs and had ignited the roof. The houses had caught fire from the explosion of shells from Gennan batteries. German oflicers of high rank said that the French had been requested to cease using signals on the towers. Two German officers sent as parle- mentaires were taken prisoners. As a final warning the Germans blew doAvn a smoke stack near the cathe- dral. Then extra thin shrapnel was fired against the towers so as to in- jure them as little as possible, but drive away the men who were sig- naling.* •Emphasized by the Editor. GERMANY'S APPEAIi TO AMERICA. •Emphasized by the Editor. Chancellor Von Bethmann-HoUweg Asks Impartial Judgment. The war is a life and death strug- gle between Germany and the Musco- vite races of Russia, and was due to the recent royal murders at Serajevo. We warned Russia against kind- ling this world war. She demanded the humiliation of Austria, and while the German Emperor continued his work in the cause of peace and the Czar was telegraphing words of friendship to him, Russia was pre'- paring for war against Germany. Highly civilized France, bound by her unnatural alliance with Russia, was compelled to prepare by strength of arms for an attack on its flank on the Franco-Belgian frontier in case we proceeded against the French frontier works. England, bound to Prance by obligations disowned long ago, stood in the way of a German attack on the northern coast of Prance. Necessity forced us to violate the neutrality of Belgium, but we had promised emphatically to compensate that country for all damage Inflicted. Now England avails herself of the long awaited opportunity to com- mence war for the destruction of commercially prosperous Germany. We enter into that war with our trust in God. Our eternal race has risen in the fight for liberty, as it did in 1813. It is with a heavy heart that we see England ranged among our op- ponents. Notwithstanding the blood rela- tionship and close relationship in spiritual and cultural work between the two countries, England has placed herself on the side of Russia, whose instability and whose bar- baric insolence have helped this war, the origin of which was murder, and the purpose of which was the humili- ation and suppression of the German race by Russian pan-Slavism. We expect that the sense of jus- tice of the American people will en- able them to comprehend our situa- tion. We invite their opinion as to the one-sided English representa- tions, and ask them to examine our point of view in an unprejudiced way. The sympathy of the American nation will then lie with German cul- ture and civilization, fighting against a half Asiatic and slightly cultured barbarism. — From "The Indepen- dent," New York, August 24, 1914. ASQUITH SAYS TALES AGAINST GERMANS LACK CON- FIRMATION. Tales of alleged German atrocities are announced in big headlines on the front page, news items favorable to the Germans are relegated to the fourth page and presented in small type. — Editor. Here is a sample: From the "Chicago Evening Amer- ican," September 15, 1914. London, Sept. 15. — Premier As- quith has told the House of Com- mons that no official information had reached the Ministry of War con- cerning the repeated stories that German soldiers had abused the Red Cross flag, killed and maimed the wounded and killed women and chil- dren. He added that this subject was under consideration and that an in- quiry was being made. He assented to the suggestion made that, with the view of obtaining greater cred- ence of any reports on the subject which the British government might issue, the American Embassy and Consulate would be communicated with, with the object of getting them to publish the full facts. THE "OUTLOOK" JUSTIFIED GER- MANY'S RETRIBUTIVE ACTION IN BELGIUM. From "The Fatherland," New York, November 4, 1914. The majority of newspapers in this country have so far denied that Ger- many's retributive action was pro- voked by the Belgians themselves. We are pleased to find in the "Out- look" of October 21st, an article by Sasha Kropotkin which fully justifies the punishment meted out to Lou- vain. Mr. Kropotkin speaks with evi- dent admiration of the "heroic" act of the Belgian women "who defended their homes against the German in- vaders, resorting to boiling water when their ammunition gave out." This, coupled with the authenticated cases of the young German soldiers whose eyes had been gouged out after they lay wounded and helpless on the battlefield, makes one wonder at Germany's moderation in the treatment of Belgian "heroes." RESOLUTIONS OF CITY GER- MANS. (Reprinted from "The Chicago Trib- une," August 6, 1914.) RESOLVED, That we, German- American citizens of Chicago, assem- bled in mass meeting and represent- ing all elements of the great German population of this city, deplore and abhor from the depth of our hearts the fearful war which has broken out in Europe and which threatens to destroy hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and the riches gained in decades of peaceful work and de- velopment, threatens to set back civ- ilization a hundred years. BELGIAN NEUTRALITY HER GUARANTORS AND NEIGHBORS Firmness in the Position of the Teutonic as against the Non-Teutonic Nations - Spain, Bulgaria, Greece, Roumania — England on the Wrong Side The United States and the War The Teutonic Nations and Belgium The Deeper Meaning of the Alignment of Nations in the War "THE CASE OF BELGIUM" AND THE UNITED STATES. An Analysis of the "Proofs" Sub- mitted to President Wilson by the Belgian Commission. By M. W. B. in the "New Yorker Staats-Zeitung.' ' Reprinted from "The Fatherland," New York, November 11, 1914. Of the 120 octavo pages of "The Case of Belgium in the Present War — An Account of the Violation of the Neutrality of Belgium and of the Laws of War in Belgium Ter- ritory,"t not more than sixty-three and a half pages are devoted to the testimony of the witnesses examined by the official Commission at eight sessions. Eighteen witnesses — or twenty- three per cent of the" whole number — give only hearsay testimony. Two of the statements, the most import- ant of all, are anonymous; two others are not signed; seven are contained in letters sent the Com- mission during the examination, and two in manuscripts containing state- ments made prior to the examin- ation and signed by the Commission. Only forty-eight witnesses, or sixty per cent, have affixed their bonafide signatures to their statements after the same had been carefully ar- ranged and edited by the secretary of the Commission, and the majority of these claim to have received their information concerning the alleged atrocities from neighbors and rel- atives. Only five persons were examined In regard to Louvain, and among these is a witness whose name is not given and who visited the city after its partial destruction for only a few hours. Of the witnesses vouching for the reported cruelties, whose exact address is frequently given, not one testifies in person. Re- peatedly the statements of one wit- ness were read to the next witness and by him signed as correct, a pro- ceeding not likely to create confi- dence in the accuracy of the testi- mony, as in the instance of a Belgian colonel who vouches for the testi- mony of his own orderly. Let us analyze in detail this re- markable, translated protocol, which is not a stenographic record, but a carefully edited document. To dis- pose of one of its findings, it con- tains many probably unintentional admissions that the German troops acted not without provocation: Thus two members of the Commission ad- mit, as the result of a visit to a hos- pital, that the treatment of prisoners by the Germans evidenced "no char- acteristic breach of civilized war- fare." Further it is stated (p. 57): "Some neighbors opened their doors, the Germans went through the houses without doing any harm." Page 58: "As nothing was found (in the form of arms) they did nothing to the house and did not commit any violence." Page 64: "A Ger- man soldier told me that they were not allowed to touch the women." (Testimony of a girl 23 years old from Aerschot.) Page 69: "A Ger- man non-commissioned officer said that it grieved him to act in this way (destroy houses), but that the Belgians were to blame as they started it." Page 80: "The Germans, at first, behaved properly in the town"; page 97: "I do not know of any deeds of violence perpetrated on women; the Germans behaved quite well at first." (Until fired upon by the civilians.) The first hearing covered "the massacre of Aerschot." The first witness (female) testified that her house was searched for arms, but does not mention whether any were found. Her husband, who as she herself testifies, acted as a guard at the railway station (surely not with- out a gun), was shot, and the same fate meted out to four others, ac- cording to her statement based upon assertions of a police constable (page 51.) The police constable names six (page 5 7.) A Command- ant Gilson declares that during the fight between Belgian and German soldiers, four women and their chil- dren passed along the stf'eet which divided the opposing forces (the famous case covering the charge that the Germans shielded themselves be- hind women and children.) "Every- thing seems to indicate that they were pushed ahead of the German troops to prevent the Belgian troops from firing upon them" (page 53.) Why charge this against the Ger- mans? Why not the Belgians? A priest from Aerschot at first testified that his housekeeper was outraged in Heresselt and afterwards drowned; but two days later he was compelled to admit that he "can- not affirm for sure that this has taken place, but she was found drowned the next day," the mayor of the town having meanwhile testi- fied that the girl had committed sui- cide in a panic of fear by leaping into a well (page 72.) Witnesses who fled to their cellars and hid themselves at the approach of the Germans testify circumstantially to things going on at a hundred differ- ent places in other parts of the town. One testifies that the mayor had ordered all weapons to be turned in before the arrival of the Germans. Another declares (page 59); "The mayor then told us (after the as- sault on the German troops and the consequent arrest of many citizens) that we might return home, subject to depositing our arms. * » » Nothing was found on me and they being unable to testify to any outrages by the Germans, left me alone." The station master was "unable to testify against Germans." His assis- tant "knows nothing of what happened at Aerschot," but "was told" that his sis- ter had been burned alive in her house while hiding in the cellar with her ~ husband and child; but that her husband and child had escaped. (Strangely, this hero who left his wife to perish in the flames, was not examined to verify the truth of this report.) The number of dead varies with each witness. The statements as to the time of certain occurrences also conflict, which is not to be wondered at, seeing that in many cases two and three weeks elapsed between what happened and the date of the examination. On every page state- ments are repeated, such as : "I was told," "Neighbors informed me," "Citizens said," but nowhere were the original witnesses cited be- fore the Commission or judicially ex- amined, presumably because it was feared that otherwise the inconsist- THE PEACE OF EUROPE— "THE CASE OF BELGIUM' ency of the rumors would be too ap- parent. One Vicar afBrms that they de- stroyed all the furniture of one of the members of his cloth (who is not examined), that it was soaked in paraffine and that they tried in this way, to set fire to the church, failing five times in the attempt. At the same time another witness speaks of hose filled with chemicals which the German troops were car- rying with them, the flames of which no amount of water was able to extinguish. Every witness declared that it was untrue that the German troops had been fired upon by civilians, either having no knowledge of it, or be- cause the mayor had previously given orders not to do so. But a wine merchant from Aerschot ad- mits (page 77): "A Belgian soldier, living Rue de Malines, dressed him- self in citizens clothes in a house and went on shooting." Rev. Van Roye denies that the German troops entering the town were shot at from the church; but on page 80, Rev. M. Meens, dean of Aerschot, affirms that "some Belgian soldiers fired from the tower of my. church." German reports positively affirm that a higher officer was shot down in the house of the mayor of Aer- schot by the latter's son. The im- mediate execution of the guilty ones is described by a witness on page 92: "An officer of high rank ap- proached the burgomaster and ac- cused him of being responsible for all that was happening. Mr. Tiele- man protested, taking his fellow citi- zens as witnesses of his perfect in- nocence. Some of them confirmed his words." So even where their word might eventually have saved two lives the majority of the citizens hesitated to substantiate the execu- tive head of their community. These are the "proofs" of the atrocities of the German troops in Aerschot, fired upon in violation of the laws of war from the church tower and by a Belgian soldier dis- guised as a civilian. But let us examine the "proofs" in the case of Louvaln, where — quite apart from the unanimous testimony of wounded German soldiers and officers invalided, at home — the investi- gation of an English correspondent in the London "Daily Mail" of Sep- tember 13, surely not infiuenced by friendship for Germany, resulted in establishing the fact that citizens under the burgomaster and Belgian officers on the evening of August 25 opened a cannonade from machine guns on the German soldiers in the streets and used the Church of St. Pierre as a veritable fortress. As mentioned above, the total number of witnesses from Louvaln were just five. Aside from this, the name of the principal witness Is withheld for reasons of policy. His testimony, however, is regarded of such importance that it is printed twice in different parts of the pamphlet, and in the form of con- tradictory translations, indicating crass negligence, to say the least, if not actual forgery on the part of the Commission. In support of the lat- ter theory it may be mentioned that GERMANS DISTRIBUTING FOOD TO THE BELGIANS (By Courtesy of the "Open Court") special emphasis is laid in the gen- eral summing up of the report on the testimony of this witness (page 45), but an eye-witness is mentioned who is said to have left Louvain only on August 30. But according to his own statement (page 113), he did not go to Louvain until August 30 at the solicitation of the Countess Bethune and left it the same day, so that he could not have spent more than six or eight hours in the city, which according to his testimony was still burning, con- trary to the statements of the others. The second witness from Louvain reports an outrage committed upon a young girl in a vacant house (hence without substantiating wit- nesses), and a subsequent public as- sault upon his own niece by five or six German soldiers. In both cases the parents of the victims, as well as a priest are named as witnesses of the outrage; but the Official Com- mission did not consider it necessary to summon any one of them to es- tablish the truth of this terrible assertion. The third and fourth witness contradict one another. Ac- cording to the first (page 90), the German train came in wild flight into Louvain from the direction of Malines, whereupon a fierce fusilade begun in the streets (in which the Germans are alleged to have fired upon their own light gray troops wlithout being able to distinguish them from the dark blue uniformed soldiers of the Belgians!) According to the other, the train had been in the city for some time and bolted as a consequence of the fright of the horses when the attack began. For the truth of the German bestialities, witness No. 4 cites two priests, including an American, but prudently, perhaps, without mention- ing names. Witness No. 5, finally, pays a high tribute of praise to the German aviator squadron, the first to arrive in the city. He places the date of the fight with the civilian population, which the others fix as Tuesday, August 25, at Thursday the 27th. He is the only one to testify to seeing the dead bodies of German soldiers in the streets, and his con- clusions are very interesting. Held as a hostage and warned that he would be shot at the next attack of the population, he declared when told by his guard that the firing was con- tinuing incessantly from the burning houses: "The reports we heard were only those of the cartridges exploid- ing in the fire" (page 107), omitting to explain why and wherefore these cartridges were in the houses of peaceable citizens. In Sempst was found the half- charred body of a man who, accord- ing to the affirmation of one witness (page 77) had botlj legs cut off, and according to another (page 98) had both legs still intact. Regarding the fighting around Linsmeau one wit- ness (page 79) testified that the dead German officer, on whose ac- count the Germans instituted retal- iatory measures, had been killed by soldiers of the Liege Civil Guard passing in a motor car, which the Germans did not see. On the next page the commander of a mounted corps of Civil Guards declares that his men shot down the officer in full sight of the Germans. At Vise and Lixhe, the same wit- ness reports hearing firing on the right bank of the Meuse, "which was not due to war weapons," an unin- tentional and interesting confirm- ation of the German assertion that the civilians had taken part in the fighting (page 80). A similar lapsus lingua happens to a witness from Herent, who declares that he was forced "to bring up all the arms which had been deposited in the cel- lars of the Town Hall behind cases," and this after all weapons were al- leged to have been delivered up (page 94) ; and again when a Bel- gian captain admits that he fired at a German field hospital flying the Red Cross flag and destroyed it, be- THE TEUTON— HIS ALLIES AND HIS NEIGHBORS 93 cause a patrol had seen German soldiers with a machine gun near the house (page 99). At Boischot the Germans did not resort to reprisals until, according to the testimony of the burgomaster of the place, the fourth Uhlan had been shot dead. And the servant of the mayor, con- fesses: "I heard people say that this one had been killed by a civilian hid- den in the mill" (page 107)! This is the sort of evidence filling the sixty-three pages of testimony. Page after page of stories based on hearsay evidence carried from one to another, and colored to suit the fancy, contradictions and unguarded admissions. This is the Belgian evi- dence trumped up to support the charges of German atrocities! It is not intended to charge all the wit- nesses with perjury. Many perhaps told their tales of horror in good faith; but any one at all familiar with judicial proceedings knows to what extent surmises become firm convictions, rumors become facts, and hills mountains; how diverse impressions become blended; how the fancy exaggerates momentary impressions, and how even a simple fact recited by twenty witnesses takes on twenty different forms, especially when considerable time elapses between an event and the trial. This does not apply to the Com- mission, which in its introduction and various "findings" deliberately twists the terms of the Hague Con- vention, makes it appear that an undefended and a fortified city are one and the same thing,, and re- peats the proven falsehood' that all the art objects in Louvain Cathedral were destroyed, whereas the truth is that German officers personally re- moved them during the fire from the endangered church to the security of the City Hall. It defends the guer- illa warfare of the civilians, provided arms are carried openly. It regal- vanizes the exploded lie that the bombs thrown by a Zeppelin balloon at Antwerp were aimed at the royal family; it publishes four pages of "official findings" concerning the al- leged atrocities of Linsmeau and Orsmael, but nowhere in the minutes does the examination itself appear with the signatures of the witnesses, as it has done in other cases, even in the edited form. In short, the Commission employs every expedient of deceit and cun- ning. These are the proofs which they had the audacity to submit to our President, "proofs" whose fal- sity and perversion of facts in all their ramifications are a positive insult to the intelligence of neutral America. True, pictures of de- stroyed Belgian cities have been shown, but even these pictures, as recently demonstrated, regarding the discovery of fraud in Termonde,* are deceptive. The only thing that is not fraud- illent, and that which the whole Bel- gian Commission is unable to lie out of existence, is the fact that Belgian men and women committed inde- scribable atrocities upon helpless German wounded, cases authorita- tively investigated by the German government and I hope to be pub- lished with photographic represen- tations of the deplorable victims. Then the world will be staggered, as in the Congo revelations, by the evidence of bestial cruelty unex- ample since the days of Attila and his Huns. *Read : "Journalistic 'Dum-Dums,' " reprinted in this book, with pictures which prove a deliberate "fake" of "The New York Times," the German hater with the proud motto "All the news that's fit to print," — Editor. THE SUPREME COURT OP THE UNITED STATES UPHOLDS GERMANY'S ACTION IN BELGIUM. If "Collier's Weekly" vents its spite on Germany, we are not surprised, for "Collier's Weekly" is essentially pro- vincial in its mental complexion. The editor of "Collier's Weekly" may know a good deal about Congressional poli- tics, but in the field of international politics, he loses his bearings. We had, however, expected a degree of fairness in the "Outlook." Its editors are much traveled men, and their long associa- tion with Colonel Roosevelt should not have terminated without profit to thfem. Yet we find in the "Outlook" an arti- cle on Prussia as opposed to Germany that is so childish that, at any other time, the ignorance of the author would merely arouse a smile of derision. In a time like the present articles of this type are, however, distinctly mis- chievous. What makes matters worse is that article merely accentuates the anti-German policy of the "Outlook," which a few spasmodic attempts every now and then to present the German view can only feebly disguise. Recently both Dr. Bernhard Dern- burg and the German Ambassador offi- cially disclaimed any intention on the part of Germany to violate the Monroe Doctrine. "In view of the way in which Germany regards its treaty ob- ligations when they appear to be incon- sistent with its own interests," the "Outlook" comments on this frank dis- avowal, "such statements as these by Dr. Dernburg and Count von Bern- storff are naturally not regarded as restraining Germany from taking any action which she has the power to take. The sipniflcanoe of these utterances is to he found in the fact that Germans of high station regard as a possitility worthii of serious discussion the ac- quirement 1)1/ Germany of power to take territory in the Western Hemisphere if she foishes it." The "Outlook" sees a sinister signifi- cance in Count von BernstorfE's denial of Germany's intentions. If Count von Bernstorff had said nothing on the sub- ject at all, in spite of the fact that it has been widely discussed, especially in the West, the "Outlook" would have found an equally sinister significance in his silence. While the majority of American newspapers have come to the point where they are willing to grant fair play to Germany, the "Outlook," in spite of its air of moral superiority, re- fuses to grant her a hearing. The "Outlook" cannot see the German point of view, because it does not wish to see it, because it is mentally and morally oblique where Germany is concerned. Germany is the blind spot in the "Out- look's" field of vision. Germany has never heen accused of breaking any treaty, except in the case of Belgium. We deny that a treaty existed ; if it existed it was of the most shadowy substance. But even if it had been iron-bound, the conspiracy between Belgium, England and France utterly destroyed its validity. We will go even further than that. Granted that it did exist, and that it was not broken by Belgium, it was, nevertheless, Ger- many's solemn duty to tear it like a scrap of paper. If the editor of the "Outlook" saw three burglars attack his venerable father at some distance from his house, he certainly would come to his rescue by the shortest route, even if the road should lead over a neigh- bor's field where trespassing was for- bidden. Germany made the dash through Belgium in order to save, not one venerable man, but a thousand. Her action protected the lives of a hun- dred million people dwelling in the ter- ritory of the Dual Alliance. The present generation of Germans refused to sacrifice the blood of their wives and their children to shadowy agreements made by dead men. They struck at the dead hand of the past to save the living present. In doing so, Germany has the approval of our own legal tradition. We call the atten- tion of the editors of the "Outlook" to the decision of the Supreme Court, found on pages .581-611, volume 130, of United States Reports, recently quoted by von Briesen.'* In this famous decision the Supreme Court held that it was lawful and just of Congress to pass a law that nullified a solemn treaty entered into between the United States and China. The re- sult of the Supreme Court's ruling was to deprive Chinese subjects of the right to visit and to reside in this country. Of course, the great question involved was whether we could violate a treaty which we had made in good faith with another nation. The exact wording of the decision makes interesting reading today when we hear so much about the sacredness of treaties. On page 600 appear these very pertinent facts : "The effect of legislation upon con- flicting treaty stipulations was elab- orately considered in the Head Money Cases, and it was there 'ad.tudffed' that so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign na- tion can become the subject of judi- cial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass for its enforce- ment, modification, or repeal." 112 U. S. 580, 599. "This doctrine was affirmed and followed in Whitney t. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, 195. It will not be presumed that the legislative department of the government will lightly pass laws which are in conflict with the treaties of the country; but that circumstances may arise which would not only justify the Govern- ment in disregarding their stipula- tions, but demand in the interests of the country that it should do so, there can be no question. Unexpected events may call for a change in the policy of the country."* "Compare with a similar statement by Gladstone in regard to treaties in general, and in particular the Prussian treaty with Belgium. — Editor. THIRD CHAPTER THE BIG HUMAN FAMILY GROUPED INTO MANY LARGE, VITAL NATIONAL FAMILIES VITAL SELF-INTERESTS— VITAL INTER-RELATIONS THE BELLIGERENT NATIONS INTER-RELATION OF BELLIGERENT NATIONS Their Ambitions, Ideas, Ideals, M-utual Interests and Welfare Life: Competition — Grow or Die GREAT BRITAIN, THE "TRIPLE" ENTENTE, AND OTHER ALLIES England, France, Russia — Belgium, Japan, Portugal The Irish Cause, Egypt, The Boers GERMANY, THE "TRIPLE" ALLIANCE, AND OTHER ALLIES GERMANY, AUSTRIA, ITALY Turkey in the War on her own Account — A Bone of Contention: The Dardanelles The Central Empires and the Neutrals THE NEUTRAL NATIONS— THEIR INTERESTS AND RIGHTS THE EUROPEAN TEUTONIC NATIONS LOYALLY NEUTRAL— ENGLAND EXCEPTED The European Non-Teutonic Nations generally not firm in their Neutrahty Some Laudable Exceptions — Spain, Greece, Bulgaria The Official and Popular Neutrality of the United States— Uncle Sam and his Children ON THE FENCE NATIONS WITH VERY VITAL INTERESTS In relation to the German-Austrian-Italian Alliance— Turkey, Bulgaria, Italy In regard to the English-French-Russian Alliances— Japan, Portugal, Roumania THE HORIZON DARKENS HOSTILE ACTS BEFORE A DECLARATION OF WAR The European Situation has come to a Crisis Germany in the Crisis — The Kaiser's Speeches THE BELLIGERENT NATIONS THEIR INTER-RELATION Their Ambitions, Ideas, Ideals, Common Interests, and Welfare GREAT BRITAIN, THE "TRIPLE" ENTENTE, AND OTHER ALLIES England, France, Russia— Belgium, Japan, Portugal The Irish Cause, Egypt, the Boers WHY WE ARE AT WAR The Underlying Vital Causes of England's Participation in the Conflict England's Domestic Troubles and Outlook INTRODUCTION J. RAMSAY Mcdonald WHY WE ABE AT WAR. (By Courtesy of The Open Court.) By J. Ramsay Macdonald. [The labor parties of the world have been growing almost from year to year not only in numbers but also in political influence, and they give fair promise of becoming an international power which will make for peace in the world. The labor party in Germany is demo- cratic and socialistic. It is. a strong peace party, and its leaders were in favor of supporting the peace movement with all their strength. But at the outbreak of the war, after an investigation of the case, the German labor leaders saw clearly that the present war was forced upon Ger- many with the obvious intention of crush- ing her for the benefit of her rivals, and they stood by the government and voted in favor of the subsidies for war. They stated their reasons in speeches and pub- lished articles, and there can be no better argument for the justice of Germany's cause. The labor party in England was brand- ed as unpatriotic, and Mr. John Burns re- signed his position in the cabinet, while the leader of the advocates of peace in the French labor party was even more quickly and directly disposed of by being shot, the murder being acquiesced in by the public to the extent of letting the assassin es- cape punishment. There was not even a serious attempt made at investigating the crime or prosecuting the criminal. The laborers of different countries have formed an alliance which is called "the In- ternational," and if it had been only a little stronger it might have been able to prevent the present war ; but Germany was the only country in which the labor party was well organized, and there they did not veto the war because they saw that for Germany it was but a war of self-defense. We here republish from "The Continen- tal Times," of December 4, 1914, a short article by J. Ramsay Macdonald, M. P., leader of the English labor party and a man well conversant with the inside of English politics. The article is little known, almost unknown, even in England. So far as I know it has never been printed in the United States, and yet it ought to be read. Mr. Macdonald knows whereof he speaks. He states facts, and in the light of these facts he places the respon- sibility for the war. — Editor of "The Open Court."] On that fatal Sunday, the second of August, I met in Whitehall a member of the Cabinet and he told me of the messages and conversations between foreign secretaries and am- bassadors which were to be published for the purpose of showing how we strove for peace and how Germany immovably went to war. "It will have a great effect on public opinion," he said, and he was right. It is called "Correspondence respecting the European Crisis," but is generally referred to as "The White Paper." I wish to comment upon it for the purpose of explaining its significance. It begins with a conversation be- tween Sir Edw^ard Grey and the Ger- man ambassador on July 20 regard- ing the Austrian threat to punish Servia, and finishes with the delivery of our ultimatum to Germany on August 4. From it certain conclu- sions appear to be justified, the fol- lowing in particular: 1. Sir Edward Grey strove to the last to prevent a European war. 2. Germany did next to nothing for peace, but it is not clear whether she actually encouraged Austria to pursue her Servian policy. 3. The mobilization of Russia drove Germany to war. 4. Russia and France strove, from the very beginning, both by open pressure and by wiles, to get us to commit ourselves to support them in the event of war. 5. Though Sir Edward Grey would not give them a pledge he made the German ambassador under- stand that we might not keep out of the conflict. 6. During the negotiations Ger- many tried to meet our wishes on 97 certain points so as to secure our neutrality. Sometimes her proposals were brusque, but no attempt was made by us to negotiate diplomat- ically to improve them. They were all summarily rejected by Sir Ed- ward Grey. Finally, so anxious was Germany to confine the limits of the war, the German ambassador asked Sir Edward Grey to propose his own conditions of neutrality, and Sir Ed- ward Grey declined to discuss the matter. This fact was suppressed by Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Asquith in their speeches In Parliament. 7. When Sir Edward Grey failed to secure peace between Germany and Russia, he worked deliberately to in- volve us in the war, using Belgium as his chief excuse. That is the gist of the White Paper. It proves quite conclusively that those who were in favor of neutrality be- fore the second of August ought to have remained in favor of it after the White Paper was published. That Sir Edward Grey should have striven for European peace and then, when he failed, that he should have striven with equal determination to embroil Great Britain, seems contra- dictory. But it is not, and the expla- nation of why it is not is the justi- fication of those of us who for the last eight years have regarded Sir Edward Grey as a menace to the peace of Europe and his policy as a misfortune to our country. What is the explanation? Great Britain in Europe can pursue one of two policies. It can keep on terms of general friendship with the European nations, treating with each separately when necessary and co- operating with all on matters of com- 98 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES mon interest. To do this effectively it has to keep its hands clean. It has to make its position clear, and its sympathy has to be boldly given to every movement for liberty. This is a policy which requires great faith, great patience, and great courage. Its foundations are being built by our own International policies, and if our Liberal Government had only fol- lowed it since 1905 it would by this time have smashed the military au- tocracies which have brought us into war. But there is a more alluring pol- icy — apparently easier, apparently safer, apparently more direct, but in reality more difficult, more danger- ous, and less calculable. That is the policy of the balance of power through alliance. Weak and short- sighted ministers have always re- sorted to this because it is the policy of the instincts rather than of the reason. It formed groups of powers on the continent. It divided Europe into two great hostile camps — Ger- many, Austria and Italy on the one hand; Russia, France and ourselves on the other. The progeny of this policy is suspicion and armaments; its end is war and the smashing up of the very balance which it is de- signed to maintain. When war comes it is then bound to be universal. Every nation is on one rope or an- other and when one slips it drags its allies with it. As a matter of practical experience the very worst form of alliance is the entente. An alliance is deiinite. Every one knows his responsibilities under it. The entente deceives the people. When Mr. Asquith and Sir Edward Grey kept assuring the House of Commons that we had contracted no obligations by our entente with France they said what was literally true but substantially untrue. That is why stupid or dishonest statesmen prefer the entente to the alliance ; it permits them to see hard facts through a veil of sentimental vague- ness. Had we had a definite alliance with France and Russia the only dif- ference would have been that we and everybody else should have known what we had let ourselves in for, and that might have averted the war. Italy could keep out of the turmoil because its membership in the al- liance imposed only definite obliga- tions upon it; we were dragged Id because our entente involved us in an indefinite maze of honorable com- mitments. It is interesting to gather from Sir Edward Grey's speech of August 3 and the White Paper how com- pletely the entente entangled him. There were first of all the "conver- sations" between French and British naval and army experts from 1906 onwards. These produced plans of naval and military operations which France and we were to take jointly together. It was in accordance with these schemes that the northern coasts of France were left unprotected by the French navy. When Sir Ed- ward Grey evoked our sympathy on the ground that the French northern coasts were unprotected, he did not tell us that he had agreed that they should be unprotected and that the French fleet should be concentrated in the Mediterranean. These "conversations" were car- ried on for about six years without the knowledge or consent of the Cab- inet. The military plans were sent to St. Petersburg and a Grand Duke (so well-informed authorities say) connected with the German party in Russia sent them to Beplin. Germany has known for years that there were military arrangements between France and ourselves, and that Rus- sia would fit her operations into these plans. We had so mixed ourselves up in the Franco-Russian alliance that Sir Edward Grey had to tell us on Aug- ust 3 that though our hands were free our honor was pledged! The additional mix-up for Grey, through secret "Conversations with Belgium" would make us appreciate better his dilemma, since he has yet to appear as Belgium's Guardian! The country had been so helplessly coihmitted to fight for France and Russia that Sir Edward Grey had to refuse point blank every overture made by Germany to keep us out of the conflict. That is why, when re- porting the negotiations to the House of Commons, he found it impossible to tell the whole truth and to put impartially what he chose to tell us. He scoffed at the German guarantee to Belgium on the ground that it only secured the "integrity" of the coun- try but not its Independence; when the actual documents appeared it was found that its independence was se- cured as well. And that is not the worst. The White Paper contains several offers which were made to us by Germany aimed at securing our neutrality. None were quite satisfac- tory in their form and Sir Edward Grey left the impression that these unsatisfactory proposals were all that Germany made. Later on the Prime Minister did the same. Both with- held the full truth from us. The German ambassador saw Sir Edward Grey, according to the White Paper, on August 1 — and this is our foreign minister's note of the conversation: "The Ambassador pressed me as to whether I could not formulate conditions upon which we could re- main neutral. He even suggested that the integrity of France and her colonies might be guaranteed." Sir Edward Grey declined to con- sider neutrality on any conditions and refrained from reporting this conversation to the House. Why? It was the most important proposal that Germany made. Had this been told us by Sir Edward Grey his speech could not have worked up a war sen- timent. The hard, immovable fact is that Sir Edward Grey had so pledged the country's honor without the coun- try's knowledge to fight for France or Russia, that he was not in a posi- tion even to discuss neutrality. That was the state of affairs on July 20 and did not arise from anything Ger- many did or did not do after that date. Now, the apparent contradiction that the man who had worked for European peace was at the same time the leader of the war party in the Cabinet can be explained. Sir Ed- ward Grey strove to undo the result of his policy and keep Europe at peace but, when he failed, he found himself committed to dragging his country into war. The justifications offered are noth- ing but the excuses which ministers can always produce for mistakes. Let me take the case of Belgium. It has been known for years that, in the event of a war between Russia and France on the one hand and Ger- many on the other, the only possible military tactics for Germany to pur- sue were to attack France hot foot through Belgium, and then return to meet the Russians. The plans were in our war office. They were dis- cussed quite openly during the Agadir trouble, and were the subject of some magazine articles, particularly one by Mr. Belloc. Mr. Gladstone made it clear in 1870 that in a general conflict formal neutrality might be violated. He said in the House of Commons in August, 1870: "I am not able to subscribe to the doctrine of those who have held in this House what plainly amounts to an assertion that the sim- pie facts of the existence of a guar- antee is binding- on every party to it, irrespective altogether of the partic- ular position in which it may find itself at the time when the occasion for acting on the guarantee arises." * Germany's guarantees to Belgium would have been accepted by Mr. Gladstone. If France had decided to attack Germany through Belgium Sir Edward Grey would not have ob- jected, but would have justified him- self by Mr. Gladstone's opinions. We knew Germany's military plans. We obtained them through the usual channels of spies and se- cret service. We knew that the road through Belgium was an essential part of them. That was our oppor- tunity to find a "disinterested" mo- tive apart from the obligations of the entente. It is well known that a nation will not fight except for a cause in which idealism is mingled. The "Daily Mail" supplied the ideal- ism for the South African war by tell- ing lies about the flogging of British women and children; our govern- ment supplied the idealism, for this war by telling us that the independ- ence of Belgium had to be vindicated by us.*" Before it addressed its in- quiries to France and Germany upon this point, knowing the military exi- gencies of both countries, it knew that France could reply suitably whilst Germany could not do so. It was a pretty little game in hypocrisy which the magnificent valor of the Belgians will enable the government to hide up for the time being. Such are the facts of the case. It is a diplomatist's war, made by about half a dozen men. Up to the mo- ment that ambassadors were with- drawn the peoples were at peace. They had no quarrel with each other; they bore each other no ill-will. Half a dozen men brought Europe to the brink of a precipice and Europe fell over it because it could not help itself. Today our happy industrial prospects of a fortnight ago are darkened. Suffering has •Emphasized by the Editor. REASONS FOR GREAT BRITAIN IN THE WAR 99 come to be with us. Ruin stares many of us in the face. Little com- fortahle businesses are wrecked, tiny incomes have vanished. Want is in our midst, and Death walks with Want. And when we sit down and ask ourselves with fullness of knowl- edge: "Why has this evil hap- pened?" the only answer we can give is, because Sir Edward Grey has guided our foreign policy during the past eight years. His short-sighted- ness and his blunders have brought all this upon us. I have been reminded of one of those sombre judgments which the prophet who lived in evil times ut- tered against Israel: "A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land: The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so; and what will ye do in the end thereof?" Aye, what will ye do in the end thereof? England's Domestic Troubles and Outlook CHICAGO IRISH LEADERS DE- NOUNCE RECRUITING IN IRELAND. Miss Anna Nolan, a Representative of the Irish-American of New York, Interviews Several of the Irishmen of Prominence in Chicago in Order to Gauge the Depth of Feeling and to Get Their Views on the Political Situation in Ireland — As the Re- sult of Several Interviews, She Gave Expression to the Following For Her Paper and the Irish Voice. The Irish Voice, March 4, 1915. As she has always done in other matters, Chicago is taking a decided and clear-seeing view of the Irish situ- ation. Naturally the men who have consistently been carrying on the cam- paign for complete national freedom of Ireland have lined themselves up as pro-German In their sympathies. Not that they are looking for better government from Germany, should Germany by the fortunes of war take a goodly grasp of the British Isles, for these men have no Intention of letting any foreign power govern them, but because their hatred of Eng- land has lost none of its freshness after years and even generations of residence in this country. They find it difficult to comprehend the situation wherein a leader of any Irish party, forgetting the past centuries of coer- cion, and treachery on the part of England towards Ireland, could enthu- siastically head a campaign to enlist the young blood of Ireland for the spilling of it on foreign battlefields to- wards the advancement of their ancient enemy who now is fighting the supreme fight of her life. But the group of Irishmen who have hitherto pointed with pride to their leader John Redmond are the most pathetic figures in this great disor- ganization of Irish matters. Loyally, in spite of the mutilated thing called the Irish Home Rule Bill, have they not stood for John Redmond against the critics who censured him? For years they have been giving up their money for the cause of Home Rule. They believed in Home Rule and they had full faith in the men who were engineering the bill through the House of Commons. With what heartfelt joy they had shouted for John Redmond and his "full steam ahead" for Home Rule but a year ago when the bill seemed to be nearing the port. Pos- sibly these men began to realize the astuteness of their enemies and the actual facts of the case when the offi- cers of the British army refused to coerce Ulster. But whether they were prepared or not, it was a hard pill for them to swallow, when our morning papers told the story of John Red- mond's sudden blossoming into a re- cruiting officer for the army that would not take orders from Parliament and fight the breed of covenanters up in Ulster. To their credit be it said that these men needed no command, no counsel, no "doped-out policy" of their organi- zation but took their stand according to the dictates of their Irish hearts. Peculiarly Irish was this sudden tran- sition from the compromising parlia- mentarian into the original Irish "rebel," the radical who will not be hoodwinked by opponent or leader, the individualistic man of the Gael. For the Irish in America this up- heaval in the afl:airs of Ireland means something that is gradually showing itself — the binding together of all Irishmen without respect to political organization. Here in Chicago we may witness the friendly meetings of the Clansmen with men of the United Irish Societies. Old animosities are buried in the earnest desire for Ire- land's welfare. They have at last found a common ground, and one and all they stand united against the sac- rifice of Ireland's youth for the sake of saving England from a well-merited drubbing. For some of these Irishmen it is hard to refuse aid to France and the brave little Belgians, but after all is said and done, the crushing of Bel- gium and the sacrifice of France would really be satisfactory to England were it not for the fact that these nations have been her saving buffer against German invasion. And if we believe what the records of the battles tell us France might have gotten along as well without England's barbarians and England's incompetent army officers. The fight is between Germany and Eng- land for commercial supremacy. This fact must be kept apart from the senti- mental features of the war that has cost a brave little country so dearly and that is changing the very soul of France. The gigantic struggle has not really begun. England is still behind the skirts of the French and the Bel- gians. Meanwhile she Is preparing for what her statesmen believe to be the inevitable invasion. She wants to use what is left of Ireland's men for gun- fodder. By stupid economic management, she who has constantly cried out that Ireland is not fit to govern herself, finds now that her own citizens are neither willing nor physically fit for army purposes. On December 21st there were three football games held in London. These games attracted an attendance of 35,000 young men of military age. Recruiting agents and members of parliament harangued these 35,000 British hopefuls, pleading with them to enlist and crying out that the "life of the empire was at stake." Ac- cording to the London correspondent of the Chicago Evening Post, just one English patriot enlisted — one recruit out of a mob of 35,000! Surely the Boer War has taught the British public the value of a good job on an under clerk's high stool or behind the counter In comparison with a glorious death for the Empire! Whether Redmond has sold his coun- try, or whether he has done the best he could, or whether he is suffering from that affliction which often comes suddenly upon leaders, "cold feet," is a matter to be decided at closer range. But Mr. Redmond is, according to his former friends here in Chicago, stretching the point a bit t o far when he shouts enthusiastically for the en- listment of O'Briens and O'Donnells and O'Neills and all the other O's and Mac's whose ancestors and clansmen were wont to get enraged at the sight of a redcoat. It is just this feature of the Irish situation which has flab- bergasted the Irish of Chicago. How a regiment composed of Irish boys whose grandfathers and greatgrand- fathers once found joy in the killing of a hated redcoat now go forth to fight under the Union Jack in the same redcoat and shouting God Save the King is hard for the men with the tradi- tional Irish spirit to understand. One might call it Ireland's nightmare. ENGLAND'S TREASON TO THE " WHITE RACE. Hindus, Sikhs, Turcos, Mongols, Khirgise, Fiji Islanders and Rep- resentatives of Other Colored Races Fighting in the English Ranks — The Danger of Arming and Drilling Savages to Fight Europeans — A Menace to the Fu- ture of Christian Civilization — A Country That Hires Savage Mer- cenaries to do Her Fighting Should Not be Called a Civilized Power — Imperilling the Supremacy of White Race. (From the Continental Times, a Jour- nal for Americans in Europe.) There has appeared of late a ten- dency In a limited section of the pa- pers, published In America and Eng- land, to excuse and apologize for the introduction of the hordes of bar- barians which Great Britain has THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES LORD ROBERTS INSPECTING RECRUITS IN LANGLEY TAKK, ENGLAND (By Courtesy .of the "Open Court") pressed into service in her effort to destroy the Christian civilization of Germany. Public opinion, in the neutral states, is also beginning to criticize and condemn the conduct of the Brit- ish officers in pushing these unfor- tunate Asiatics and Africans in the front of the battle line. The truth of this has been vouched for by American correspondents, who have also corroborated the official German statements to the same effect. More- over, the appalling losses among the black troops in northern Prance and Flanders, as compared with those of the supporting English, give substan- tial evidence that John Bull is true to his old traditions in utilizing other races to do his hard fighting. In the beginning of the war the Irish and Scotch regiments were al- ways in the posts of danger and led the attack. But they have been prac- tically annihilated so that now the exotic nations of Africa and Asia are pushed to the front to bear the brunt of the German attack. Some English papers contend that England is justified in importing these barbarians because Turkey has joined in the war on behalf of Ger- many and Austria. This argument is neither reasonable nor logical. In the first place Turkey did not com- mence hostilities until several months after outbreak of the war and then only after an attack upon her fleet by Russia and after England had seized two of her warships, for which she had paid in full. Some of the Deviltries of England's Black Soldiers. In the second place Turkey has been in Europe for over 500 years, her Ambassadors have been received on an equality in all Christian courts and she has been a valuable and re- spected ally of England, also against Russia. If Germany should import Mohammedan tribes from the jungles and deserts of Asia and Africa and introduce them on the Continent to defend her cause, there would be some merit in England's argument. But Germany is too noble a power to invoke the aid of savages and heathens in her wars and does not believe in imperiling the supremacy of the white race. American correspondents have in- formed the public as to the fiendish practices and barbaric cruelties of these heathen mercenaries of Eng- land. They have told us that they delight in hacking the wounded with their knives and gouging out their eyes, and that they cut off the ears and noses of their victims, which they treasure as keepsakes. The correspondents have also warned Americans as to the danger involved in the introduction by these savages of Asiatic and African diseases into Europe through their filthy habits and their entire ignorance of the elementary ideas of hygiene. Cannibals Don the English Uniform. Some 200,000 of these heathens have already been imported into Eu- rope. The illustrated London news- papers have recently displayed, actu- ally with pride and jubilation, pic- tures of Fiji Island cannibals, under the training of British officers, who, they stated, have volunteered for the front and have been accepted by Mr. Harcourt, the Assistant Secretary of War. As a concession to public opin- ion they announced that they had abandoned their cannibalistic prac- tices and become methodists. A country which will call to its aid such mercenaries to bolster up her fighting forces is unfit to be classed as a civilized power and mer- its the unmeasured derision of hu- manity. These refined English gen- tlemen absolutely refuse to travel in the same railway car with a colored person and treat that entire race with unutterable contempt. Never- theless they are glad to make use of them to protect their own precious bodies from their white enemy. How- ever, we must not forget that it is only 100 years since the same English hired the red Indians to scalp the American colonists. How low has the mighty British Empire fallen! Is not King George the ally and friend of the regicide and assassin Peter of Servia? Civilization at Stake. Ah, Civilization, how thy name has been polluted! In the name of civil- ization, the Allies have, so far, brought into the field to fight against Christian white races, such types of uncivilized mercenaries, as savage Senegalese, negroes of various wild types, callous, heartless Hindus, Sikhs, Turcos, Mongols, Khirgise and other colored and untutored people, not even omitting the Fiji Islanders, notorious for their partiality for hu- man flesh, as food. This introduc- tion of barbarians into European wars would seem worthy of the at- tention of the civilized nations at the next Hague Conference. It must be borne in mind, that the yellow races alone, have a population three times the number of that of Europe, that they multiply at the rate of one hun- dred per cent every twenty years, whereas the white races only double in number every eighty years. Arm those colored people, teach them the art of modern warfare, how to kill the white men, and, it is easy to realize how quickly they will begin to act upon their own initiative, rise en masse and exterminate the hated Giaour. Note. — It is important, here, also, to understand that Turkey is in the war, not as an ally of Germany and Austria, but on her own account, to defend her rights. — Editor. EXTRACTS FROM THE CRIME AGAINST IREIiAND. The Crucible. By Sir Roger Casement. (Written in September, 1912.) Who can doubt that the greater patriotism and stronger purpose must inspire the man who fights for light, air and freedom, the right to walk abroad, to learn, to teach, aye, and to inspire others, rather than him whose chief concern it is to see that no one but himself enjoys those oppor- tunities? The means, moreover, that each combatant will bring to the con- flict, are in the end, on the side of Germany. Much the same dispropor- tion of resources exists as lay be- tween Rome and Carthage. England relies on money, Germany on men. And just as Roman men beat Carthagian mercenaries, so must German manhood, in the end, tri- umph over British finance. Just as Carthage in the hours of final shock, placing her gold where the Romans put their gods, and never with a soul above her ships, fell before the peo- ple of united Italy, so shall the mightier Carthage of the North Seas, REASONS FOR GREAT BRITAIN IN THE WAR 101 in spite of trade, shipping, colonies, the power of purse and the hired valor of the foreigner (Irish, Indian, African), go down before the men of united Germany." I read hut yesterday, "Pew people realize that the trade of Ireland with Great Britain is equal to that of our trade with India, is £13,000,000 greater than the whole of our trade with the United States." How com- pletely England has laid hands on all Irish resources is made clear from a recent publication that Mr. Chamber- lain's "Tariff Commission" issued to- wards the end of 1912. This document, entitled "The Eco- nomic Position of Ireland and Its Re- lation to Tariff Reform," constitutes, in fact, a manifesto calling for the release of Ireland from the exclusive grip of Great Britain. Thus, for in- stance, in the section "External Trade of Ireland," we learn that Ireland ex- ported in 1910, t:63,400,000 worth of Irish produce. Of this Great Britain took £52,600,000 worth, while some £10,800,000 went either to foreign countries, or to British colonies, over £4,000,000 going to the United States. Of these £11,000,000 worth of Irish produce sent to distant coun- tries, only £700,000 was shipped di- rect from Irish ports. The remainder, more than £10,- 000,000, although the markets it was seeking lay chiefly to the West, had to be shipped East into Great Brit- ain and to pay a heavy transit toll to that country for discharge, han- dling, agency, commission, and re- loading on British vessels in British ports to steam back past the shores of Ireland it had just left. While Ireland, indeed, lies in the "line of trade," between all Northern Europe and the great world markets, she has been robbed of her trade and arti- ficially deprived of the- very position assigned to her by nature in the great tides of commercial intercourse. A victorious Germany, in addition to such terms as she may find it well to impose in her own immediate fin- ancial or territorial interests, must so draft her peace conditions as to preclude her great antagonist from ever again seriously imperiling the freedom of the seas. I know of no way save one to nialce sure of the open seas. Ireland, in the name of Eu- rope, and in the exercise of European right to free the seas from the over- lordship of one European island must be resolutely withdrawn from British custody. A second Berlin conference, an international congress must de- bate, and clearly must debate, with growing unanimity the German pro- posal to restore Ireland to Europe. The arguments in favor of that proposal would soon become so clear from the general European stand- point that, save England and her de- feated allies, no power would oppose it. Considerations of expediency no less than naval, mercantile, and mor- al claims would range themselves on the side of Germany and a free Ireland. For a free Ireland, not owned or exploited by England, but appertaining to Europe at large, its ports available in a sense they never can be while under British control. for purposes of general navigation and overseas intercourse, would soon become of such first rank importance in continental affairs as to leave men stupefied by the thought that for five hundred years they had allowed one sole member of their community the exclusive use and selfish misappro- priation of this, the most favored of European islands. Ireland would be freed, not because she deserved or asked for freedom, not because English rule has been a tyranny, a moral failure, a stupidity and a sin against the light, not be- cause Germany cared for Ireland, but because the withdrawal of Ireland from English control appeared to be a very necessary step in international welfare and one very needful to the progress of German and European expansion. An Ireland released from the jail in which England had confined her would soon become a populous state of possibly 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 people, a commercial asset to Europe in the Atlantic of the utmost general value, one holding a unique position between the old and new worlds, and possibly an intellectual and moral as- set of no mean importance. This, and more a sovereign Ireland means to Europe. Above all it means secu- rity of transit, equalizing of oppor- tunity, freedom of the seas — an as- surance that the great waterways of the ocean should no longer be at the absolute mercy of one member of the European family, and that one the least interested in general Euro- pean welfare. The stronger a free Ireland grew the surer would be the guarantee that the role of England "consciously as- sumed for many years past, to be an absolute and wholly arbitrary judge of war and peace", had gone forever, and that at last the "balance of the power" was kept, by fair weight and fair measure and not with loaded scales. IRISH CRIMINAL CLASSES ALL IN THE BRITISH ARMY. The Right Hon. the Recorder, ad- dressing the Grand Jury at the ad- journed Dublin City Sessions, paid the following tribute to the almost crimeless state of the city: "In the record of Grand Juries in Dublin I think the smallest number of cases ever presented to a Grand Jury will be presented to you, namely, 5. Certainly in the memory of any living man it is the smallest. It is a great credit to the city that crime has almost reached a vanishing point in our midst." Reviewing the cases to go to the Grand Jury, his lordship said they were: Larceny, 2; false pretenses, 2; assault, 1; malicious damage, 1. Some time ago, the Presiding Judge at the Belfast Assizes said that the records showed that all the Irish criminals must have transferred the scene of their operations to the Con- tinent and were house-breaking in France or Belgium instead of in Ire- land. If it Is the Intention of the allies to lure Germany on, they are certainly succeeding. COST OF RIDDING IRELAND OF LANDLORDISM. A question having been put in the House of Commons in regard to the financing of the Irish Land Purchase Acts, Mr. Birrell, Secretary for Ire- land, gave the following interesting statistics: The total amount advanced under the Irish Land Purchase Acts, 1870- 1909 up to the 1st of January, 1915, was £91,768,450 ($458,842,250), and a sum of £1,584,516 ($7,922,580) was lodged in cash by the purchasing tenants, making the total purchase money £93,352,966 ($466,764,830), the sum advanced during the year ended January 1st last, being £5,764,- 412 ($28,822,060). The estimated purchase money of lands for the sale of which proceedings had been insti- tuted and were pending on that date, including lands for the purchase of which the Congested Districts Board were in negotiation but had not yet acquired, was £30,137,120 ($150,- 685,600). The total amount advanced under the Act of 1909, up to the 1st of January last, was £5,132,033 ($25,660,165), and the estimated purchase money of lands pending for sale under the Act on that date, in- cluding pending Congested Districts Board sales, was £8,037,929 ($40,- 18 9,645). The figures as to purchase annuities and interest in lieu of rent collectible by the Land Commis- sion under these Acts and the arrears are not classified and ab- stracted up to the date mentioned in the question; but it will be seen from the annual report of the Land Commission for the year ended 31st March, 1914, that during that year a sum of £2,658,550 ($13,292,750) was collectible in purchase annuities, and £1,212,591 ($6,062,95.^1 as in- terest in lieu of rent in pending sales, and that the arrears on 1st July last in respect pf these sums was only £12,499 ($62,495) and £11,638 ($58,190) respectively. These ar- rears have since been considerably reduced as the result of legal pro- ceedings instituted. Tlie Average Number of Years Pur- chase. The average number of years pur- chase of all classes of rents (includ- ing Judicial, Non-Judicial, Leasehold, etc.), of holdings vested by the Es- tates Commissioners in direct sales under the Acts of 1903 and 1909, Is 22.4 and 20.3, respectively. Detailed particulars as regards the number of years purchase under the Acts prior to 19 03 are given in Parliamentary Paper 90 of 1903. The rental of the lands sold is not available in all cases, but such particulars as are available are given in the tables relating to the various classes of sales appended to the annual reports of the Irish Land Commissioners. On the basis of the estimate submitted in Parlia- mentary Paper 6930 of 1913 the pur- chase money of lands which have not yet but which may become the sub- ject of proceedings for sale under the Land Purchase Acts, may be esti- mated at a sum not exceeding 60 mil- lions ($300,000,000). THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES ENGLAND AND HER DEAR IRELAND. England's action in urging little Belgium to the formation of secret treaties and then leaving her in the lurch, is not the first proof we have had that Albion's highest duty consists of fighting for the welfare and inde- pendence of smaller countries. England had performed this hon- orable duty for centuries past in Ire- land, although the latter has shown the determination rather to die Irish than to live in corruption as English. But that Ireland is going to ruin, and most hopelessly, if some power does not come to her assistance, may be shown by citing a few of the most disgraceful events in British colonial history. Since the fourteenth century, the Thirty Tears' War has continued unin- termittedly in Ireland. Sir Carson and the men of Ulster, descendants of Cromwell's soldiers, who never were Irishmen but English colonists, have nothing to offer in opposition to Home Rule, but the continuation of this frightful struggle has fortunately ceased for the rest of Europe. England's attempts at "rendering Ireland happy" began with the famous "Statute of Kilkenny," which con- tained the pleasant legal principle that any Englishman might slay any Irish- man to be found in Dublin, the capital of Ireland. This proved, however, not to be so simple in the execution, so the English had to be satisfied until 1S73 with a law prohibiting Catholics (in other words, Irish) from taking any academic examinations. This talented race was held down and kept in ignorance, at a time when the rank and file of other lands were enjoying their rights. Two hundred years previous to this time, the cot- ton laws were enforced, a less choice method of destruction. In order to do away with the Irish aristocracy, at that time the natural leaders of the people, John Bull conceived the prac- tical idea of confiscating all genea- logical history and family trees, so that soon no one knew who his grandfather was. An equally simple method was found for destroying the more important gentlemen merchants amongst whom the textile industry had become flourishing and who became dangerous competitors. A law was made forbidding the manufacture of Irish wool or the export of raw wool to any other country than England, where only the very lowest prices were paid. When the Irish, as a last al- ternative took up the manufacture of linen, this was also forbidden and the life of agriculture was crushed by an enormous export tax. Thus from the days of Cromwell's brutal butchery down to the modern subjugation, by means of a sanguinary industrial pol- icy, Ireland has been brought to ruin and her resources exhausted, often under the hypocritical mask of benevo- lence, but oftener with direct brutality and no attempt at palliation. The re- sult is that today two-thirds of Ire- land consists of the domains of English Lords and one-third of territory inhab- ited by poverty-stricken Irish. The families of 40,000. Irish farmers were from 1849 to l.SOT driven from house and home by the English aristoc- ENGLAND'S FALL. By Rt. R«v. Dr. England. Oh! who that has not wandered far Prom where he first drew vital air, Can tell how bright the visions are Which still surround his fancy there? For, oh! 'tis sweet 'round memory's throne. When time and distance gild the way. To cite the scenes that long have flown And view them o'er on Patrick's Day. Though distant from our native shore. And hound by Fortune's stern de- cree To tread our native land no more, Still, Erin, we must think on thee. Is there a heart of Irish mould That does not own the magic sway That tempts the generous patriot soul To celebrate our Patrick's Day? No nation e'er at Freedom's shrine Has sacrificed more rights than we; Our blood has flown in every clime That raised the shout of liberty. But, oh! will Freedom never smile Nor shed one bright, one cheering ray To cheer our own lov'd native isle. And raise our hopes on Patrick's Day? Thy gallant sons have nobly bought Columbia's gratitude for thee; In Freedom's cause they nobly fought. And shed their blood for Liberty. Then sing, my Harp! and speak, my soul! Let tyrants grumble as they may; The wish we'll speak is — "England's Pall," And Erin's joy on Patrick's Day. racy, because the "Irish laws" allowed the eviction of the tenant should he once fail to pay the abnormally high rent. Within sixty years, four and one-half millions of Irish left their Fatherland, but the culminating point of hypocrisy was reached in 1909 when England appropriated 125 million pounds sterling, in order to give to the Irish tenants the ownership of the land which was cultivated by them. It was, of course, impossible for the Irish, after centuries of subjugation, to be in a position to take up agricul- ture in a day. Beside this, the most arable land had been reserved by the English aristocracy for their parks, therefore the appropriated money will gradually sift back into the city's pockets. The Irishman resumes his position as tenant without rights and England will have perpetrated her master stroke. She has played the part of benevolence and at the same time has reaped the profit. One thing England has evidently not considered is, that this system of oppression would only serve to unite a multitude of Irish in North America, who, hating Eng- land with a passionate hatred, will surely revenge the Emerald Isle some day, if England's bloody account Is not settled during the present world war. AFTER THE WAR — ^WHAT? The German hatred of England, born by the latter's perfidious policy and her cruel treatment of civilian prison- ers, is the most dreadful fruit which any war has ever brought forth, and it is also the one great obstacle to a sensible adjustment of the questions of the future, questions greater than any involved in the present war. As Professor Burgess said in 1907 : "The present and future civilization of the world politically lies in the hands of the three great Teutonic States of the world, Germany, England and the United States, and the wel- fare of the world requires that these three shall move and work in harmony. The welfare and progress of the world can be substantially and permanently promoted in no other way. All the in- ternational congresses and conferences which can be assembled will remain practically barren and worthless un- less these three great Teutonic States stand together." We believe that the German hatred is not directed against individual Eng- lishmen, but against the government and its foolish and wicked policy, do- mestic as well as foreign. Common sense tells us that a policy which is based on unfairness and deceit must sooner or later lead the country, where it prevails, to moral and political bank- ruptcy. Unfortunately such has been the policy of England — with honorable interruptions — ever since Elizabeth the Pickle bestowed honors on her bucca- neering and pirate captains because they filled her treasure chambers ; Elizabeth who gave with one hand only to take away with the other and who was constitutionally unable to keep her word or know her own mind. The English domestic policy has been a lamentable failure and its results have kept back true civilization all over the world because in only too many countries— even in America — it has served as a pattern. As our great novelist, David Qraham Phillips, re- cently said: "We have inherited a lit- tle from France; unfortunately, more from England." England considers herself and is con- sidered by most observers a democracy. To the students of history and social economy, however, she is no more a democracy than a mirrored image is a reality, or a man's reputation is his character. A democracy is a government by the people (all the people) for the people (all the people) and if this definition is correct, England's claim of being a democracy cannot be allowed. As Frank Harris, former editor of the London "Saturday Review," re- cently said, there are 49 per cent, of the workmen of England disfranchised, and the whole spirit of the English Government is to still further increase inequality. Can that be called govern- ment by the people, all the people? "You have one-eighth of the popu- lation enormously rich," Mr. Harris continues, "one-third in the gutter, too poor to lead human lives and a small middle class in between. England has no right to stand for any ideal free- dom today. The person who says so is either a fool or a liar." Can that be called a government for the people, all the people? REASONS FOR GREAT BRITAIN IN THE WAR In Germany it has been recognized, ami acknoivledffed that everi/ citizen iu a democracy is part of tlie govern- ment, tliat the whole has its duties to every part, just as eve)-}/ part has its duties to the whole, and that for the whole to be strong and healthy every part must be strong and healthy. This has been accepted as a principle and in recognition of it Germany has en- acted laws for compulsory insurance against sickness, accident, invalidism, old age, for pensioning widows and orphans and for the safeguarding of her workmen. "In the last twenty years," as Mr. Harris says, "Germany has done more for humanity than any other nation on earth."* As long as legislation favors the wealthy, and deprives numberless units of her population of the right of deter- mining their fate, as it does in Eng- land, it is absurd to speak of a de- mocracy, and just so long will it be a tyranny to a part of the population. The slums of London, Liverpool and other large cities in England are not only a denial of her claims to democ- racy, but also a constant reproach to her ruling classes, a blot o^ England's escutcheon, and a disgrace to the body politic which in the end must bring about its complete decay — if not treated and cured in time. Sitting thus uneasily on a volcano which may become active at any time, England has shown no more fair deal- ing and real understanding of the prob- lems which are confronting her in her foreign than in her domestic policy. Living, like a wastrel, from hand to mouth, she has, it is true, had a pol- icy which has run through the cen- turies and connected ever a shameful past to a present vifhich was vainly struggling to break the bonds with which this policy enchained it. This policy was determined by her insatiable desire for an increase of material ad- vantages, and has unceasingly over- shadowed her longing for moral ad- vancement. Her greed for riches made her land-hungry and as she was too penurious to be willing to pay for large armies she — and that has for cen- turies been her policy — has ever allied herself with some other power whom she knew how to inflame and do the work for her, she herself getting all the net profits. England's century old desire — riches, and ever more riches ; England's cen- tury old policy — to stir up strife, to be able to umpire the game and to ac- cord itself the spoils of the war. So she has done now! Germany growing too strong as a competitor In the world's markets, she has incited France and Russia to fear and hatred of her and hung prizes before their passion-dimmed eyes which their souls could not resist. Indifferent to moral considerations as well as to the ties of blood, blinded by her greed to the ulti- mate consequences of her act, she al- lied herself with three nations, for- eign to her and two of them her heredi- tary foes, France, the Latin, Russia, the Cossack, and Japan, the Mongol. Was there ever such a combination : Mongols, Muscovites, Latins and Teu- tons of the British sideline? With in- terests only temporarily alike in one direction, but as a rule diametrically opposite, how long will the glue of hatred and envy hold such a combina- tion together? Already one of the part- ners has turned the necessities of the rest to his advantage — Japan, seizing the opportunity when neither England nor Russia was in a position effec- tually to oppose her, has tightened her grasp on China with a jiu-jitsu stran- gle hold. Already a storm is brewing where the Dardanelles forts are de- fending Constantinople from the half- hearted attacks of the English and French fleets, for the disposition of the Turkish capital, in the improbable event of its capture, forms the most puzzling problem of the many puzzling problems of this most stupid of all wars. Russia, more than anything else, wants Constantinople, England wants it nearly as badly, Greece wants it quite as badly, Bulgaria wants it badly, and not one of them nor France wants any other to have it. The seeds of future wars lie in the capture of the city of the Golden Horn and recognizing this the efforts of the English and French fleets are but half-hearted, just suffi- cient to satisfy the Russian demands for a determined sea^ campaign against Turkey, and just not sufficient to make the Greek demands for the possession of Constantinople acute. The Turkish Empire as mistress of the Dardanelles is no great danger to Roumania, Bul- garia or Greece; with Russia in pos- session of this key to the Black Sea the independence of these three king- APTER THE WAR: A FORECAST. Ertracts from an Editorial in "The Independent," New York, August 24, 1914. * * * So Austria and Germany are likely to have no partners; the rest of Europe is against them — Russia, France, Great Britain, and all the minor powers, Belgium, Holland, Den- mark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland in sentiment solid against two nations that have dared to open the most tre- mendous and momentous war the world has ever known. It is practically all Europe against Germany and Austria; and not all Europe alone, but all the British dependencies of Asia, Africa, Australia, and America as well, not to speak of those of France, which more than balance those of Germany. "On the face of it, considering pop- ulation and wealth and armies and navies, the heavier battalions ought to win. But in favor of the nations is the fame of the German army. It Is said to be the most admirable, the best trained and equipped fighting machine in the world. It is not forgotten how like a tornado it swept to Paris in 1870, and carried back with it two French provinces. But the German generals and soldiers are not gods; they are men. They have the advantage of con- fidence, but perhaps they are too mechanical; and perhaps there will be more passion, more dash, more vengeance with the French soldiers. For forty years the children in French schools have been taught never to forget Alsace and Lor- raine.f * * « doms would be of short duration, for the Bear's paw is reeking with the blood of smaller adversaries and his maw is insatiable. And that is exactly why Sir Edward Grey's policy has been not only small and contemptible, but — a much worse crime — short-sighted, that he did not recognize that the true salvation of England lay in a close alliance -with Germany and the United States, in- stead of with Russia and Japan. Po- litically England had from Germany and the United States nothing, from Russia and Japan everything to fear, and the strengthening of the latter two countries politically would also strengthen them immeasurably com- mercially. The only points of conten- tion between England on one, and the United States and Germany on the other side are the struggle for commer- cial and industrial supremacy, and Eng- land should have been wise and great enough to bring them to an issue with- out the crude means of a world-war. After the war — what? Peace, yes, but what kind of a peace? A peace based on violence, written in blood and tears, and voicing the hatred of un- told millions of human beings? A peace which can but be the starting point of another and more bitter struggle which will throw us back still further towards the dark ages? God forbid! such peace would be worse thau ab- solute annihilation and therefore we hope for the victory of Germany be- cause she, with her ally, is the only nation great-hearted and large-minded enough to strive for a peace which will not further estrange the warring coun- tries, but bring them together for a better understanding, for a wider view- point, for honorable endeavors, for a policy of friendship and mutual respect, for aims of the welfare of all human kind. — From "The Crucible," April 10, 1915. *See the Index for a complete article from Mr. Harris, especially sent by him for this book. — Editor, ENGLAND THREATENED BY STRIKES. tEmphasized in bold type by the Publisher of "War Echoes." Special Cable Despatch to the "Sun." London — The London "Times" gives prominence to the threatened labor troubles in the British coal fields. The Miners' Federation meets on March 17th to consider the reports compiled by local agents in the field on the question of immediate action to obtain an increase in wages in view of the high price of coal. If a satisfactory agreement is not reached with the coal mine owners the most dangerous situation pos- sible will develop. The Times else- where in its columns refers to labor difficulties as now hampering the effi- cient prosecution of the war more seriously than most people are aware. It prints a despatch from Berne to the effect that Germany is flooding neutral countries with reports of seri- ous strikes in Great Britain, pointing to British degeneracy in contrast to the unity of Germany. 104 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES British Policy and Its Character in the Making WHO PROVOKED THE WAR? Incidents Showing Historical Prog ress of Events Toward In- evitable Clash. The Fatherland, New York. Frederick E. Schrader. On December 1, 1913, Vienna was made acquainted with the rev- elations touching Russia's treaty with the Balkan states, prior to the war with Turkey, and the publica- tions created the most profound excitement. For it furnished the evidence that almost all the arrange- ments, without exception, among the contracting parties were directed against Austria-Hungary. These ar- rangements covered the precise num- ber of troops which each state was to furnish as well as the precise time when the warlike operations were to begin. According to these revelations, supported by authentic documentary evidence, Russia obli- gated herself to supply the war ma- terial and all obtainable information regarding the plans of Austria-Hun- gary. Besides this, she undertook to support the Balkan states by guar- anteeing to protect their war against Turkey and Roumania. Antedating this, when in 1911 England unaccountably projected herself into the Morocco muddle, the war fever in London reached fever heat. In Germany this interference was regarded as a provocation for war, and the London dispatches quoted "one of the wealthiest men in Berlin, closely associated with the foreign office and high in the em- peror's confidence": "No matter where we seek to ad- vance, we find England blocking our progress. It is a case of an irresis- tible force coming in contact with an immovable object, and the only possible result of such a collision is chaos — that is, war." In London, at the Naval and Mili- tary club and the United Service club, "officers, old and young, look upon war as a practical certainty in the near future." In the September be- fore — this was in December — "every naval officer on leave was recalled by telegram and even the able sea- men at Portsmouth and Plymouth were prepared for the worst." (Lon- don dispatch, Dec. 1.) France was tranquil. Foreign Minister de Selves delivered France's contribution to the German-British debate and made some additions to the revelations commencing the Moroccan crisis, before a crowded house in the chamber of deputies. He said among other things (Paris dispatch, Dec. 14) that "there had been a moment of tension due to the excessive demands of Germany. Rea- sonable negotiations ensued upon this, and he denied that Germany had become irritable and had tried to start a conflict. On the contrary, he said, her attitude had been con- ciliatory." July 13, 1912, there appeared in the New York World a London cable dispatch, as follows: "The first lord of the admiralty, (Winston /Churchill) according to his political confidants, will not take the offensive, but the radicals fear he may seize any German provoca-: tion to plunge England into war. He is said to be obsessed with a feeling of Britain's naval might and is de- lighted at a bare prospect of dem- onstrating that might at Germany's expense." Germany did not give the provo- cation, and matters drifted on. Eng- land and Russia had divided Persia between them. The czar was already directing the policy which England was to follow in her blind hatred of Germany. When you are in Rome you must do as the Romans do. Eng- land stood by in silence while Russia was inaugurating a reign of terror in her sphere of Persia. The dissident Liberals opened a campaign against Sir Edward Grey's foreign policy. But Grey was of one mind with Churchill as to war with Germany, and showed no signs of checking Russia. He was attacked by the influential "Nation," which showed "our allies in Persia assist- ing in deeds which roused all Eng- land when the Bashi-Bazouks, .in- stead of Cossacks were their auth- ors." Photographs of the inhuman outrages were printed. Some were unprintable. "It remains to be seen," said the correspondent of the New York Times under date of Sept. 14, 1912, "whether a McGahan or a Gladstone will arise to arouse the country to flame, such as that which followed the Bulgarian atrocities and altered the map of southeastern Eu- rope." The McGahan developed in the per- son of G. T. Turner, "who sent to the Manchester Guardian an article, charging the Russian troops with the indiscriminate shooting of men, women and children in Tabriz, as well as with unspeakable atrocities by their Persian governor, including beating men to death, sewing up the mouths of Constitutionalists, nail- ing horseshoes to men's feet, and driving them through the bazaars, and with a general hanging vendetta against all who were even supposed to favor the new Persian constitu- tion. "Prof. Browne also wrote to the Manchester Guardian, stating that he had obtained photographs which left no doubt of the horrible charac- ter of the atrocities perpetrated in Tabriz. Two of these photographs are so dreadful that publication is impossible. "A correspondent of the "Nation" wrote, demanding their publication, so that Englishmen might under- stand the price, paid in blood and national honor, for the Anglo-Rus- sian alliance." — (Cable New York Times, Sept. 14, 1912.) Even the Daily News of London, usually a whole hogger as far as the present administration of Mr. As- quith is concerned, could not swal- low the vile imperialistic dose and spoke out as follows: "No man who believes that the honor of his country as an asset worth preserving or who is con- cerned for the security of our Indian empire can be indifferent to the pol- icy by which Russia, without con- sent, is obliterating a free people whose independence we have agreed to protect, and is preparing to ad- vance her frontiers to those of our Indian empire. There is no one in any party in this country today who does not deplore the attack on Per- sian freedom, who does not admit that it is a deliberate breach of the covenant of 1907, and who does not know that it is profoundly prejudicial to our business and imperial inter- ests. To the plain man the fact that these things should be happening with our sanction is unintelligible. They are . unintelligible until we realize that the sacrifice of Persia is only an incident in a scheme of pol- icy which includes, among its other manifestations, the Moroccan crisis, Mongolia, Tripoli, and the general breakdown of the moral law of Eu- rope. "We have turned treaties into waste paper, we have deserted the lit- tle peoples who looked to us at least to keep our word, we have endan- gered the future of our most vital interests, and we have involved our- selves in an expenditure on arma- ments without parallel in the his- tory of the world. And the result is that Europe is seething with unrest and that the air is thick with ru- mors of impending disaster, the rea- son for which no man can specify. This is the situation to which Sir Edward Grey's policy was brought this country and Europe." Sir Edward Grey, however, was content to see England accused of every violation of solemn treaty ob- ligations, and turn a deaf ear to the evidence of inhuman cruelty for the sake of holding Russia for the even- tual blow against the German em- pire. Distinguished Englishmen spoke their minds freely on the subject of friction with Germany, and severely rebuked Sir Edward for his persis- tent policy of nagging and thwarting the German striving for expansion. R. B. Cunningham-Graham, repre- senting, as the New York Times ad- mitted, "a rapidly growing opinion in England," a former member of par- liament, said, February 10, 1912; "I am in favor of an entente cor- diale with Germany. I advocated it in parliament and publicly after the Pashoda incident, when it was un- popular with the British public. I am in favor of an entente with the great or small in Europe and America, although I confess that when I think of the 178,000 political prisoners now destined in Russia and Siberia, there is one international entente that has, perhaps, been a little premature. li BRITISH CHARACTER IN THE MAKING 105 ENGLAND'S DECLARATION. Illinois Staats-Zeitung, Chicago. Editorial, H. L. Brand, Chicago. England declared war upon Ger- many ostensibly because of the vio- lation of Belgian neutrality.* The later reason as given out by England is, that militarism as exemplified by the German army must be forever annihilated. Back of this declaration from England lies — in plain view — the third and probably the all im- portant, although not publically ac- knowledged reason, namely: the de- sire to destroy Germany's fleet of warships and of merchant-ships. This article concerns itself only with England's declaration that mili- tarism must be destroyed in the in- terest of peace and humanity. Let us, citizens of the United States, view this declaration unbi- asedly. Germany's vast army — or war-ma- chine, as it is called — was built up as a sequence to the Franco-Prussian war. Since then it was a dreaded power and a powerful factor in main- taining or destroying the peace of Europe. Up to the month of July, it was used only to maintain the peace of Europe. But it existed — a. dreadful menace in the eyes of other nations. Why did it exist? In the control of treacherous, scheming or warlike men it might have been used, many times prior to July, 1914, to plunge Europe into war. But Europe remained at peace. Does this not prove that the German government used its powerful war- machine to maintain peace instead of for the purpose of warring upon other nations? Why, then, have this huge war- machine? Geographically, Germany lies be- tween two powerful countries — Rus- sia and France. France has the wealth and Russia the men. France cherishes hopes of revenge and Rus- sia cherishes dreams of expansion and conquests. Prance formed an alliance with Russia. Both will gain by reducing Germany's importance and power. France will wipe out an old score and perhaps get Alsace and Lorraine back. Russia will advance the sphere of influence of Slavism and perhaps gain some territory. Thus, Germany lies uneasy between two foes who are moreover banded together by an alliance. Should Ger- many have looked quietly on while French money and genius was not only developing a superior army of Frenchmen but was also building a most formidable war machine in Russia? Let uSi ask calmly: What would the United States have done in a similar case? Let us take the hypothetical case of Canada and Mexico. The Mexi- cans do not like us any too well. England, in the past, has been our greatest enemy. England is allied with the Japs. Suppose they receive English money and English genius and then the Japs start the Mexicans on the path of building up an im- mense war-machine: Suppose, fur- ther, that Mexico's population was more than half as large as ours (as is the proportion between the popula- tion of Prance and Germany) . Would we need any other factors in order to start the building of a United States war-machine? But another factor exists in the case of Germany. And it is the most BF/^ ^W Cl-^ 4 J ^ ^ 1^ ^p iH^^ w w/ ^ k ys^^ W^s^^^ ' -^-l^R',i.',fciB IHE£^Hk:. . — .■-L^jmsLsMml Seorge V — King of Great Britain SAYS CAP FITS BRITISH. (From "The Chicago Tribune," Oc- tober 15, 1914.) Chicago, Oct. 10. — [Editor of "The Tribune."] — The statement by fa- mous British authors is character- istically British. They accuse other nations of daring to do the very things which they are doing, and say that other nations have no rights. These famous British authors ac- cuse Germany of holding that "Ger- man culture and civilization are so superior to those of other nations that the ordinary rules of morality do not hold in her case." This is just exactly the way the Eng- lish feel and act; and then the au- thors say rightfully: "The views in- culcated upon the present genera- tion of Germans by many celebrated historians and teachers seem to us both dangerous and insane." Could not the English people apply this to themselves? And where can you find displayed more brazen audacity than when these authors state: "We cannot admit that any nation has the right h'y brute force to impose its culture upon other nations." Why do not the English apply this to their own government? How about the Boers, the Egyptians, the Hindoos, the Zulus, and lastly the Irish in Ireland? EUGENE F. O'RIORDAN, M. A., important factor. It is the slav- power of Russia. Let us suppose that Canada was settled by a race alien to ours. By Slavs, for instance. Canada is larger than the United States, just as Russia is larger than Germany — but Russia can carve twenty Germanys out of its domains, while Canada is not even twice the size of the United States. Still another factor! Russia's population is many times as large as Germany's, while Can- ada's is but one-tenth as great as ours. And another factor! Russia has wonderful natural un- touched wealth, vastly greater than Germany's. Canada's natural wealth is greatly inferior to ours. Therefore, to state a parallel case, we must bless Canada with several million people and untold natural, untouched wealth. This formidable sleeping giant on our north receives English gold and English genius with which to build up a monster war-machine. (It is proven that French gold and French genius, for years previous to the last French loan of $500,000,000 per year for 5 years was given Russia, has been poured into Russia for the purpose of making it a dangerous neighbor for Germany and a valu- able aid to Prance when all was ready to strike down the conqueror of 1870). In this hypothetical case, what would this nation of ours do? But we forget another factor. France and Russia are allied for de- fensive and offensive actions. Therefore, we must further assume that Canada and Mexico have formed a defensive and offensive alliance. What then? Would the United States idly look on while all the cards were being stacked against her? Or would the United States (like Germany) look with distrustful eyes upon the friendship between Canada and Mexico: with fearful heart upon the growing army in Canada and the increasing wealth of Mexico? And would not the United States (as Germany did) strain every muscle ta build up a gigantic war- machine so as to prevent a successful invasion from north and south? We are Americans. Let us be fair. Let us not condemn Germany be- cause of its war-machine but only because of the possible use of it In starting war. It is conceded by fair- minded men generally, that Germany did not use its war-machine to start war, but rather to compel peace. Let us be fair. Let us not join In England's cry that England's cause is a holy one because militarism must be destroyed. Let us look deeper and discover why militarism in Germany exists today and then decide if England's declaration is sinr cere, justifiable and humane. *Read also, "Has Germany Vio- lated Belgian Neutrality?" reprinted elsewhere in this book. Consult also the Index and the Table of Contents on Militarism. — Editor. 106 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES HALL CAINE'S APPEAL TO NEW YORK IN THE GREAT WAR. (The following opening para- graphs of Mr. Hall Caine's appeal to the United States are reprinted from the first page of the "Chicago Exam- iner" of Sunday, September 20, 1914. The appeal continued for several col- umns on Page Seven. The second part of this firebrand appeal to the United States to help take the chest- nuts out of the fire for outraged England who is trying so hard to civilize the "German barbarians" oc- cupied three columns in the "Exam- iner" of September 21. At the end of this precious article the "Exam- iner" said: "Hall Caine's next article ■will discuss what America should do. It will be published tomorrow." Did you read it? We saved our penny! — The Publisher of "War Echoes." By Hall Caine. (The Famous English Novelist and Publicist.) We in England hear of women go- ing In procession in New York under the symbol of the white flag, and we are not surprised. We hear of powerful leading arti- cles, powerful sermons and powerful speeches in America denouncing the theory of war as a means of set- tling international disputes in gen- eral, and of our present dispute in particular, and we are neither aston- ished nor offended. It would be strange, indeed, it the United States, sitting in its geograph- ical aloofness across 3,000 miles of ocean, should not feel that the spec- tacle it is now called upon to wit- ness in the theater of Europe — the spectacle of two groups of highly civ- ilized nations tearing themselves to pieces by all the devilish arts of me- chanical warfare, involving the lim- itless outpouring of blood, the mur- dering of hundreds of thousands of men, the destruction of villages, the burning of historic cities, the impov- erishment of the well-to-do classes, the starvation of the poor, the desti- tution of women with child and the outraging of young girls — is a spec- tacle of deeper and crueler irony than any other of which the history of man in this world has record. Limitless Self-Deception or Abject and Degrading Hypocrisy. It would be still more astonishing if America, with its ever-conscious religiosity, should not feel that the fact that these two groups of nations should claim to be Christian nations and should be praying at the same time to the same God for the success of their opposing armies, ringing their church bells to celebrate their victories or to lament their defeats, singing on the one hand their Te Deum and on the other their Mis- erere, and all in the name of Him who said "Resist not evil," is proof beyond dispute that man is a crea- ture capable either of limitless self- deception or of the most abject and degrading hypocrisy. And, feeling like this, it is per- \iaps that you in America should do your best to persuade yourselves that you have neither part nor lot in the hideous European saturnalia, and that your President has done wisely in recommending to you an attitude of personal as well as national neu- trality. Inhuman and Wrong for America to Remain Neutral, Author Ai-gues. But is your neutrality possible? Is it human? Is it right? In the face of the appalling spectacle of a great part of the family of man in the death throes of a struggle which must surely affect for good or ill the very foundation of human society, is it conceivable that 90,000,000 en- lightened people in the United States bound to the belligerents by the closest ties of blood, intellectual in- terest, religious sympathy and mate- rial welfare, can sit at the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and say to each other: "This bloody business is none of ours; so, for God's sake, let us keep out of it?" It is because I think it is not pos- sible, not human and not right for America to adopt even passively an attitude of neutrality, that I am mak- ing the present appeal to you — ^an appeal that is intended to assert with whatever power I possess, your re- sponsibility under the -moral law for the present state, the continuance and ultimate outcome of this fright- ful European struggle.f Does this strike you as an auda- cious aim,* seeing that you in Amer- ica had nothing on earth to do with the making of the accursed war?t Have patience with me and I think I may be able to show that neither had we in England anything to do with the making of the war; and yet we are in it and w^ere compelled to be in it by every clause of the moral code which regulates the relation of nation to nation or yet man to man.t * * * President, rallies to the support of his plans for mediation.* The Amer- ican people are united, irrespective of racial sympathies and political differences of opinion, in their desire for peace. But our pacific demon- strations lose the ring of sincerity, if we sell powder and rifles to the belligerents by the back door while we shout for peace from the house tops. In spite of the President's procla- mation, a number of American firms are selling even now huge war sup- plies to the Allies. Japan buys field guns and ammu- nition through Mitsui and Company. Japan, moreover, purchases dyna- mite from the Hercules and from the Giant Powder Company in all available quantities. The Winchester Arms Manufac- turing Company has furnished since August 5th, 500,000 rifles to a Lon- don Armory. Russia has bought from the Pow- der Trust (Dupont Company) 1,000 tons of cannon powder and 1,000 tons of gun powder, delivered by way of San Francisco. No wonder the Allies are unwill- ing to discuss peace terms. Every rifle in their hands means a pro- longation of the war. Every ton of powder means new sacrifices of life and property. It has been stated that the de- cided stand taken by Americans of foreign extraction for the countries of their affiliation has handicapped the President's efforts. Nothing that has been said or done by any Amer- ican of foreign extraction weigfhs as heavily in the balance against peace as one pound of powder or dynamite furnished by American concerns to any of the belligerents. How long will the Government permit the greed for profit on the part of a few traflnckers in ammunition to stand in the way of the noble endeavor of the President and the fervent wish of the entire nation for peace? *We wonder whether this appeal struck President Wilson "as an au- dacious aim" and whether the Chief Magistrate of this strictly neutral country appreciates the way in which the Hon. William Randolph Hearst is trying to live up to the President's appeal for STRICT NEU- TRALITY. — The Publisher of "War Echoes." fEmphasized in bold type by the Editor. THWARTING THE PRESIDENT'S PEACE PLANS. (From "The Fatherland," New York, September 30, 1914.) If President Wilson can bring about peace in Europe, he will shed lustre upon his administration and add to the undying glory of the United States. There can be no doubt that, both for ethical and for practical reasons, the people of the United States would like to see the end of fratricide in Europe. Even Mr. William Randolph Hearst, the most unrelenting antagonist of the *If interested to know how the Hon. William Randolph Hearst rallies to the support of the Presi- dent's plans for mediation, consult index for "Sit Down On Hearst." — Editor. FAIR FLAY WAS DENIED THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE. What Might Have Occurred Had Jus- tice Been Accorded the Muscovite. Britain's Tardy Y'lelding. Momentous Utterances Made by Sir Edward Grey in the House of Com- mons. From "Chicago Daily News," Feb., 1915. The "eastern question" that for nearly a century has unsettled the politics of all Europe is reaching final dissolution — not solution, but disso- lution. The millions of money and thou- sands of lives that Great Britain has sacrificed during the past fifty years to keep tottering Turkey upon the BRITISH CHARACTER IN THE MAKING 107 map of Europe have been worse than thrown away. Had Russia been al- lowed to go to Stamboul, instead of being attacked on the Crimea, a series of wars that have distracted central Europe never would have oc- curred. Had she been permitted to remain at the Bosporus in 1878, when her soldiers had fought their way thither, the Russo-Japanese and Bal- kan wars would not have taken place. Russia would have expanded toward the warm waters of the Medi- terranean instead of toward the frigid shores of Kamtchatka; Manchuria never would have attracted the atten- tion of her statesmen; Japan would have lived in peace with all the world except China; every citizen of the Russian empire, poor or rich, would have stood higher in the so- cial scale; Germany would have been content to absorb Austria and pos- sessed two fine ports in the Adriatic almost as near to the United States and much more serviceable for her colonization schemes in Africa and the far east. Had Russia Received Justice. In short, Fulton Chambers writes in the "Brooklyn Eagle," had Russia been accorded the fair play to which she was entitled all the world would be different! Sir Edward Grey, British secretary of foreign affairs, rose in the house of commons the other day and an- nounced formally that Great Britain is now "entirely in sympathy with the aspirations of Russia to go to Con- stantinople"! He declined to admit that Russia's foreign minister, M. SazanofC, had declared the czar's in- tention to permanently occupy the city at the Golden Horn, but said, in so many words, England would no longer oppose objeetions thereto. How momentous! Although fully expected, this is great news for humanity. It means the ultimate amalgamation of Rou- mania and the Balkan states into a great kingdom, of which Hungary will ultimately become a part. Russia will sweep over Armenia and Anatolia — satisfied to allow the Bulgarians to repossess Adrianople. She will be content with Turkish ter- ritory as far west as the Tchataldje lines of defense, the Gallipoli penin- sula, which safeguards the Darda- nelles, and complete dismantling of the present forts on the Asiatic side of that waterway. War's Most Important Outcome. Brusa has practically reassumed the aspect of the Turkish capital. Thither the official records and con- tents of the treasury, much or little, have been removed from Stamboul. Russia will absorb all ports along the Asiatic coast of the Black sea. Turks given to agriculture must seek the rich soil of Mesopotamia or re- turn to the undefined but arid wastes east of the Caspian sea, from whence they originally emerged to blight all eastern Europe for 700 years! Nobody in all this earth cares where the Turks go, if they keep away from the habitations of civilized mankind. Eight bells have rung for Turkey! Realization of Russian ambition to have unrestricted access to the sea through the Bosporus is far and away the most important outcome of the tremendous struggle now convulsing Europe. And the curious feature about its concession is that it de- velops naturally out of the fortunes of war! Whether or not Germany holds Russia safe on the frontier of East Prussia matters little to her now as- sured destiny! All things are possible for her now! She will cease wasting her energies on conquests in Central Asia. Pro- jected irrigation of the vast Kizil and Kaa deserts lying east and south of the Aral sea will be deferred indefin- itely. Glorious Prospects for Russia. The Black sea, classic Propontus, will be converted into a Russian lake. It never freezes and nothing stands to prevent Russia from becoming one of the maritime nations of the globe. Situation matters little if a nation's ports have behind them a hinterland capable of supplying cargoes for their argosies! Venice was the mightiest of sailor nations for nearly two cen- turies, although the location of her chief port was as wretched as could possibly be imagined. It is a safe prediction that Russia's capital will be removed to Moscow and that Petrograd will become a port of little more importance to the em- pire than Archangel, Odessa, Sebas- topol and other Black Sea cities of less importance will welcome mer- chant steamers from all parts of the world. * * * BEARDS BRITISH MON IN HIS DEN. George Raffalovich Dares to Write for liondon New Age of Hypocrisies. From the "New Age," Iiondon. (By George Raffalovich.) Let me make one more attempt to bring before your readers the reality of the tragedy of the Ukraine. One does not expect much from Mr. T. P. O'Connor, but his last dictum, that we are fighting the cause of the small na- tionalities, makes sad reading to me. It is so utterly untrue. While we are fighting, two nations at least are be- ing crushed to death by Russia. Fin- land is moribund and the Ukraine movement loses its Piedmont. I am only concerned with the latter case because of the tremendous spiritual and intellectual possibilities I believe to lie in a free Ukraine. Dr. Dillon, in the Telegraph, as- sured us that the Ruthenians were Russians at heart. I know that is con- trary to the truth. It is so much easier to take the work of Russian Nationalist journalists. It is useless to say that the Little Russians are Russians, unless you concede at the same time that the Russians are not Russians. Let me explain. The word Rusj was used centuries ago to describe the inhabit- ants of the Ukraine. Muscovy ab- sorbed them later on, and the name of Muscovy was dropped and that of Rossia, a very similar one, adopted for the whole. If you ask a Ukrain- ian what he is, he will use the word Rusiky to describe his language and Rossiysky for that of the Great Rus- sian. Another argument is that the Uk- rainians are as happy as they are. Yes, so did the seventeenth century landlords say that the peasants of France were pleased to be treated as cattle. But they were not cattle and proved it. That is the great trouble of the Ukraine. It is a criminal of- fense in the Russian Ukraine to teach the Ukrainian language. Letters ad- dressed in Ukrainian are not deliv- ered. Only the worst and least moral of Ukrainians will engage to teach Rus- sian to their pupils, and the whole population is thus gradually demoral- ized. But the great-little Wellses go to Russia, others of the same stripe go to Galicia; they question, being strangers, the only people they can question, an ambitious priest, a dis- satisfied official, a land owner of Polish or Jewish or Muscovite race, or a few peasants, carefully selected by their guide, in carefully selected districts. I do not imagine them; I know them, and after months of hard, and I can assure you, wholly disinterested work on their behalf, I have been able to reach the heart of those Ukrain- ians of Russia who dared to speak. I have spoken with scores of them, poor and rich. The truth is that the people of Eng- land do not believe in their hearts in the rights of small nationalities. Take the Belgian case. The viola- tion of Belgium as an argument used against Germany is weak. We know very well that Prussia will not retain Belgium after the war, even though Sir Roger Casement and the Alba- nians are said to have sided with the Kaiser. We have had a good deal of evidence showing that the Belgian government and ours knew long ago that Germany had altered her war plans to fit in with the Franco-Rus- sian alliance and meant to pass through Belgium willy-nilly. Let us forever drop this silly prat- tle about helping small nations. We allow Russia, our ally, who depends today on our staff officers for the. brains of> her army and on our Chan- cellor of the Exchequer and our Ger- man-Jewish financiers for several mil- lion pounds monthly, to establish her government (save the mark!) over- Europeans who are not Russians. Our ears will be closed, our eyes; will be shut. What the Ukrainians-, need is a friendly statesman with two' million bayonets behind him. This-, they will never get from England un- til it suits England's book. Cease> then to rav^ about chivalry. Do not insult our intelligence by prating; about the sacred cause of smaller na- tionalities. Or else help them all alike! It's about time somebody were sit- ting down on Hearst, and sitting down hard. Only a few weeks ago he was using his newspapers to attempt to force this country into war with Mexico and brutally cartooning President Wilson and Secretary Bryan. 108 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES THE "BARBARIAN" HAJjIiUCINA- TION. The General Suggestion About Ger- many the War-Seeker. By L. Niessen-Deiters, Bonn. Motto: "Hier tut sich das Entsetz- liche auf: Die Liige wirkt genau so stark wie die Wahrheit, denn sie wird geglaubt!" "Here the mon- strous fact becomes evident; a lie has the same power as the truth, for it is believed." (War Essays by Houston Stewart Chamberlain; Bruckmann, Munich.) On a previous occasion there has been a general suggestion which spread from one country to another like an infectious disease, raging most wildly in the name of Culture just against the most progressive ele- ments. The civilized humanity of today looks back upon it with a pain- ful feeling of shame, and even the poorest scavenger shrugs his shoul- ders in disgust at people who were once capable of believing such non- sense. And yet, at one time states- man and beggar took up friendly party for this shameful absurdity; for this hallucination of the witches. Today, in this enlightened twen- tieth century, we have something new. A new general suggestion: — the barbarian hallucination. Can there be anything more gro- tesque or stupid than to stamp one of the most progressive nations of the world, with printer's ink, as dan- gerous barbarians who must be killed in the name of Culture? Can there be anything more absurd than this; the only country that has nothing to gain by a war, but has all the fruits of forty-three years' labor to lose, - just this country is said to have caused the war? And yet, statesman and beggar are again taking up friendly party for this new shameful absurdity — for this barbarian hallu- cination! But this new madness is something more than merely shameful; it is malicious. Though its supports are, as on the previous occasion, lack of knowledge and fear, still its origin is different; it has been bred in full consciousness in a criminal manner, and it is being criminally nourished in full consciousness. What they de- serve is told us with refreshing clearness by the author of the above motto: "Liars who destroy the peace of Europe ought to be hanged! " Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an Englishman, says so as the result of a cutting criticism of the English Harmsworth Press, that newspaper trust, the most widely read paper of which everybody knows is the "Times." In France and Russia they could erect gallows with an equal right. Even during the darkest period of the belief in witches there were a few independent minds that kept aloof from this general suggestion of the barbarian hallucination. Hous- ton Stewart Chamberlain, the histo- rian and ethnologist who wrote "The Rudiments of the Nineteenth Cen- tury," is one of them. A short time ago he published six "War Essays," all independent of each other and treating on six different subjects. But through all six runs like a red streak the parrying off of the barba- rian hallucination and the very clear knowledge as to who, though mod- estly and in secret, has not only pre- pared and fanned into flame the bar- barian hallucination, but in reality the whole war as' well. On the very second page of his book he says quite openly, "From the very start Eng- land has been the moving power. England wanted the war and has brought it about; England has ef- fected the estrangement of Russia from Germany; England has been constantly inciting France." We must agree, however, that it is not the English people, who have been disgracefully deceived both by their famous Harmsworth Press and by their ministers, not the English peo- ple who cold-bloodedly decided upon this course some years ago in fur- therance of material interests, but a mere handful of men. True enough, the incitement of the English has been very successful; just as successful as the incitement of the whole world. On this sub- ject Chamberlain says: "On my last visits to England, in 1907 and 1908, I found everywhere a startlingly blind hatred towards Germany, and the impatient expectation of a war of destruction." On the other hand, he gives proofs, based on his forty- five years' thorough knowledge of Germany, that nowhere in the whole of Germany during all this time he has found any inclination whatever for war: "In the whole of Germany there has not lived a single man dur- ing the past forty-three years who has wanted the war; no! not one! Anyone who declares the contrary lies, either knowingly or unwit- tingly!" Still (as every child knows), it gradually became more and more difficult for Germany to preserve the peace that was so necessary and for which she so much longed. Mr. Chamberlain, the Englishman, cred- its the Emperor with having most persistently preserved it under the most trying circumstances: "Wher- ever during the last ten years the situation became incompatible with Germany's honor — and England took care of this possibility — he it was, the Emperor, who invariably main- tained peace." Political Germany — the post-Bis- marck one — is sharply criticized in one of the six essays. By the way, it is a criticism which every real pa- triot ought to read attentively. Seen from the standpoint of "barbarian hallucination" even this severe criti- cism almost becomes a compliment. It proves that Germany — that peace- destroying and all-threatening Ger- many — has not known how to bring forth men who were a match for the warlike intrigues of a Grey, an Iswol- sky or a Delcassf. And this is a fact much to be regretted. In a previous article I have already said, "It was a master stroke of English politics to push onto Germany, that had struggled for peace up to the very last moment, to all outward appear- ances the hated role of the attacker." Amongst people who are incapable of forming an opinion of their own, this one fact will long be nourish- ment for the barbarian hallucination: He who declares the war begins it; Germany issued the first declaration — consequently Germany caused the war! Witches have red eyes — that man over there has red eyes — conse- quently he is a sorcerer! The logic of the two is about on an equal level; but when was there logic in general suggestion? The logic of a fanatical crowd has always been: "Crucify him!" Chamberlain fully believes Ger- many, that stands so much in need of political reform, to be quite capa- ble of carrying out these reforms, but when speaking of German cul- ture and German liberty his tone in- creases to admiration. As regards the latter quality, in particular, he expresses himself in a manner consti- tuting the biggest possible contrast to all the catchwords now being bawled into our ears; he attacks most energetically one special type of barbarian hallucination — the mad- ness about the German bondage. Well! The disciple of Kant goes deeper and more thoroughly into the idea of "freedom" than on the half- mouldy commons of Egalite and Fra- ternity, or the permission to walk on the lawns in public gardens. To him freedom, the summum tonum of cul- ture, is not a political phrase handed down to us by our forefathers, but an idea. He looks for freedom in the inner truth, not in the outward slackening of the reins; freedom is not free will, but truth! And he finds it not in the street, but in that internal freedom of thought common to great reformers and to the great- est thinkers. "A non-German free- dom is no freedom!" is therefore his watchword. And now compare this with a few examples of the freedom so clamorously eulogized nowadays. "There is no need to talk about the freedom Russia can give; what free- dom poor misguided and dissipated Prance — that land of political cor- ruption and hollow phrases — can of- fer us, needs just as little explana- tion. But the English idea of free- dom is the right of might, and this for herself alone; in the whole of England's vast colonial empire not a single spark of intellectual life can be pointed to; there is nothing but cattle-dealers, slave-holders, storers of goods, mining exploiters, and everywhere we find that uncondi- tional despotism and brutality hold- ing sway which crop up everywhere where the culture of mind does not permanently banish them." As re- gards the English "culture of the mind" he sarcastically quotes the words of the Swedish writer Stef- fens: among the English there was "a superstitious fear of the mind taking any part in the working out of human affairs." He, the Englishman, cannot be de- ceived like the foreigner by that tiny clique of highly intellectual and in- dependent men of letters, nor by that equally tiny clique of political and financial giants that rule over and BRITISH CHARACTER IN THE MAKING 109 push into the background all the rest of the people. He, the Englishman, has his own opinions about the ever- repeated phrase about English free- dom. He inquires: "Where is the fieedom of a people that is under the absolute control of such a tiny minority? Where is there freedom in this oppressive uniformity of pub- lic life?" All of the same stamp! The same pants, the same hat, the same scarf, the same craze for sport, the same false reading matter, the same political opinion — the last- named after the motto: "If you won't be my brother I'll crack your skull for you!" Chamberlain relates how, on an occasion, he was the only one to wear liberal colors, which re- sulted in his getting a good thrashing for it at the hands of a paid gang. He adds, not without a certain sense of humor: "On that day I learned more about English constitution and English ideas of freedom than I ever learned later on from the books of Hallam and Gneist." In the German idea of freedom he sees, on the other hand, an intellec- tual possession that has been ac- quired little by little during centuries of hard fighting, both with the in- tellect and with the sword — charac- terized by the conscious subordina- tion of quite unique and independent individuals to the welfare of the whole. This conscious and inten- tional action in place of the mechan- ical repetition of the village greens, a repetition which often enough proves to be of the darkest possible origin — as in the case of the barba- rian nonsense — this is "freedom" to him. And in this sense "the sur- vival and further development of freedom on earth depend on the vic- tory of the German, arms and also on Germany's remaining true to her- self after the victory." Chamberlain, who is proud of be- ing an Englishman, has not arrived unthinkingly at this condemnation of his native country. He gives his rea- sons for it in a historical study of the career of the present political England, which he significantly in- troduces With the following quota- tion from Ruskin: "The English- man no longer avows, T believe in God the Almighty Father and Cre- ator of Heaven and Earth,' but, T believe in the Father Dollar, the all- powerful.' " From the conquest of Anglo-Saxon England by the Nor- mans and the consequent breaking up of the people into two classes, by way of the great "turning-point which, from about the sixteenth cen- tury onward, made merry agricultu- ral England into a sea-faring, impe- rious trading England — by way of Lord Bolingbroke's policy, which is upheld to this day, according to which, on the one hand England is to have a strong fleet, whereas on the other hand it is-in the interests of England to let the continental powers fight against each other with- out having to support an army her- self, by way of England's develop- ment into a state, uncommonly like the present-day one, which carries on the cruel slave trade as long as it is profitable to her, but which dis- covers it to be her duty to enter a moral protest as soon as she has need of the unfortunate negroes her- self" — by way of this slow transfor- mation of the national character he at last comes to what he calls "a day on which history and character cut each other" and we suddenly get a peep into its innermost depths. Such a day was the one on which Warren Hastings was acquitted by the House of Lords. Warren Hastings, the man who nearly doubled the income of the East India Company, who started the opium trade, never committed a crime himself. But he attained his ends by permitting and provoking horrible and inhuman deeds the likes of which were never since heard of till — as Chamberlain says — "the charming Belgians occupied the Con- go Territory." Against this mon- strous immorality for the sake of enrichment to England, the honest and respectable part of the country once more raised objection in the person of Burke. For ten years all manner of tricks were employed to prolong the trial of Hastings. For six whole days Burke spoke on be- half of England's honor. "My Lords," said he, "if you close your eyes to these horrors you will con- vert England into a nation of receiv- ers of stolen goods, a nation of hypo- crites, a nation of liars, a nation of sharpers!" It was of no avail! Hastings was acquitted — Burke lost; England's honor was lighter than her ruoneybags. Alongside the new England stood on that day the modern statesman, the man of irreproachable character in private life, but who for the sake of England's moneybags is capable of any lie, any treason, any perjury — ■ capable of tolerating any crime and every meanness. Chamberlain adds, "Just such a man is Sir Edward Grey." That is the political England and these are the men who, in consid- eration of the carefully prepared war of destruction against Germany, have for years been preparing and supporting this general suggestion of barbarian hallucination! These are the men who for several years have shunned no lie, no perjury, no treachery to poison the public opin- ion against Germany, who supported behind the scenes any anti-German tendency, who were never tired of secretly inciting, provoking, encour- aging — who publicly occupied the chair at the peace conferences so that, as Chamberlain says, "the war might be sure not to be avoided," the war that was to give back . to England all those rich markets which an intelligent and industrious brother-tribe had begun to conquer. Warren Hastings has found many disciples, but those of Burke have died out. For even Chamberlain, that Englishman who has the cour- age today to stand up for the truth, no longer believes In the honor and truthfulness of his native country. He has so little faith in it that he openly expresses his fears lest Ger- many, political Germany, should one day again permit herself to be mis- led by England. "This might be dis- astrous. Therefore 1, an English- man, must have the courage to speak the truth. Nothing can rescue us all, but a powerful, victorious and wise Germany." It is out of conviction that Cham- berlain, an Englishman, most se- verely attacks that nonsense about barbarian hallucination. "Where," he asks, "is the country of which even a Napoleon could say he had devastated and impoverished it by taxation; that he had not lost in Germany in all those years a single soldier by murder, i. e., by francti- reurs? Where is the army that takes with it expert artists to see to the preservation of works of art even in the enemy's country?" Where have the German soldiers — the "only ones that are reliably disciplined" — wrought havoc like barbarians? The American reporters said "in the next village." The family that had suf- fered, that complained on its own behalf, has never been found. "Yes, we! We were lucky, we had good people but at this place or at that one it must have been awful!" Al- ways rumors, never facts! And yet the ineradicable belief in Heaven knows what sort of horrors! Cham- berlain says of this, "We may see how true it is that human fancy leads human reason by the nose!" And under the conditions of the present day press one can only add, "espe- cially when human fancy is led by the nose itself." The disciple of Kant treats with biting irony the reviling "cultured," something after the style of Jacques Dalcroze (or is he called Jacob Dalkes?). "It is always an advan- tage to know that about which we are to form an opinion," says he. "Most probably, for instance, Jacques Dalcroze does not know much more about Germany than that she has a liberal purse, and supposes in all earnest that with his musical gym- nastics he has taught the first ' elements of culture to the coun- try of Diirer, Bach, Kant ■ and Goethe." And he compares this man of hue and cry with his fellow-coun- tryman Carlyle who, just because he had thoroughly investigated not only the intellectual life, but also the ca- reer of the German nation, loved Germany from the bottom of his heart, the whole of Germany, includ- ing both Prussia and the army. Chamberlain says, "Today the army is, and deserves to be, the backbone of the German nation; the German army is today the most important moral school in the world." Includ- ing "militarism" — and I should like to wager that not one in a thousand foreigners is capable of forming any- thing like a positive idea of what this word really means. The whole of Germany, right down from Goethe to the General Staff — not that neb- ular Germany of Messrs. Haldane & Co. "A single Carlyle outweighs a thousand confused Haldanes," ex- claims Chamberlain, "not to mention every leader-writer in the world! How stupid envy and hate make men! Three great nations have been equip- ping themselves for years and form- ing a criminal plot to invade and de- stroy Germany, that peace-loving and hard-working country which threat- 110 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES ened nobody. And now, because Germany, the wise, smart and brave Germany, defends herself, and that with a giant strength that had never been suspected, she is affronted with being the den of a supposed mili- tarism and recommended to the ha- tred of all. It is just the same as if burglars were to complain because the police were baflBed in their well- laid plans and to become morally dis- gusted in consequence. Sometimes it strikes us as if we were dealing with stupid youngsters who had not yet had practice enough to make two ideas fit into each other." Here Mr. Chamberlain makes a mistake! There are a few young- sters among them who are generally quite smart, but they have neither the courage nor the strength to rid themselves of this general sugges- tion — at present they are hopelessly under the spell of this great nonsense - — this barbarian hallucination. Chamberlain goes a step farther and says, "The foreigner who does not love Germany does not kaow the nation." And the causes of this lack of knowledge seem to be such as the present "defenders of culture" will least care to hear. "About ancient Germany they knew nothing," says he, "and for modern Germany they themselves are too ancient — let us employ their favorite word in the right sense for once: — they are too barbarian to be able to understand it.* For these quarrelsome gray- beards, who walk about on rotten crutches of abstract 'freedom' and •equality,' cannot comprehend that freedom is only to be obtained by sacrificing their own personal des- potism, and equality only by a gen- eral subordination of all to one com- mon head, and not by promoting every soldier to the rank of Field- Marshal, as is done on the Island of Hayti." Will there come a time when this general suggestion dies away? Will the time come when people look back upon the craziness of this artificially- bred barbarian hallucination with feelings similar to those with which they look down upon that nonsense about witches? We Germans do not know. We have to put up with this humbug and work on unswervingly — at that culture for which people were formerly burnt at the stake, and for which nowadays others would like to kill them — at that serious, stern, en- lightened and sacred culture of in- tellect which idler nations find too troublesome and too uncomfortable. Chamberlain carries his hopes much further. He prophesies, not only the day on which this halluci- nation about barbarianism will be shaken off — on the strength of his own feelings he believes in a good deal more. He believes there will be great change and says: "The present generation will no longer live to see this great trans- formation from hatred to love. But the day will come. I, as a foreigner, predict it out of the depths of a uni- versal, well-founded and imperturb- able conviction." — Hamburger Frem- denblatt. •The Editor of "War Echoes" empha- sizes these phrases. British Principles and Character in Action WHO IS AMERICA'S ENEMY? Translation of Editorial. Illinois Staats-Zeitung, Chicago. We are bound to turn once more to the editorial of the London Times we were dealing with yesterday. True enough it is bestowing too much honor upon the London Times, but we feel obliged not as Germans, but chiefly as citizens of this coun- try, to save our fellow citizens from drinking out of the public wells which are poisoned by the London Times day by day. We appreciate fully that the Lon- don Times is not in love with that Germany which since 1870 with ref- erence to industry, to commerce and especially with reference to her ex- port trade became a rival to England to be reckoned with. And we do not blame the London Times for having some ill feeling because Germany suc- ceeded In building up a mighty navy to safeguard her commerce. And if the London Times deemed it proper to sound eternally war against Germany civilized mankind will regret the actual outbreak of the war, but will admit, as we readily admit, that it is quite com- prehensible, viewed from the stand- point of English national and com- mercial policy, that England Is anxious to shove aside a progressive and, therefore, the more disagreeable com- petitor. But what has that war to do with the United States? Why does the London Times turn constantly to this country, which measures the situation from the height of a solemn neutrality? Why does the London Times try and try again to stir the people of America against Germany? Why does the Lon- don Times waste an ocean of ink in the vain effort (let us hope) to con- vert Americans to the belief that a victorious Germany is going to crush the United States as a world power? Where are the moral, where the economic motives, that ever could or would induce Germany to throw the war glove into the face of this West- ern giant. It seems as If the suspicion that the London Times endeavors to arouse feeling against Germany is to be converted to the proverbial "stop thief of the thief. Not a victorious Germany, but a victorious England whose supremacy on the waves will be confirmed In case of victory, is liable to constitute a danger for the United States. Let England first become the sole and omnipotent ruler of the waves and she will use her power immediately to re- vive a past that she never has buried. She will be seized by the insane ambi- tion to become once more ruler of the world, which was ruled by her once. Just 100 years ago England was forced by the United States to a peace treaty. It means that England was in war with this country. We were forced by England to shed blood first for our political and later for ou» com- mercial independence. And England never ceased to plot against the United States. Then the Indians were stirred against us, then England put her finger in the pie of the civil war in the hope to see her interests furthered. And in the still unsettled Mexican ques- tion It was once more England who joined the opponents of this govern- ment. ♦ * * "There," said a famous German diplomat, pointing to a box marked Made in Germany, "is the Briton's grievance against us. Too many things are made in Germany." — From "The World's Work," Septem- ber, 1914. WHEN WASHINGTON WAS CAP- TUBED ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. Capital Was Burned by British Naval and Military Forces Under Gen- eral Ross, in War of 1812. (From "The Boston Herald," August 23, 1914.) Fly, Monroe, fly! Run, Armstrong, run! Were the last words 6t Madison. One hundred years ago a news- paper, alluding with grim humor to some of the ridiculous scenes which attended the capture and burning of Washington by the British, remarked that if within the next century some eminent poet should see fit to write an epic on the battle which produced panic In the capital of the United States, he might fittingly conclude his lines with the above couplet. It will be just 100 years ago to- morrow, August 24, that the capital of this country was ignominiously captured and ruthlessly sacked by a force of British soldiers and sailors under the command of Gen. Robert Ross and Admiral George Cockburn. In many respects it was one of the most spectacular events of the war of 1812, the last military struggle In which two English-speaking nations have been engaged. The treaty of Utrecht, which closed that half-hearted conflict, was signed in December, 1814, but, as cable and wireless were then lacking, news of the peace treaty did not reach Amer- ica until February, 1815. The peace celebration program, planned for dif- ferent localities, has been suddenly disarranged by the unlooked-for Eu- BRITISH CHARACTER IN ACTION mi^. |lirl5 i' 1 ropean war, which has involved Eng- land, but the committee has an- nounced that it intends to carry out so much of the original program as circumstances will permit. The uncomplimentary lines on President Madison s.uggested by the editor for the use of some future poet had some basis in fact. In the more politely worded records of that affair it is stated that when Madison, with his secretary of State, James Mon- roe, who became the next President, and his secretary of war, John Arm- strong, rode out to the field of Bla- densburg, where the battle was fought which decided the fate of Washington, he found things so hope- lessly confused that he turned to his cabinet aids and said: "I think it is best to let the mili- tary commanders attend to this thing, and we had better retire to the rear. * * * " Leaving the Capitol in flames, Ross and Cockburn went to the White House. They found nothing of value except the notes sent to Mrs. Madison by her hus- band, which had been left in a desk drawer, and the British officers car- ried them away in great glee. The sol- diers did the rest, smashing the furni- ture and then setting fire to it. The treasury building was next set on fire, and to these confiagrations was added that of the navy yard, ig- nited by one of the American officers. On the next day the buildings occu- pied by the departments of state and war were burned, in addition to two or three private houses. The only public buildings that escaped the fury of the Invaders was the wooden struc- ture used for the postofflce and patent office. INDIA PACATA By Verestchagin (By Courtesy of the "Open Court") Late in the afternoon one of the severest storms in the history of Wash- ington broke over the city. Trees were torn up by the roots, roofs ripped off houses and other damage done. After the storm was over, Ross and Cock- burn decided to depart, and by night- fall were well on their way toward ENGLAND'S FAIiSE STEPS. From tbe N. Y. Evening Post. "The course proposed is without sanction in international law. How is it justified? By the conduct of our adversary." This Is an extract from a London newspaper. It is commenting upon an action, not of the German Government, but of the British. Yet it will be noted that it goes over precisely to the Ger- man position. What is International law compared with "necessity ?" Any- thing is warranted which you must do in order to smash an adversary before he smashes you. Mr. Asquith declared in Parliament that England was not going to be prevented from working her will on her enemy in "judicial niceties." This is in line with the comment of the London Morning Post, that Great Britain is now throwing into the sea "the whole strangling web" of "judicial net- work." There can be no doubt what this means. The judicial niceties are the accepted principles of interna- tional law. The judicial network is a solemn international agreement — the Declaration of Paris — to which England set her hand and seal, but which she now proposes coolly to vio- late. * * • their ships. They set fire to the long wooden bridge across the Potomac as they left. The British army was in the capital less than 24 hours, but during that time they destroyed the best buildings in Washington, consigned thousands of dollars' worth of property to the flames, put the President, his wife, all of the cabinet and, from contemporary accounts, more than half the inhabi- tants of the city, to flight, and gave an opportunity for the heaping of violent invectives upon the heads of the Pres- ident and his advisers for the weak- ness of their war preparations and management. This opportunity was not lost. Mrs. Madison spoke truth- fully when, in the letter to her sister, she mentioned having heard of much hostility toward the President. The utter Incapacity of every one in authority is something which histo- rians have been unable to explain satis- factorily. One of the British officers, in writing of the affair, said that the capture of Washington was owing more to the faults of the Americans them- selves than to any other cause. The secretary of war, John Armstrong, had merited the contempt of a large part of the population, owing to the in- capacity he showed in managing the Canadian campaign in preceding years. Now, with Washington in ruins, the demand that he be retired was so well justified that, on September 3, at the request of the President, Armstrong resigned and spent part of his latter years in writing a history of the war. England's only objection to the bear that walks like a man is that he doesn't walk fast enough. — From the "New York American." THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES BUTTRESSING OF ENGLAND'S CASE. New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, New York. Herman Ridder. The buttressing of England's case before the world goes merrily on. Another White Paper has appeared and, like its predecessors, throws the whole blame for the war on the German Emperor. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle arises from a sick bed to read Nietzsche and Treitschke and dis- covers that Germany has produced nothing in the last forty years but "the literature of the devil," and that Nietzsche and Treitschke "with their magic flutes led the whole, blind, foolish, conceited nation down that easy, pleasant path which ends in this abyss." A galaxy of English writers have syndicated their mental efforts and published a "round-rob- in," impressive in verbiage but of no great value except in so far as it shows that England, true to nothing else. Is faithful still to her historic love of fighting with the pen in pref- erence to the sword. If pen-wielding could win battles England would rule the world. England has cleverly avoided the discussion of her mongrel allies. We hear but little of Russia, of Servia and of Japan. A glance at the bom- bastic war literature of England and the speeches of Mr. Asquith and Winston Churchill leads to the ques- tion: "Is England ashamed of her Allies?" An occasional reference to the "rape of Alsace" which the Brit- ish government condoned at the con- clusion of the war of 1870, and the Times of London characterized as pure business sense, is about all we hear or see today on anything but England. Even the violation of Bel- gium's neutrality, against which Sir Edward Grey was once so loud in his protest, has ceased to be able to keep Belgium in the English mind. The "unfortunate companionship," to borrow a phrase of Col. Watter- Bon, with Russia cost Great Britain two of her ablest cabinet members and I presume the less said about It the better pleased the British Gov- ernment is. Servia, too, is a silent partner. With all their faults Eng- lishmen do not like to mix with regi- cides, unless they have something to gain by it, and then they prefer not to have too much publicity given to the fact. The Russians and Servians aad Japanese are good enough to fight England's battles for her but for little else. When John Morley and John Burns resigned from the British Government as a protest against the alliance with Russia to crush Germany the fact was probably deleted from the despatches to St. Petersburg. The Indian immigrant to South Africa can be treated with Impunity and even the Japanese, told by Canada and Australia they are not wanted there, are mollified by their British ally. But it is scarcely to be expected that England would attempt the same patronizing tactics with Russia. It speaks more than volumes for the hopeless inconsist- ency of Great Britain in this "war of freedom against militarism," that among the allies which she has sum- moned to her colors to serve her ends are some of whom she blushes to speak. No nation has been subject of British vilification in the past to a greater extent than Russia, no nation more deserving of the just castiga- tion of true Englishmen. And, yet, today we find this same Russia and this same England fighting shoulder to shoulder and sharing each other's bread and salt. The one thing the British Govern- ment should do before all others is to make it clear to a candid world on what it bases its present attitude toward Russia and the consequent abandonment of its historical hatred. Is it simply the hope of crushing Germany? Then let the British Gov- ernment say so and in so many words. And if this is the basis of the Russian entente it should make it clear at the same time what it is going to do with Russia when Ger- many has been crushed. Is the Brit- ish Government so imbued with its own self-importance that it can de- lude itself into thinking that the world will not judge its words by its actions? If this is a war of free- dom against despotism, and only England claims it Is, are we to be asked to believe that the substitution of Russia for Germany as the domi- nant power in central Europe would promote Its purpose? A nation that has always stood in the minds of Englishmen as the last expression of all that was autocratic and despotic, anachronic and barbarous, cannot consistently be brought forward by England at this eleventh hour as a sanctuary of enlightment. But that is what England would have us be- lieve. Or, perhaps, when the war Is over she will kiss the Little Father on both cheeks, in true Russian fash- ion, and send him and his knout- driven hordes back to Petrograd. One might almost forgive England her sins if such were her intentions. But they are not. The cossack may not be good enough to welcome In London, the Englishman may blush at his name, but he, and for that matter anyone, is good enough to as- sist into Berlin — and once there it is more than likely that he will not fold his tents and move away at the bidding of Georgie or of Georgie's Government. It is no wonder that England blushes at her own perfidy. When prominent men from one end of the British Empire to the other are pro- testing in no weak and unmeaning words against this unnatural alli- ance, with its hypocritical object, the whole Empire should blush for her. The action of Morley and Burns is a by no means isolated case. The Irish people have given the world to understand that they are thoroughly out of sympathy with the war. A committee of prominent Hindoos have placed themselves on record in the same sense. And even in the Union of South Africa, that often ad- vanced example of British political sagacity, a general resigns rather than go into a war and speaks his mind. This is what General Beyers says: "I have only to indicate how the independence of the South African Republic and of the Orange Free State was violated and of what weight the Sand-River Convention was. "It is said this war is being waged against the barbarity of the Germans, I have forgiven, but not forgotten, all the barbarities perpetrated on our country during the South African war. With very few exceptions all the farms, not to mention many towns, were so many of the LouvainS of which we now hear so much." ENGLAND TO FIGHT ON IF ALLIES QUIT. Winston Churchill Says Navy Pres- sure on Germany Will Be Unre- lenting. 'GRIP NOTHING CAN RESIST." "For First Time in History Sea Is Free to Us," Admiralty Lord Tells French Editor. (The DaUy News, Feb. 2, 1915.) [By the Associated Press.] Paris, France, Feb. 2. — "For the first time in history England can say 'The sea is free,' " said Winston Spencer Churchill, Great Britain's first lord of the admiralty, in an interview with Hughes Leroux, editor of the Matin. "In the days when you and we fought each other," he continued, "our most important victories never brought us security comparable with that which we enjoy today. Even after Trafalgar we knew nothing like it. "Supposing Germany has friendships and relationships in South America, how can help reach her from them now? There remains the United States. Public opinion there hesitated, perhaps, in bestowing its sympathies, but at the present moment it is fully unified. We shall arrange to take pre- cautions fully compatible with the rights of belligerents and the respect due to neutrals. Complete Blockade a Chimera. "Our adversary perhaps can obtain a few supplies from Turkey and Asia Minor. I cherish no illusions, for as long as there are neutrals a complete blockade must be a chimera. Germany will continue to receive a small quan- tity of that whereof she has consider- able need while you and we breathe freely, thanks to the sea we have kept and can keep open. "Germany is like a man throttled with a heavy gag. You know the effect of such a gag when action is neces- sary. The effort wears out the heart and Germany knows it. This pressure shall not be relaxed until she gives in unconditionally, for even if you of France and if our ally Russia should decide to withdraw from the struggle, which is inconceivable, we English would carry on the war to the bitter end. Action of Navy Unrelenting. "The action of a navy necessarily Is slow, but the pressure it exercises on an adversary is unrelenting. Compare it to the forces of nature, to the inex- orable grip of winter, and remember that it is a stress nothing can resist" BRITISH CHARACTER IN ACTION 113 ONE ANGIiOMANIAC TO ANOTHER. A Letter in Which Are Set Forth a Few Arguments Designed to Teach a Lesson to Those Whose "Teu- tophobia" Destroys All Sym- pathy for Great Britain. Milwaukee Free Press. To An Anglomaniac : Good for you, Mr. Bayliss ! I like to see a man like you — a man with the courage of his convictions ! Just read your letter in today's Free Press, but had not seen your previous letter until now, after reading a number of comments by other letter writers. But from these com- ments I saw that your letter must have been a hot one. And it is ! I know it, I just read it. The letter is excel- lent, quite English. It is brutal, of course, but frank ! I love a man who will stand up like you and flght with a punch, no matter where and how he strikes. You know, Mr. Bayliss, people ac- cuse the English of being domineering, perfidious, regicidal, etc. They claim they are right, and they are sometimes, are they not? Let's take a look at a few of their accusations : 1 — Persecution and oppression of Ire- land for seven centuries. This is an- cient stuff, isn't it, Mr. Bayliss? It isn't our fault that the Irish would not submit sooner, as they would have done had they the proper common sense. Still, accusers ought to invent some- thing new. 2 — Regicides. It is true, we did kill a king or two, and a queen, also, didn't we? But it was the law that sanc- tioned it. 3 — Opium war with China ; opium forced on China and Hongkong taken away in 1S42.' This is supposed to be a precedent for Germany's seizing Kiau-Ohau. But, of course, that is a different matter, the Germans had no right to take, while we did. 4 — India, Afghanistan, Burma, etc., wrested from the French and Dutch and the people of India in wars extend- ing through two centuries. The mis- sionaries say that censorship is. so strict down in India at the present date that not a word of the constant op- pression and rebellions get into the American and continental press. Fur- thermore, India has been called the re- cruiting place for broken English for- tunes. Now this, of course, may be true, but, anyway, we deny it; at best it is none of their business, especially none of the business of Americans. 5 — Egypt — England euchred France out of the protectorate and then the Khedive out of his rule so that at the present day England virtually owns Egypt, in spite of her often repeated de- nial of anything more than a suzeran- ity. Humbug, isn't it? English rule has been beneficient, hasn't it, for every country that England ever owned? 6 — The Boer war, the seizure of South Africa, the famous English battle line of Boer women and children which forced the Boers to surrender since they refused to shoot their own wives and children. Also true. But that was in South Africa, in a barbarous country where barbarous methods are sanction- able. And, even so, if others had the chance, they would do the same thing, wouldn't they, Mr. Bayliss? 7 — The so-called Congo scandals of King Leopold, claimed as invented by England so that she would have reason to annex the Congo. Of course, that is rot. Still, the Congo is pretty rich. 8 — Persia, handed to Russia on a platter, not permitted to rule herself as she wished but as the Russian bear dic- tated. Well, now, these Asian states don't know how to govern themselves, anyway. And that American financier had no business there, anyway. 9 — Inveigled Japan to join the war against Germany. In spite of assurances of respecting neutrality the first action of Japan was to attack the Caroline islands (which she was not supposed to attack, although they are German) and to land her troops on Chinese territory 100 miles from Kiau- Ohau. Necessity of war — very simple. 10 — England and the United States. 1776 — American colonies rebelled, due to oppression, injustice, etc. (England only saved Canada by most extravagant promises. Tried the same tactics on Australia and had the example of the United States pointed out to her.) Fought with unfair means, inciting In- dian massacres. 1812 — Similar tactics in warfare. 1848 — Mexican war — once more the same Indian tactics. 1861-64 — Again incited Indians, as witness massacres at New Ulm, Fort Ridley, etc. Helped confederacy with money and ships and had the effrontery to demand payment of the confederacy's debt from the United States, the matter being finally refused within the last ten years. 1898 — Tried to engineer a coalition of European powers against the United States ; prevented by Germany. Then tried to inveigle Germany into a war with the United States. 1913-14 — Panama canal tolls. Acts as though she owned canal. 1914 — September. Opposed United States naval expansion, using France as catspaw in her protest and even trying to Inveigle Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc., into similar protests. Let others twist their noses at this record, which they will call appalling; you and I, Mr. Bayliss, being Anglo- maniacs, lift our noses in proud super- iority. For we know that England must be supreme, that she must and does lead — even if it be only by the blackness of her page in history. We pride ourselves that we outrank even Russia in regicides ; only in Russia kill- ing the king is illicit and the assassin suffers death, while we kill our rulers through the law and thus stand as he- roes and f ulfillers of the law. What care we if India and Ireland used their last heart's blood in the de- fense of their race, their creed, their language and their customs ! They had no business trying to be different from us ; anyway, they are inferior to us and the right of the stronger prevails. In Ireland we went Russia and Prussia one better in the expropriation of our respective vassals. For we did accom- plish what we set out to do ; we ex- tinguished the Irish tongue so thor- oughly that when the universities of Ireland, England and America wanted to establish chairs of the Irish language they (haw ! haw ! it's the joke of the century — that they had to go to Ger- many for men to fill the chairs, haw ! haw ! In Prussia and Russia — ignorant countries, anyway (of course, Russia being our ally, we must whitewash her) — they'll never get that far. There they are too much afraid to hurt the people. Physically, I mean. A lash does won- ders ; famine is even better. Sympathy? You are right. We do not need sympathy. The Briton is su- perior to sympathy ; if he wants some- thing he goes and takes it. He does not need sympathy because of something that he lacks. But the Germans ! They do need sympathy and more of it. For they have more to lose. They have a greater industry that risks destruc- tion, a higher science, a higher economy, a better civilization. So of course they need sympathy. England plays a higher game. She fights because this is a good opportunity to fight, because France and Belgium bear the brunt of the fight, because England will draw whatever benefits is to be reaped from the war. Why send many soldiers? There ought 'to be enough French and Belgians; if there are not, more should be enrolled. On the sea France does what little fighting there needs to be done. Inveigle our- selves into a battle with the German North Sea fleet? Not much. Not until Italy has been drawn to the allies and can send her fleet to attack the Ger- man fleet; then when the latter is greatly weakened Britain can step in and claim the credit and results of the fight. Of course, where there isn't much danger like in the Paciflc and in the Atlantic, and when we outnumber the enemy's small boats, we will gladly offer battle. But really, you know, we are superior fighters. We have always said so, and, therefore, it must be true. Let no one dare doubt that ! You know, Britannia rules the Waves and that means everything surrounded by them. That means Europe and Asia and Australia, and Canada and also the damned United States (we'll get them yet). England owns it all, of course, not quite yet, you know, but those crazy Americans will soon know what's good for 'em, blast 'em ! You know, once or twice, in 1776 and 1812, we nearly whipped them ; we gained a moral victory, anyway, and I bet you they've never forgotten it. And now, all together: Britannia rules the Waves — And everything that's in 'em ! AN ANGLOMANIAC. Madison,' Wis., Sept. 18. P. S. Now you, Mr. Anglomaniac, will call the preceding gentle sarcasm brutal, or intolerant, or prejudiced. So it is, so it was intended to appear — elemental in its brutality. But — it car- ries a lesson. It does not at all repre- sent the opinions of the writer, rather the reverse of it. But you, men of Mr. Bayliss' type, need a lesson, and need it badly. And I have merely sketched for you what a man whose Anglophobia would parallel your Teutophobia, might achieve. Intemperate language is not argument, but is resorted to constantly by the lowest type of mind, that of the bully or rowdy. Among that category the man who can scold the loudest and use the most vulgar language Is the hero and victor. Draw your analogy ! Personally I sympathize a little more with the French than with the Ger- mans. Yet men of Mr. Bayliss' type make it hard for me to retain what sympathy for the English there re- mains. 114 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES THE DEFENDER OF SMALL NATIONS. Excoriated by One of Her Own; Who Also Wants to Prod the Irish Awake. The Irish Voice, March 4, 1915. I who write am a wife and motlier, British by birth, education and senti- ment, Protestant in religion, Progres- s,ive, and Pacifist. Like all people who live somewhat for others than solely for themselves, I am inter- ested in the great problems con- nected with this war. I want my country to win not because 1 believe her blameless, but because she is my country. I learn many things from current history, pre-eminently that there is not, perhaps never has been, a really Christian government on earth. Even the government of the church herself has at times been filled with political and moral corruptions of every sort. The civil govern- ments of Christian nations surpass each other in political chicanery and hypocrisy. Your own government of the TJ. S. A. is perhaps the nearest approach (but, oh, how far off) to a Christian government that has ever been. The British government is probably the greatest political hypocrite that has ever been; the Russian govern- ment the greatest tyrant, and the Ger- man government the greatest fool. England wins by hoodwinking other nations, keeping her heart a secret, and wearing a religious mask. The British press for months past is teem- ing with falsehoods about the Kaiser, the German government, army, navy, and people. The Canadian press, English and French alike, is savage in its hatred of Germany. I could send you multitudes of samples as proofs. When the Spanish-American war was on, the press of England and Can- ada continually assailed the yellow journalism of your country; today the press of those countries copy pro- fusely the assaults made on Germany by the Anglo-Saxon press of the United States. I say Anglo-Saxon, for it is evident that in the New England and Southern States you have no longer, with few exceptions, a distinc- tive, independent, neutral, American press. Your press, like many of your millionaires, your anlbassadors, and your American leagues in London are all playing toad to England. The New York Times calls Austria a dying and decrepit nation, but judging by the Anglo-Saxon press of America one might return the compliment to the Times. Your clever, oily Englishmen all over the U. S. A. are evidently getting a grip on your American char- acter and moulding you into good lit- tle English children. Even the Irish- Americans are not proof against the subtle fascination of John Bull. John Bull could capture Japan and bring on a Russo-Japanese war with the se- cret motive of destroying the Russian navy. He could capture France and Russia, for the secret purpose of de- stroying the German navy and then proudly sing as he has been singing for centuries in the teeth of the world. "Britannia Rules the Waves." Shall the navy of France grow and take the place of the German, then it in turn shall be doomed for destruction by England. And what of the navy of the U. S. A.? But, no, England shall long eat the dust before she goes to war with your country. She will plead every excuse, but above all her ties of blood, creed and language. Oh, cow- ardly hypocrisy, what a useful part you sometimes play in the destinies of nations'. In the future it shall be as in the past. Belgium is now Eng- land's darling pet. But a little while ago the English government and people were casting longing eyes on Belgium's rich possessions in Africa and the British government press, people and established church were assailing the Belgian king, govern- ment and people on the score of in- humanity to natives. The beam at all times in her own eyes, she, England, always sees the mote in the eyes of her neighbors. She forgets Ireland, India, America and Australasia. And Irishmen in America forget the speeches of Grattan and Burke and Shiel and Curran, Redmond, O'Brien, Healy and company have surrendered to England in the squabble for office under an Irish parliament. The Irish parliament may come, probably will come, but it will come mutilated in every joint as the Orangemen of Ulster and the Tories of Great Brit- ain shall demand this, and the de- mand shall be granted. It was Fronde who said: "Put the stick hard and fast on the back of the Irishman and you win his respect and attachment every time." England has been doing this for centuries and today Irishmen are ty- ing the boot laces of her grandees and shedding their blood for her praises. Smack Pat well on the back, then pat him, tell him he is a fine fellow and like the cur dog he'll lick the hand that smote him. The secret of John Bull's strength is his power to keep his own secrets and a com- mon weakness of other nations, espe- cially of the Irish, is the capacity for blabbing out everything. Lord Der- by's speech to both houses of parlia- ment, July 15, 1634, said: "Divide not between Protestant and Papist. . . . Divide not nationality betwixt English and Irish. The King makes no distincton between you . . . and madness it were in you to raise the wall Of separation amongst your- selves." But England has always divided be- tween Protestant and Papist and di- vides between them still. Divide et impera has been the ruling principle of her government of Ireland. With consummate hypocrisy she conceded to Nationalists the right to organize and drill only after the war was de- clared. She had a motive as always — to hoodwink the soft, spineless Irish Catholic by a pat on the back and get him to do her dirty work in Europe. She is now sending an am- bassador to the Pope, after 400 years of open warfare with the Vatican and there is treachery in the gift. Wit- ness the following from the Church Times — leading organ of the estab- lished church. In its leader of No- vember 13 last, I find the following paragraph describing the object of the war: "There is, then, an immense task in hand. To carry the war to a victor- ious issue is to destroy two great monarchies. But mere destruction is no policy. Reconstruction must fol- low. But that will be the work of the ensuing peace. The object of the war is destruction, nothing less; no patched-up treaty, no accommodation. Englishmen are well aware that to this they have set their hands. They have a national purpose, and in this they are at one." The same journal, with characteristic Anglican inso- lence, dares tell the Pope that he' should take sides at once with the al- lies. The good Pope Benedict needs to hold in check his Italian impulses when dealing with the wily self-con- tained John Bull. I have said that you Irish have forgotten the speeches of Grattan, etc.; also of O'Connell and Parnell. Think you that Grattan, O'Connell and Parnell would become recruiting sergeants for the govern- ment of England? Redmond's plea is gratitude, etc. Listen to Grattan. De- livering himself against English im- perialism — he said: "I know of no species of gratitude which should prevent my country from being free, no gratitude which should oblige Ireland to be the slave of England. In cases of robbery and usurpation, nothing is an object of gratitude except the thing stolen, the charter spoliated. A nation's liberty cannot, like her treasures, be meted and parceled out in gratitude; no man can be grateful or liberal of his conscience, nor woman of her honor, nor nation of her liberty; there are certain unimpartable, inherent, in- valuable properties, not to be alien- ated from the person, whether body politic or body natural. I laugh at that man who supposes that Ireland will not be content with her free trade and a free constitution, and would any man advise her to be con- tent with less?" In closing I have the following question to ask of you and your read- ers: By what right, divine or human, does England claim to rule the waves to the exclusion of every other sover- eign power? VERITAS. SUBMARINE BLOCKADE FORCES DRASTIC BRITISH ACTION AGAINST KAISER. No Longer Question of Whether Food Is Contraband or Whether It Is Intended for Non-Conibatante ; Announcement to Come Monday. From the "Chicago Examiner," Feb. 28, 1915. LONDON, Feb. 27. — It is under- stood that formal notification has been given by Great Britain to the United States that in view of the German submarine attacks on mer- chant vessels, Great Britain and her allies maintain the right to stop all shipping between neutral countries and Germany, Austria and Turkey. BRITISH CHARACTER IN ACTION 115 In other words, it is proposed to tie up all traffic with Germany. It will no longer be a question of con- traband or of whether food is in- tended for consumption by the civil population or by the military. Grain, cotton, even medical supplies may be stopped. Not only that, but goods coming out of Germany may under the terms of this declaration be seized. This apparently is the form of the reprisals which the allies have agreed upon. The idea is not merely to starve Germany into submission, but to cripple her industries in every pos- sible way. As Indicated yesterday, Asquith will, it is expected, make an an- nouncement of the government's pol- icy on Monday. In support of the right of the allies to take such dras- tic measures he will urge that the Germans have violated all the codes of warfare in sinking ships with non- combatants aboard, without warning and without even making efforts to save the lives of the persons thus at- tacked. As to the injury that will be in- flicted upon the trade of neutrals by this procedure, on the part of the allies, Asquith, it is expected, will rely upon the plea of necessity and the argument that only by drastic action of this sort can the war be brought to an early conclusion. The declaration, it is understood, will not apply to shipments made be- fore formal announcement of the blockade. Every effort will be made to safeguard the lives of passengers and crews on ships that may be seized or sunk. Would Create Issue. WASHINGTON, Feb. 27. — Secre- tary Bryan tonight said the State De- partment had not received the answer of Great Britain or Germany to the American notes sent on February 19 in relation to shipments of foodstuffs and submarine attacks on neutral commerce. It is generally agreed here that any attempt of England to shut off the shipment of foodstuffs through the North Sea by way of the English Channel would create a very serious issue. If it proved true that Great Britain has taken the stand that all food- stuffs to Germany and Austria are to; be held up otherwise than through a blockade of ports, and if her declara- tion to that effect shall become pub- lic before the adjournment of Con- gress on March 4, a flare-up In Con- gress may be expected. Already there is a strong feeling of resentment in both the Senate and the House over the extent to which Great Britain has seen fit to inter- fere with American commerce carry- ing over established routes of trade. Feeling Manifested. That feeling has been manifested in the embargo resolution which was proposed in the resolution introduced by Representative Dietrick today asking that the President be author- ized to require assurance of Great Britain that her obnoxious practices shall cease within sixty days and in the speech of Senator Lewis in the Senate yesterday. Under international law the right of a neutral to ship foodstuffs over established routes to a belligerent country for the use of noncombatants is a right never heretofore brought into question. If the United States should not now stand firm for that right, many members of Congress undoubtedly would take the position that by submission to Great Britain's disregard of that right the United States would be incurring some re- sponsibility for the consequences. Leading members of the adminis- tration, who thoroughly understand the temper of Congress with respect to such a contingency, probably will be inclined to withhold Information of the proposal, . if it has actually been made, until after the adjourn- ment of Congress. The English Nursing Hatred Toward the Kaiser HIS INDISCRETION WAS "CAL- CULATED." Interview With Kaiser Wilhelm n., Oct. 28, 1908, auA Its Con- sequences. An interview 'between the German Emperor and "a representative Eng- lishman, who long since passed from public to private life," appeared in "The London Telegraph" on October 28, 1908, and was the next day authenti- cated by the German Foreign Office in Berlin with the comment that it was "intended as a message to the English people." This last expression of the Kaiser toward Great Britain — until his declaration on the eve of the present war — deeply stirred the German people and resulted in the Kaiser's pledge to Chancellor von Buelow that henceforth the imperial views loould be subject to the bridle of the m,inistry and the Council of the Empire. The interview as recorded by the "representative Eng- lishman" was as follotcs: Moments sometimes occur in the his- tory of nations when a calculated in- discretion proves of the highest public service. It is for this reason that I have decided to make known the sub- stance of a lengthy conversation which it was my recent privilege to have with the Emperor. I do so In the hope that it will help to remove that obstinate misconception of the character of the Emperor's feel- ings toward England, which I fear is deeply rooted in the ordinary English- man's breast. It is the Emperor's sin- cere wish that it should be eradicated. He has given repeated proofs of his de- sire by word and deed. But, to speak frankly, his patience is sorely tried now ; he finds himself so continually misrepresented and has so often expe- rienced the mortification of finding that any momentary improvement in rela- tions is followed by renewed outbursts of prejudice and a prompt return to the old attitude of suspicion. His Majesty spoke with impulsive and unusual frankness, saying: "Xou English are as mad, mad, mad as March hares. What has come over you that you are completely given over to suspicions that are quite unworthy of a great nation? What more can I do than I have done? I declared with all the emphasis at my command in my speech at the Guildhall that my heart was set upon peace and that it was one of my dearest wishes to live on the best terms with England. Have I ever been false to my word? Falsehood and prevarication are alien to my nature. My actions ought to speak for them- selves, but you will not listen to them, but to those who misinterpret and dis- tort them. Resents a Personal Insult. "This is a personal insult which I resent ; to be forever misjudged, to have my repeated ofllers of friendship weighed and scrutinized with jealous, mistrustful eyes taxes my patience se- verely. I have said time after time that I am a friend of England, and your press, or at least a considerable section of it, bids the people of Eng- land to refuse my proffered hand and insinuates that the other hand holds a dagger. How can I convince a nation against Its will?" Complaining again of the difficulty imposed on him by English distrust, his Majesty said: "The prevailing senti- ment of large sections of the middle and lower classes of my own people is not friendly to England. I am, there- fore, so to speak, in the minority in my own land, but it is a minority of the best element, just as it is in England respecting Germany." The Englishman reminded the Kaiser that not only England but the whole of Europe viewed with disapproval the re- cent sending of the German Consul at Algiers to Fez and forestalling France and Spain, by suggesting the recogni- tion of Sultan Mulai Hafid. The Kaiser made an impatient gesture and ex- claimed : "Yes, that is an excellent ex- ample of the way German actions are misrepresented," and with vivid direct- ness he defended the aforesaid inci- dent, as the German Government has already done. The interviewer reminded the Kaiser that an important and influential sec- tion of the German newspapers inter- preted these acts very differently, and effusively approved of them because they indicated that Germany was bent upon shaping events in Morocco. "There are mischief makers," replied the Emperor, "in both countries. I will not attempt to weigh their relative capacity for misrepresentation, but the facts are as I have stated. There has been nothing in Germany's recent ac- tion in regard to Morocco contrary to the explicit declaration of my love of peace made both at the Guildhall and in my latest speech at Strassburg." THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES Kaiser and the Boer War. Reverting to his efforts to show his friendship for England, the Kaiser said they had not been confined to words. It was commonly believed that Ger- many was hostile to England through- out the Boer war. Undoubtedly the newspapers were hostile and public opinion was hostile. "But what," he asked, "of official Germany? What brought to a sudden stop, indeed, to an absolute collapse, the European tour of the Boer delegates, who were striving to obtain European intervention? "They were feted in Holland. France gave them a rapturous ivelcome. They wished to come to Berlin, where the German people ivould have crowned them with fioicers, but lohen they aslced me to receive them I refused. The agi- tation immediately died away and the delegates returned empty-handed. Was that the action of a secret enemy f* "Again, when the struggle was at its height, the Germ,an Government was invited by France and Russia to join them in calling upon England to end the war. The moment had come, they said, not only to save the Boer repub- lic, but also to humiliate England to the dust. What was my reply? I said so far from Germany joining in any concerted European action to bring pressure against England and bring about her downfall, Germany would al- ways keep aloof from politics that could bring her into complications with a sea power like England. "Posterity will one day read the ex- act terms of a telegram, now in the archives of Windsor Castle, in lohich I informed the sovereign of England of the answer I returned to the poioers which then sought- to compass her fall. Englishmen ivho now insult me tiy doubting my tvord should Icnow lohat my actions icere in the hour of their adversity.* "Nor was that all. During your black week in December, 1899, when disasters followed one another in rapid succession, I received a letter from Queen Victoria, my revered grand- mother, written in sorrow and afflic- tion and bearing manifest traces of the anxieties which were preying upon her mind and health. I at once returned a sympathetic reply. I did more. I bade one of my officers to procure as exact an account as he could obtain of the number of combatants on both sides and the actual positions of the oppos- ing forces. "With the figures before me I worked out what I considered the best plan of campaign in the circumstances and sub- mitted it to my General Staff for criti- cism. Then I dispatched it to England. That document likewise is among the State papers at Windsor awaiting the serenely impartial verdict of history. "Let me add as a curious coincidence that the plan which I formulated ran very much on the same lines as that actually adopted by Gen. Roberts and carried by him into successful opera- tion. Was that the act of one who wished England ill? Let Englishmen be just and say." The German Navy. Touching then upon the English con- viction that Germany is increasing her navy for the purpose of attacking Great Britain, the Kaiser reiterated the explanation that Chancellor von Billow and other Ministers have made familiar, dwelling upon Germany's worldwide commerce, her manifold in- terests in distant seas, and the neces- sity for being prepared to protect them. He said : "Patriotic Germans refuse to assign any bounds to their legitimate commer- cial ambitions. They expect their in- terests to go on growing. They must be able to champion them manfully in any quarter of the globe. Germany looks ahead. Her horizons stretch far away. She must be prepared for any eventualities in the Far East. Who can foresee what may take place in the Pacific in the days to come, days not so distant as some believe, but days, at any rate, for which all European pow- ers with Far Eastern interests ought to steadily prepare? "Look at the accomplished rise of Japan. Think of a possible national awakening in China, and then judge of the vast problems of the Pacific. Only those powers which have great navies will be listened to with respect when the future of the Pacific comes to be solved, and if for that reason only, Germany must have a powerful fleet. It may even be that England herself will be glad that Germany has a fleet when they speak together in the great de- bates of the future." The interviewer concludes : "The Emperor spoke with all that earnestness which marks his manner when speaking on deeply pondered sub- jects. I ask my fellow-countrymen loho value the cause of peace to weigh lohat I have written and revise, if necessary, their estimate of the Kaiser and his friendship for England by his Majesty's own words. If they had enjoyed the privilege of hearing them spoken they would too longer doubt either his Majesty's firm desire to live on the best of terms with Eng- land or his growing impatience at the persistent mistrust with which his offer of friendship is too often received."* The Consequences. On November 17 following, Prince von Bulow met the Kaiser at Kiel, taking with him evidence of the feeling in Germany regarding the Emperor's pub- lished interview and setting forth : First, that the Foreign Affairs Com- mittee of the Bundesrat, or Federal Council, is firm in the opinion formu- lated at the meeting held yesterday that it would be wiser for the Emperor not to express views affecting the re- lations of the empire with other coun- tries except through his responsible Ministers. This expression derives weight from the fact that the Govern- ments of Bavaria, Wiirttemberg and Saxony were represented on the com- mittee. Second, that the entire Reichstag as- sented to the declarations made by the speakers on Tuesday that the Empei'or had exceeded his constitutional prerog- atives in private discussion with for- eigners concerning Germany's attitude on controverted questions. Third, that the feeling of the people at large on this matter was accurately indicated by the press of the country. The Kaiser's reply was published on the same date in the "Reichsanzeiger," in the form of a communication, which read : "During today's audience granted to the Imperial Chancellor, his Majesty, the Emperor and King, listened for several hours to a report by Prince von Bulow. The Imperial Chancellor de- scribed the feeling and its causes among the German people in connec- tion with the article published in 'The Daily Telegraph.' He also explained the position he had taken during the course of the debates and the inter- polations on this subject in the Reichs- tag. His Majesty the Emperor re- ceived the statements and explanations with great earnestness, and then ex- pressed his will as follows : " 'Heedless of the exaggerations of public criticism, which are regarded by him as incorrect, his Majesty perceives that his principal imperial task is to insure the stability of the jpolicies of the empire, under the guardianship of constitutional responsibilities. In con- formity therewith, his Majesty the Em- peror approves the Chancellor's utter- ances in the Reichstag, and assures Prince von Billow of his continued con- fidence.' " WILHELM n.'S LETTER TO LORD TWEEDMOUTH. Published by The Morning Post of London, Oct. 30, 1914. The subjoined letter written to the late Lord Tweedmouth'by the German Emperor is made public for the first time. It is a literal transcript of the original document in which occur a few slight errors in spelling. The ex- istence of the document was first made known to the public by the military correspondent of "The Times," who published a letter on the subject on March 6, 1908, but its contents were not divulged. The significance of the letter can be understood only in the light of the naval and political situation six years ago. During the preceding year, 1907, The Hague Conference, ostensibly con- vened in the interests of international peace, had resolved itself into a com- mittee to determine how to diminish the severities of war. There was a section of opinion in this country which was persuaded that the only method of seeking peace was to reduce the navy and army. At the same time the Imperial German Navy was making swift and steady progress, and its menace to British supremacy aroused considerable alarm in this country. Although the British Navy held supe- riority over the German Na^T in ships not of the dreadnought type, the bal- ance in dreadnoughts was virtually even. Dreadnought Supremacy. It was stated in Parliament that in the year 1916 Germany, according to her naval law, would have tliirty- six dreadnoughts, a number which would involve the building by this country of forty-four such vessels in the same period, toward which the Government was only providing two in the current year. It was also stated that in the year 1911 Germany would BRITISH CHARACTER IN ACTION possess thirteen dreaduoughts and Great Britain only twelve, which state- ment was founded upon reasonable as- sumptions. Could Germany reckon upon the continuance of such a rela- tive position, the advantage to her would be very great. It was at this critical moment that the German Emperor indited his let- ter to the First Lord of the Admiralty, which is printed below. When the fact became known there was a good deal of public feeling aroused both in this country and abroad. Lord Tweed- mouth stated that the letter was a pri- vate letter and purely personal. Prince von Bulow informed the Reichstag that the letter was of both a private and political character, adding some remarks concerning the "purely de- fensive character of our naval pro- gramme which," said the Chancellor, "cannot be emphasized too frequently." The German Foreign Office officially announced that "in his letter the Em- peror merely corrected certain er- roneous views prevalent in England regarding the development of the Ger- man fleet." Keaders are now in a position to judge for themselves the accuracy of these statements. It should be remem- bered that the reduced navy estimates of 1908-9 were followed by national alarm and the publication of Admiral Lord Charles Beresford's shipbuilding programme and large increase in es- timates of the following year. Here is the letter : The Kaiser's Ijetter. "Berlin, 14th-2, 190S. "My Dear Lord Tweedniouth — May I intrude on your isrecious time and ask for a few moments' attention to these lines I venture to submit to you? I see by the daily papers and reviews that a battle royal is being fought about the needs of the navy. I, there- fore venture to furnish you with some information anent the German naval programme, which it seems is being quoted by all parties to further their ends by trying to frighten peaceable British taxpayers with it as a bogy. "During my last pleasant visit to your hospitable shores I tried to make your authorities understand what the drift of German naval policy is, but I am afraid that my explanations have been either misunderstood or not be- lieved, because I see 'German danger' and 'German challenge to British na- val supremacy' constantly quoted in different articles. This phrase, if not repudiated or corrected, sown broadcast over the country and daily dinned into British ears, might in the end create the most deploraile results.* "I, therefore, deem it advisable, as- Admiral of the Fleet, to lay some facts before you to enable you to see clearly that it is absolutely nonsensical and untrue that the German naval bill is to provide a navy meant as a chal- lenge to British naval supremacy. The German fleet is built against nobody at all ; it is solely built for Germany's needs In relation with that country's rapidly growing trade. The German naval bill wfl.s sanctioned by Imperial Parliament and published ten years ago, and may be had at any large boob- ♦Bmphasized by the Editor. seller's. There is nothing surprising, secret, or underhand in it, and every reader may study the whole course mapped out for the devolpment of the German Navy with the greatest ease. Thirty to Forty Battleships in 1920. "The law is being adhered to, and provides for about thirty to forty ships of the line in 1920. The number of ships fixed by the bill included the fleet then actually in commission, not- withstanding its material being al- ready old and far surpassed by con- temporary types. In other foreign navies the extraordinary rapidity with which improvements were introduced in types of battleships, armaments, and armor made the fleet In commis- sion obsolete before the building pro- gramme providing additions to it was half finished. "The obsolete fleet had to be struck off the list, thus leaving a gap, lower- ing the number of ships below the standard prescribed by the bill. This gap was stopped by using the finished ships to replace the obsolete oues in- stead of being added to them as orig- inally intended. Therefore, instead of steadily increasing the standing fleet by regular additions, it came to a wholesale rebuilding of the entire Ger- man Navy. Our actual programme in course of execution is practically only the exchange of old material for new, but not an addition to the number of units originally laid down by the bill of ten years ago, which is being ad- hered to. "It seems to me that the main fault in the discussions going on in the pa- pers is the permanent ventilating of so-called two to three or more power standard and then only exemplifying on one power, which is Invariably Germany. It is fair to suppose that each nation builds and commissions its navy according to its needs and not only with regard to the programme of other countries. Therefore, it would be the simplest thing for England to say : 'I have a world-wide empire and the greatest trade of the world, and to protect them I must have so and so many battleships, cruisers, etc., as are necessary to guarantee the su- premacy of the sea to me, and they shall, accordingly, be built and manned.' "That Is the absolute right of your country, and nobody anywhere would lose a word about it, and whether it be 60 or 90 or 100 battleships, that would make no difference and cer- tainly no change in the German na.val bill. May the numbers be as you think fit, everybody here would understand it, but the people would be very thank- ful over here If at last Germany was left out of the discussion, for it is very galling to the Germans to see their country continually held up as the sole danger and menace to Great Britain by the whole press of the dif- ferent contending parties, considering that other countries are building too, and there are even larger fleets than the German. Fears German Retaliation. "Doubtless, when party faction runs high there is often a lamentable lack of discrimination in the choice of weapons, but I really must protest that the German naval programme should be regarded as for her exclusive use, or that such a poisoned view should be forged as a German challenge to Brit- ish supremacy of the sea. If perma- nently used, mischief may be created at home, and the injured feeling en- gendering the wish for retaliation in the circle of the German Naval League as a representative of the nation which would influence public opinion and place the Government in a very dis- agreeable position by trying to force it to change its programme through undue pressure, diflicult to Ignore. "In a letter which Lord Esher caused to be published a short time ago he wrote that every German, from the Emperor down to the last man, wished for the downfall of Sir John Fisher. Now, I am at a loss to tell whether the supervision of the foun- dations and drains of royal palaces is apt to qualify somebody for the judgment of naval affairs in general. As far as regards German afEalrs, the phrase is a piece of unmitigated bal- derdash, and has created immense merriment in the circles of those here who know. But I venture to think that such things ought not to be writ- ten by people who are highly placed, as tbey are liable to hurt public feel- ings over here. "Of course, I need not assure you that nobody here dreams of wishing to influence Great Britain in the choice of those to whom she means to give the direction of her navy or to disturb them in the fulfillment of their noble task. It is expected that the choice will always fall on the best and ablest, and their deeds will be followed with Interest and admiration by their brother ofiicers in the German Navy. "It is, therefore, preposterous to in- fer that the German authorities work for or against persons in official posi- tions in foreign countries. It is as ridiculous as it is untrue, and I hereby repudiate such calumny. Besides, to my humble notion, this perpetual quot- ing of the German danger is utterly unworthy of the great British Nation, with its world-wide empire and mighty navy. There is something nearly lu- dicrous about it. The foreigners in other countries might easily conclude that Germans must be an exception- ally strong lot, as they seem to be able to strike terror into the hearts of the British, who are five times their su- periors. "I hope your Lordship will read these lines with kind consideration. They are written by one who is an ardent admirer of your splendid navy, who wishes it all success, and who hopes that its ensign may ever wave on the same side as the German Navy's, and by one who is proud to wear a British naval uniform of Ad- miral of the Fleet, which was con- ferred on him by the late great Queen of blessed memory. "Once more, the German naval bill is not aimed at England and Is not a challenge to British supremacy of the sea, which will remain unchallenged for generations to come. Let us all remember the warning Admiral Sir John Fisher gave to his hearers in 118 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES November, when so cleverly lie cau- tioned them not to get scared by using the admirable phrase 'If Eve had not always kept her eye on the apple she would not have eaten it, and we would not now be bothered with clothes.' "I remain yours truly, "WILLIAM I. R., "Admiral of the Fleet" — The New York Times. GERMANY'S STRONG CASE. "The American," of Marion, Va., in its issue of February 25th, says edi- torially : "The refusal of Great Britain to permit the United States or neutral countries to send foodstuffs to the civilians of Germany violates all the laws of civilized warfare, and is a blot upon a Christian nation. * * * "The British Government in 1812 claimed, as it is claiming now, supreme authority for regulating the laws of commerce on the high seas both as to belligerents and neutral nations, and also for fixing to suit herself, regards the rules that should control naval warfare. * * * "Then the merchant vessels of the United States, according to the state- ments of President Madison, "freighted with the products of our soil and in- dustry, or returning with the honest proceeds of them, were wrested from their lawful destinations, confiscated by prize courts, no longer the organs of public law, but the instruments of arbitrary edicts.' "Then, as now. Great Britain was asserting her authority as 'mistress of the seas,' a position she has claimed and held ever since it was won for her in the sixteenth century by her piratical admirals — Drake, Hawkins, and Mor- gan — who were knighted and feasted by royalty because of the successes they won as buccaneers. The war of 1S12 did not end at Trafalgar, but had a bloody and humiliating end for Eng- land at New Orleans. * * * "Why does Mr. Jeffrey speak of Ger- mans as the 'barbarian nation?' They are of his own kindred, the only pure Teutonic nation on earth. The Anglo- Saxon blood which flows in our veins is Teutonic; and if the Englishman, by birth or descent, has any right to the claim of a higher civilization, he must base that claim not upon his Anglo- Saxon origin, but to the influences of other tribes of the Teutonic race. * * * "Who was it that saved Great Brit- ain from defeat at Waterloo, and Bel- gium from permanent annexation as a French pro vice? The so-called German barbarians. At the battle of Water- loo the Duke of Wellington command- ing the allied forces was being crushed by the army of France. In his sore strait the Iron Duke exclaimed: 'Oh, for night or Bliicher!' Before night came, Bliicher arrived upon the scene with his army of Prussian barbarians, saved the battle and rescued Welling- ton from certain defeat. Since then Great Britain has been the enemy of its savior at Waterloo ; and since then the Germans have developed into bar- barians." * * * It is refreshing to see this Virginia paper come out fearlessly on the side of right, the more so as Mr. Pendle- ton, its editor, is not one of those dread- ful "hyphenated Americans." — From "The Crucible." British War News The Press Must Assist Us in Fighting Our Battles AN ENGLISH ME NAILED. WAR NEWS. The Story that 193 Belgian Catholic Priests Were Shot or Mutilated Is a Base Fabrication. — ^All Priests Arrested Have Been Set Free. "Irish World," March 13, 1915. With reference to the alleged mal- treatment of Belgian priests by the German authorities in Belgium, the German Information Service, at the instance of the German Embassy in Washington, has issued the follow- ing statement: "The London Times recently pub- lished a much noticed letter, signed by a certain Wilfrid Ward, according to which it was alleged that the Ger- man authorities had taken severe re- prisals against Belgians who had tes- tified as to German atrocities before an English commission of investiga- tion. The letter quoted a statement of the Observer, according to which 193 Catholic priests 'whose names are unknown' have been shot, in- jured, mutilated, or made prisoners. "The German Information Service is advised by the German Embassy at Washington that the above state- ments are devoid of all truth and are nothing but a malicious fabrica- tion. In a report to the Imperial Chancellor the chief of the German civil administration in Belgium, Freiherr von der Lacken, says: " 'In so far as Belgian priests have become victims of the present war, it has merely been due to their unlaw- ful behavior against the German troops. Those who have been miade prisoners and were interned in Ger- many have been released and have returned to Belgium.' " Extracts, Editorial, The World, New York. Neither side has had a monopoly of the faking in this war. If there is more of it on the side of the allies, that preponderance is easily explained by the fact that more war news of all kinds comes from those sources. The untruthful reports against which Mr. Prieth protests are not part of a deliberate campaign of "slander, vituperation and boast- ing," as he thinks. They are an in- evitable result of such a censorship as all the governments have applied. Correspondents are not allowed at the front. In the German army they are wholly under the ban, and corre- spondents everywhere have to be guided not by what they see, but by what they are told.' There is no more unsatisfactory way of gathering news; yet in re- spect to the main operations of the different armies, the American people in particular have been kept remark- ably well informed. Nothing reflects more credit upon the energy and re- 'And what the correspondents are not told they supply from their own imagination, "The World's" editorial writer forgot to add. That helps the London-Paris-Petrograd War News Lies Factory. The war correspond- ents thus get even with the nasty German barbarians for being pre- vented to follow their columns. But "The World" forgets Mr. James O'Donnell Bennett and his four com- panions who signed the famous "Round Robin." They are not guided "by what they are told." — The Pub- lisher of "War Echoes." sourcefulness of the American press than the manner in which it has overcome the obstacles that military despotism and a rigid censorship have imposed upon a correct report- ing of this war. Fakes there have been, and plenty of them, but few have survived the publicity of 24 hours. Where the news proved to be wrong it has been corrected as soon as possible, and there is no important particular in which readers of American news- papers are misinformed except In matters in which the conflicting re- ports from both sides make it impos- sible to separate the true from the false. Of the complaints about the news which come to The World, we have found that in a majority of cases the fault was with the reader. Ru- mors that were printed as rumors he had persisted in taking as direct statements of facts. Unofiicial re- ports printed as unofficial reports he has twisted into official reports. Even obvious typographical errors' have been construed as proof of gross unfairness or shocking ignorance on the part of the newspapers. The man who reads the New York newspapers every day with an intelli- gent and open mind, and who care- fully checks up not only the correc- tions of misleading false reports but 'We refer to the article "Will the New York 'World' Explain?" printed on another page. Does the "World's" editorial writer explain the mutila- tion of Mr. Vieweger's letter as one of the "obvious typographical errors" which the readers "with an intelli- gent and open mind" should have no trouble in detecting? — The Publish- er of "War Echoes." GREAT BRITAIN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW the corroborations of correct reports, will have very clear and accurate in- formation as to the general progress of the war.^ More than that no news- paper can hope to do for its readers. SICK OF IT! WHY NOT? 'We ask the readers of Anglo- American newspapers of the New York "World" brand, of course only those "with an intelligent and open mind:" did they ever attempt to se- cure "a very clear and accurate in- formation as to the general progress of the war" by following the sugges- tions of "The World's" editorial writer? If they attempted it, did they succeed? We strongly doubt whether "The World's" intelligent editorial writer with his open mind could himself, by following his own suggestions, accomplish the herculean *ask of checking up "not only the corrections of misleading false re- ports but the corroborations of cor- rect reports." To attempt to sift out the truth from so many prejudiced news and editorial columns, from rumors, from official and unofficial reports, from "obvious typographical errors," as "The World" expects its readers to do, even from deliberate lies, would be a task not worth the effort, for "Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice; his reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff; you shall seek all day ere you find them and when you have them they are not worth the search." — The Publisher of "War Echoes." Editorial from the "Milwaukee Free Press," October 7, 1914. It is not easy to understand the psy- chology of the expression, "I am sick of war news." It seems hardly possible that any one should be so narrow in his In- terests, so lacking in human sympathy as to become surfeited with the details of one of the most portentous crises of humanity. Here is the opening paragraph of an editorial in the New York Sun which must have provoked the hilarity of the nethermost pit. The American public is not sick of war "news," but it is sick, mighty sick, of the miserable fabrications, the verbal debauchery, that papers like the Sun are trying to ram down the throats of their readers under the guise of "news." When the intelligent reader sees one issue giving the lie to another in the fairy tales that are being relayed over Paris and London ; when he reads ac- counts of Russian victories one hundred miles distant from the location of the troops ; when he discovers the allied correspondents describing in detail the very reverse of what the official bul- letins state as fact; he tosses aside sheets of the Sun's journalistic policy and justly exclaims : "I am sick of war news !" Nor is this the worst of it. Seventy- five per cent of the alleged news in papers of this class is boldly and vic- iously anti-German. In headline and feature story, as in the handling of news, he who reads may discover the imprint of the cloven hoof. No alleged defeat of the Germans too preposterous, no alleged atrocity too vile, no alleged incompetence, confusion or disorganization of the German army too absurd, to deny it space or heralding in the columns of this press. "Cut out the army of words," writes a distinguished national legislator to the Sun, "just give us information." Replies that journal with seemingly outraged patience : He does not realize that there are not words enough to give the information, that language is bankrupted by the facts, that it is only by heaping Ossa upon Pelion that some dim picture of the reality can be thrown before the eyes of such as will read with imagination and feeling. This is rich. Night after night, our copy readers dump reams of what the Sun considers "information" — stuff that intelligence, reason and the very map at our elbows condemns as bold-faced invention. Language is not bankrupted by the facts, but by the hectic fancy of the penny-a-liners who are composing these yarns, miles away from the smell of gunpowder, for the satisfaction of the British censor. And these romances, anti-German with scarcely an exception, the Sun asks its readers to peruse "with imagination and feeling." Sick of war news? No. But the people are getting heartily sick of a cer- tain kind of American journalism, whose hotbeds are New York and Chi- cago, that is trying to prostitute Amer- ican sense and sentiment in the inter- ests of the foes of Germany. Great Britain and International Law BRITAIN'S COWABDIiY ATTACK ON LEGAL NEUTRAL BIGHTS. From 'Milwaukee Free Press," March 20, 1915. The British government promises that the measures which it takes will involve no "risk to neutral ships or to neutral or non-combatant life" and will accord with "a strict observance of the dictates of humanity." But that is merely sugar coating a bitter dose. No neutral nation can be any the less averse to surrendering its established rights on the high seas because the belligerent who is trying to take them away agrees to conduct holdup opera- tions in a more or less civil and consid- erate manner. No Reason to Abandon Rights. Great Britain's new program is based on a theory which cannot be justified in law or in reason. It is a piece of arro- gance for any one nation to hold that international understandings must yield in an emergency to its temporary self- interest. That is what Great Britain is doing in calling on neutral nations to suspend commerce with Germany, al- though Germany's ports are not block- aded and Great Britain declines to ac- cept the military risks of blockading them. There is no reason why the United States or any other neutral na- tion should abandon the right to trade with Germany simply because a volun- tary cessation of such tirade would al- low Great Britain and her allies to reap all the benefits of a legal blockade with- out incurring any of the inconveniences of maintaining one. We Cannot Submit. We are asked to participate, at least passively, in a punitive operation launched by one belligerent against an- other. We cannot any more submit to Great Britain's demand that to sur- render our right to trade with un- blockaded German i)orts or with Ger- many through neutral ports (subject, of course, to contraband restrictions) than we could have allowed ourselves to be intimidated by Germany's "war zone" threat into abandoning our trade with the unblockaded ports of Great Britain and Ireland. The excuse given for the order in council is that it is a reprisal. That excuse may hold against Germany, but it cannot hold against neutrals. Just because Germany has sunk allied mer- chantmen and has intimated that her submarines might accidentally sink neu- tral merchantmen Great Britain is not justified in going still further and say- ing that neutral merchantmen may not hereafter carry any goods destined to Germany or outward bound from Ger- many. British Order Flagrant. If one combatant in a quarrel strikes out wildly at an innocent bystander. that does not warrant the other com- batant in turning to and knocking the innocent victim out. What the belliger- ents do to one another does not directly concern us. But when either attacks us as an incident of his warfare on the other we must defend ourselves. The United States should not be faithful to its honorable traditions as a champion of neutral interests if it did not protest with all its energy against the British order in council's flagrant subversion of international rights. Voicing its regret that England should voluntarily relegate obligations which she had defended, the Spring- field Republican says : It is with the deepest regret that many American sympathizers with Eng- land contemplate this development since in its complete disregard of established usage and treaty obligation the Brit- ish measure of retaliation against Ger- many's submarine warfare deprives Great Britain of very much of the mor- al strength that had come from her de- fense of the sanctity of solemn interna- tional obligations. Violates International Law. The development may in time be all the more deplorable if this new mani- festation of England's determination to "rule the sea" without scrupulous re- gard for the established rights of neu- trals arouses resentment in neutral countries, particularly in America, whose history in the Napoleonic period 120 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES was identified with a struggle to force powerful belligerents to treat neutrals with respect. It is impossible to ignore the fact that in their measures of re- taliation the belligerents of today are virtually proceeding on th3 theory that law must yield to force even in the case of the innocent bystander. Pushed to its logical conclusion, the doctrine that military necessity knows no law would leave neutral states to exist merely on sufferance. And in practice it actually makes over international law regardless of the wishes and the vital interests of nations remaining at peace except in so far as some neutrals may be poten- tially strong enough to modify bellig- erent pretensions and hold belligerent action in restraint. "Would Destroy Trade. Great Britain will assert the right to seize neutral ships and cargoes any- where on the high seas and send them before British prize courts if those ships are engaged in any kind of trade with Germany either by way of Ger- man ports or by way of neutral ports. Neutral ships with noncontraband car- goes bound for Genoa or Naples are to be overhauled and taken to some Brit- ish port for judicial proceedings, more or less protracted, on the mere suspi- cion, perhaps, that the cargoes have a German destination. A British cruiser lying in wait off New York or Boston may seize these ships almost before they have passed from sight of land. One notes with satisfaction that in no case will noncontraband cargoes be confiscated and that provision is made for the restoration of the cargoes, or a money equivalent, to neutral owners who may establish their property rights. But it cannot be argued from this fact that a neutral trade hitherto lawful will not be virtually destroyed nor that neutral rights hitherto re- garded as firmly ' established will not be wiped out to satisfy presumed bellig- erent needs on the arbitrary decree of a single nation at war. Duty of United States Government. But, regardless of the injury done, it is impossible that our government should consent to the principle that these nations at war may rewrite the rules of international law to please themselves while war is in progress without admitting the right of neutrals to be heard — nay, more than that, the right of neutrals to a full share in de- termining what the changes in the rules shall be. If international law, as now appears to be the fact, is being remade it is the duty of our governemnt, in the interest of the nations at peace, to de- mand proportional representation in the lawmaking that is going on. CONTRABAND LIST IS GROWING. Britain Enforcing New Prohibitions on Trade With Germany. [Correspondence of the Associated Press.] London, England, Jan. 21. — Gradu- ally the economic phases of the war are becoming more apparent in Great Britain. The military activities, which monopolized attention at the opening of the struggle, are now overshadowed at times by the blockade of the North Sea and the strict measures the navy is enforcing against German commerce and trade with the neutrals adjoining Germany, which have been supplying foodstuffs to Germany and Austria. i'rom time to time the contraband list has been lengthened as it became possible for English officials to make a more thorough study of the needs of their adversaries and the probable source of supplies. Every week Eng- land also is increasing the list of arti- cles the exportation of which from the English isles is prohibited. The latest commodity to go on this list is copra, or dried cocoanut. Im- mediately after the exportation of copra was forbidden the price fell ap- preciably in England, as little of the material is consumed here. The Ger- mans extract an oil from the cocoanut, which is used as the basis for oleo- margarine. The Philippines are the greatest pro- ducers of copra and will probably be the greatest sufferers because of the difficulty of getting the product to Ger- man manufacturers. It is known that within a few days additional lists of oil bearing products will be put on the same list with copra. Peanuts, palm- nuts, sesame seeds, lard and several other products which Germans use ex- tensively in making artificial butter and cooking fat are to be barred from exportation. In the colder sections of Germany imitation butters are in great demand, while the troops use large quantities of oleomargarine and other substitutes. THE PEACE OP THE ANGLO- SAXONS. A book with the above title was written by Major Stewart L. Murray, of the British army, in 1905 and ad- dressed to the laboring class of Eng- land. Lord Roberts wrote a lauda- tory preface, "with pleasure,", as he stated. The following are a few extracts which we copy from an article by Dr. Edmund von Mach in "The Father- land :" "It cannot be too clearly stated that international law is no protection ex- cept to the strong, .and that the only laws which great powers recognize as binding are those of power and expedi- ency" (page 44). "The worst error in war is a mistaken spirit of benevolence. * * * It was not in such a spirit of weakness that we wrested the com- mand of the sea from the Dutch, that we fought the great struggle against Napoleon, or seized the Danish fleet at Copenhagen in 1S07 to avert its possi- ble use against us" (page 48). The question is, "Who will have the supremacy * * *? To share and agree is impossible" (page 81). "Let us, therefore, make up our minds once for all that we icill be supreme upon the sea, cost what it may, and let us get to work at once. Let us add at once another 5,000,000 pounds yearly to our shipbuilding program and recoup ourselves from the foreigner, and if necessary, from futurity" (page 168). "If one nation yields to another na- tion, such weakness only encourages its opponent to play the same game of threats again" (page 39). "Instead of listening to the unpractical nonsense of those who talk much about the wick- edness of war, let us regard war as it really is — as an inevitable event in the life of each generation" (page 40). "Russia interprets international law simply as pleases herself, without the slightest reference to anybody else's opinion. And so will every other bel- ligerent who is strong enough" (page 44). When people in such high places in the council of the British nation, as Lord Roberts undoubtedly was, sub- scribe "with pleasure" to such senti- ments then may God protect us from the "peace of the Anglo-Saxons," for it is the peace of the beast in the jungle rather than of a civilized na- tion. And incidentally this book is the most shocking and the most complete list of England's political crimes which ever was compiled, and well may King George exclaim : "God protect me against my friends!" — ^From "The Crucible." PROTEST AGAINST TURCO SOLDIERS. In a recent issue of the Minnesota "Staats Tiding," Editor Schonberg, in an editorial bearing the caption, "The Black Soldiers of France," makes these comments: "According to reports from Mar- seilles, France is importing native troops from Northern Africa for use against the Germans. The French, who are so anxious to be looked upon as the elite of all civilization in the world and the bearers of the highest humanity, really intend to repeat the extreme barbarities of 1870. Wedid not think that it was possible that they again would use these half wild people in European war after the horrible brutality of the North Afri- cans in 1870. "Luckily they did not reach the battlefields as often as they like under the cover of darkness to torture the wounded. It was not French discipline, however, that held them back from so doing, but the German weapons that nearly always were masters of the battlefields. If the work of the French had been successful these half wild people would have carried on their barbaric practices not only on the battlefields; but she would also have taken them into the enemy's country. How they would have behaved toward the Ger- man women we dare not think. That a cultured nation of Europe should sully its shield of arms by driving half-wilds against their European opponents is beyond understanding. Against such an act one may have the right to protest in the name of humanity and express indignation at France for daring for a second time to do anything so terrible in the face of all Europe. "But the Swedes believe that the righteous God knows on which side the deepest civilization is to be found. We, therefore, with faith foresee the result of this 'speed hunting' which has been taken up by Slavs and Gauls — alas, with the help of Eng- land — and which long has been pre- pared for as a blow to German culture on the continent." — Re- printed from the "News of the War in Europe," supplied by "The Fatherland," New York. BRITISH CHARACTER IN ACTION 121 Great Britain's Position — Some Remarkable Confessions THE EUROPEAN WAR. (Conclusion.) Ttiis is the twelfth and the last ar- ticle of a series on THE EUROPEAN WAR, which appeared in the October Number of TEE OPEN COURT, under the title "Conclusion," written by the Editor, Dr. Paul Garus. Consult the INDEX for the complete series, and, in order to see loliere in the various Chapters of the boolc, the different articles of this treatise may be found, look for EUROPEAN WAR (THE). In this way the reader may read the entire series of articles in their original order, if he chooses to do so. lohile the present arrangement still gives him the advantage of bringing the various articles under their proper, respective Chapter-headings of the book. This is a series of exceptionally fine articles on the subject in question, and they bear a unique and important rela- tion to each other. Be sure to read them, also in their original order. — Editor, "War Echoes." A few personal comments may throw light on the fundamental con- ception upon which my opinion of the war rests. I have been, for al- most my entire life, since I began to think, an advocate of the federation of the great Teutonic nations, as a guarantee of the peace of the world — Great Britain and her colonies, Germany with Austria, and the United States. This political ideal of mine is not founded upon pan - Germanism, though it does not in the least ex- clude it. Modern civilization has been worked out in England, Ger- many and the United States. Here are the centers of progress, here live the people from whom we may ex- pect further progress, deeper thought, clearer science, and advancement in a conception as well as in a realiza- tion of noble humanity. Other smaller countries cluster about them; they are either of kindred blood or kindred language and thought. They belong to them as younger brothers who look up respectfully to their elder brothers. If these three groups of nations, centering about Germany, England and the United States, stand together, the peace of the world will be as- sured. So long as they do the right, all the smaller nationalities, states and groups of states will have to behave, and the peaceful realization of a highly cultured civilization will most assuredly be ours. But now this ideal — a by no means impossible one — has become an illusion. My hope of seeing it established has now, within a day, turned to despair. And why? Because one brother does not want another one to grow beyond his present stature. The Anglo-Saxon grew at first more quickly than the older German, but since, of late, the German has made a sudden start, and threatens to outdo the Saxon, the specter of war has appeared, and the two brothers face each other. sword in hand. And the end will be that one of them will fall. What a tragedy for mankind! Whatever the final result may be, mankind, with its ideals, will be the loser. Woe unto those villainous advisers who have begun the war. They think themselves wise, but they are short-sighted. They appeal to the lowest and vilest motives of their countrymen, and hope to enrich their country by the ruin of their brothers. Woe unto them! The curse of their own people will most surely fall upon them. So far the English people seem only to have expected to see the Germans crushed between the French and the Russians. But what if Ger- many should rise beyond her present state, and develop a grandeur of un- told strength? What if the spirit of God should come upon her, and she should smite her foes, and chastise them according to their deserts? What if, after conquering her Gallic enemy, she should overcome the giant Slav, and finally the Saxon, her own wicked brother beyond the chan- nel? My dear English friends! I love the English nation, and I wish that England could be regenerated. On my last visit to Europe I beheld with joy a new growth in Prance, but sen- sible thoughtful minds do not yet figure sufficiently in her politics. They are still in the minority. Any mob of self-styled patriots can cry them down, and if they should ever dare to utter an honest opinion they would be denounced as traitors.* In Germany I have witnessed an almost incredible advance in every line, and though there are still many things which have not my approval, I must state my conviction that, upon the whole, the life of the nation is de- veloping in the right direction. Even a hater of Germany cannot deny her his admiration. In England condi- tions are different; wretched poverty, almost unknown on the continent, is apparent in the very streets of Lon- don, and in the by-ways of the coun- try. My dear good English friends, believe me, for the sake of your own best interests, that you cannot enrich your poor countrymen by ruining your German brothers on the other side of the channel. It will do you no good to wipe the Teuton, with his competition, off of the face of the earth, but it will be terrible to face him when he rises against you with all his might, in his just wrath. Why did Greece fall? Because Sparta and Athens hated each other. Will you not learn from history, and must you repeat the sin of older generations, only to reap the same punishment? The Germanic civilization, repre- sented by Germany, England and the United States, is leading now, but the Slav hopes to take their place, and the Japanese, the most active people of the yellow race, are filled with ambition also to enter the field. An •M. Jaur6s was against the war and he was shot by an unknown hand. No serious effort appears to have been made to punish the assassin. internecine war of the Germanic na- tions is apt to pave the way for both Slav and Asiatic ascendency. As a friend of the English, and also in the interest of the further , development of the British empire, I cannot help feeling a grim dis- satisfaction with English politics. The present war which Great Brit- ain has undertaken against Germany and Austria-Hungary is against the real, the vital, and the all-important interest of Great Britain; hence I believe that the statesmen who, by their advice, their conduct, and their decisions, have brought about this war, have shown an obvious lack of Judgment and have become guilty of gross criminality. The war is unjust, the leaders of government affairs have not been fair to the German cause; but, in addition, they have neglected to ac- quire even the most superficial in- formation about the ability of the German people to wage a war, and have thoughtlessly and unnecessarily changed a vigorous, powerful and friendly nation into a most formid- able foe. The consequences of this action will endure into the most dis- tant future, and can, under no cir- cumstances, even in case of a victory, ever be or become favorable. And, in addition, England will, of course, have to suffer the usual curses which follow in the wake of war, — slaugh- ter and ruin, the blighting of civili- zation and culture, of industry and commerce, and the death knell of the blessings of peace. The men of England who have ad- vocated the war and have stirred the English people with hatred, are guilty of the blackest crime; they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, that sin which can never be forgiven. If I were an Eng- lish citizen, I would advocate their removal from those high offices which they have so shamefully dis- graced, and would even go so far as to have them indicted for high treason against Great Britain for their neglect of duty and because they have brought upon the British empire the curse of evil counsel. The outbreak of war between Great Britain and Germany has proved to me the greatest and sad- dest disappointment of my life. I have investigated the conditions and motives which led to it with sincere impartiality, but I have come to def- inite conclusions which place the guilt first of all, mainly and almost exclusively at the door of English diplomacy. Should I be mistaken, I wish to be refuted not by general declarations against German mili- tarism, by denunciations of Kaiserism and Prussianism, such as betray mere ignorance and prejudice, but by real facts or good, sound arguments. I am open to conviction and I shall carefully study all answers which contain actual points worth consider- ing, yea, I will give publicity to them and, in case I shall have to change my views, promise to confess my er- rors openly and without reluctance. 122 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES WHY WE ARE AT WAR. In an editorial of March 12th the London "Times" says : "We joined the Triple Entente be- cause we realized, however late in the day, that the time of 'splendid isola- tion' was no more. We reverted to our historical policy of the balance of power, and we reverted to it for the reasons for which our forefathers adopted it. They were not, either for them or for us, reasons of sentiment. They were self-regarding, and even selfish reasons. Chief amongst them certainly was a desire to preserve the peace of Europe, but it was the chief only because to preserve that peace was the one certain way to preserve our own. * * * "England is helping her allies to fight in defense of their soil and of their homes against the aggressor, and she is proud to pour out her blood and her treasure in so sacred a cause. But «he is not fighting primarily for Bel- gium or for Serbia, for France or for Russia. They fill a great place in her second. The first place belongs, and rightly belongs, to herself * * * "It is to save ourselves from the deadly consequences of Germany's con- sidered malignity that we stand in arms. To shield our homes from the murder and the rape, from the organ- ized loot and the systematic arson we have seen across the seas; to protect the Empire our race has reared at so dear a cost ; to secure for our children and for mankind the spiritual heritage of which it is the embodiment and the guardian — these are the ends for which we are launching upon the battlefields of France the greatest and the most powerful armies our history has ever known; the ends for which England has pledged her last shilling and her last man." It was pre-eminently the London "Times" which upheld for a long time the fiction of Sir Edward Grey that England had joined "the sacred cause" of Russia (pardon me for smiling!) and France because Germany violated the neutrality (so-called) of Belgium, but the ridicule launched against this untenable assertion has at last pierced even the thick hide of John Bull, and his retainers have received orders to press lightly henceforth on the Belgium stop and to sound more and more loudly the note of England's honor and plighted word to her allies, and of her self-interest. When Russia shall have made a sepa- rate peace one of these days and Eng- land shall have to stand more and more on her own legs, she will, per- haps, give up the fiction of "Russia's sacred cause," too, and acknowledge that from the beginning she thought of her own interest only and consid- ered the war a game of grab and noth- ing else. — From "The Crucible." WHAT CAUSED THIS WAR? In an interview which appeared in the London "Daily Chronicle" of Jan- uary 1, 1914, that is to say, only seven months before the outbreak of the war, Lloyd George, now a slanderous enemy of Germany, made the following re- marks : Flays the Press. "The Agadir incident served a very useful purpose in bringing home to these two great countries the perils involved in the atmosphere of suspicion which had been created and main- tained by the politicians, the press and certain interests. "The realization of the Imminence of the danger came as a great shock, and sanity has now been more or less restored on both sides of the North Sea. German Militarism. "The Gertaan army is vital, not merely to the existence of the German Empire, but to the very life and inde- pendence of the nation itself, sur- rounded as Germany is by other nations each of which possesses armies al- most as powerful as her own. Army Absolute Necessity. "The country has so often been in- vaded, overrun, and devastated by foreign foes, that she cannot afford to take any chances in that direction. We forget that while we insist upon a CO per cent superiority (so far as our naval strength is concerned) over Germany being essential to guarantee the integrity of our own shores — Ger- many herself has nothing like that superiority over France alone, and she has, of course, in addition to reckon with Russia on her eastern frontier. "Germany has nothing which ap- proximates to a two-power standard. She has, therefore, become alarmed by recent events, and is spending huge sums of money on the expansion of her military resources. Does Not Threaten England. "That is why I feel convinced that, even if Germany ever had any idea of challenging our supremacy at sea, the exigences of the military situation must necessarily put it completely out of her head." Here we have it acknowledged by Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Ex- chequer — (1) That the press, the politicians and certain interests are responsible for the bitter feeling in England against Germany. (2) That the German army is vital to the very independence and life of the nation. (3) That Germany is not by far as strongly armed as England, and, (4) That the German navy does not constitute a threat against Eng- land. Since August 4, 1914, Lloyd George has changed — if not his opinions — at least his song, but we doubt whether he would say that he had lied in that interview. — From "The Crucible." Bits of News on France in the Great War DISTORTING ALL TRUTH IN FRANCE. Impressions of a Swiss Journalist After a Tour Along the Firing Line. From "The Fatherland." Georges Wagniere, director of the "Journal de Geneve," recently under- took a tour of observation along the French front by permission of General Jofifre. His remarks on the impression received on seeing a French newspaper after a considerable time is highly in- teresting in view of the impression made upon this undoubted Swiss friend of the French by the irresponsible and distorted twaddle of the Parisian press. "In Sezanne I bought a 'Journal,' for I hadn't seen a paper in a long time. The heroically sentimental tone of the very first article made a pecu- liar impression upon me. I felt all of a sudden far — very far — away from the front, far away from all those brave lads who are constantly face to face with death, who often confront death with courage and even cheerfulness, and who, deeply devoted to their coun- try, use only plain and intelligible words. But the moment one opens a paper truth remains behind ; one ex- changes it for mere literature. "A second article seeks to prove that Intellectual Germany has never pro- duced anything of value. Because General von Kluck burned the town of Curtacon, Goethe is an obscure little poet and Richard Wagner — only yes- terday compared to a divinity — be- comes a composer of the fourth rank. "I know of nothing more offensive in this war than this sort of depreciation, to which the most intelligent people have become addicted. The soldier on the firing line judges his opponent with more sense and fairness. He does not represent him — like most of the papers and artists — as persistently flying and advancing to attack only when im- pelled to do so by the kicks of his of- ficer. There would be no credit in con- quering such a foe. "A French officer recently described to me In a radically different tone a German Infantry attack, when the battalions in thick masses charged across the open ground in total disre- gard of the hellish effect of the mit- raileuses, all the time singing at the top of their voices. But unbridled pas- sions seem to have cast the whole world into darkness, and error pre- vails everywhere. Already this war surpasses every other in horrors ; in spite of which disordered minds are In- venting all sorts of refined tales of In- human atrocities. Legends are contin- ually being circulated and exaggerated in France and in Germany. If one single authentic case is found it is magnified to boundless proportions. .\tterapt to trace the truth, and you soon discover it to be a He. SOME NEWS FROM FRANCE "It is really remarkable how the truth is concealed in all places, so to speak. To give a single example: All Frenchmen are firmly convinced that Joffre purposely lured the Germans to the neighborhood of Paris to inflict a defeat upon them on the Marne! "As though any general stafC ever conceived the fantastic idea of draw- ing a million Germans into their coun- try and allowing them to keep the rich- est province!" would run out and fall over each other ; the squadron of light cavalry detailed at Froschweiler from Regiment 11 sta- tioned at Niederbronn would gallop hither and yon; the regiment itself would come up from Niederbronn and patrol around in all directions — but the Prussians did not come and everything would quiet down again. And yet no one could feel quite comfortable; the railroad trains rumbled so mysteriously from Reichshofen across the "great forest" (Grossenwald). The calm was beginning to weigh oppressively on peo- COUNT ZEPPEMN IN AliSACE IN 1870. (By Courtesy of The Open Court.) By Karl Klein. [Count Ferdinand Zeppelin, the in- ventor of the dirigible balloon, is promi- nently before the public because of the important part his airships play in the present European war. He is now in his seventy-seventh year, and a man of active intelligence and in vigorous health. He is an extraordinary character and remark- ably young for his age. By birth the Count is a Swabian. He first saw the light on July 8, 1S38, very near Friedrichshafen on Lake Constance. He acquired a very good and broad educa- tion, not only of a general nature but also in technical and mechanical science. He attended the polytechnic institute at Stutt- gart, the military academy at Ludwigs- burg and the University of Tubingen. In 1858 he entered the Wurttemberg army. In 1863 while the war of Secession was waging in the United States he could not stay at home, but in his anxiety to profit by experience in actual warfare he left for America, entering the army of the North as a cavalry officer, where he did good service until the end of the war m 1865. Even thus early he had taken spe- cial interest in aeronautics, for he once made an ascent in a captive balloon in or- der to spy out the position of the Confed- erate army. For some time he was at- tached to the staff of General Carl Schurz and barely escaped being taken prisoner at Fredericksburg. , , ^ t. Upon his return home the Austro-Prus- sian war broke out in 1866. and he served in the Wiirttemberg army against Prussia. At the very beginning of the Franco-Prus- sian war in 1870 he played a conspicuous part in a brilliant dash into Alsace which he made in the service of the German armies in order to reconnoiter the country and determine the position of the various French army corps. This experience is told in the diary of the Bey. Karl Klein, an Alsacian pastor of the village of Froschweiler. The diary was published after the war of 1870-71, .and has the fresh and impartial tone which belongs to such an informal document. Since the Rev Karl Klein was a subject of France, he could hardly be said to be a German yet as an Alsacian he was not without sympathy for the German invaders. At ?hr«me he wrote, Count Zeppelin was not famous, nor could his 'ater exploits in aeronautics be , foreseen. ^e J^fP"^'!f here Pastor Klein's account of Count Zep pelin's adventure, translated into Bnglisn by Lydia G. Robinson and accompanied by mustrations made by Ernest Zimmer, a German artist, after a careful study of the localities, the uniforms and all the personalities concerned. We will conclude our comment bv stat- ins that after the foundation of the em- p"fe count Zeppelin served in the Bnndes- rat (the imperial council representing the sovereign princes of Germany) as the wurttemberg Plenipotentiary, a very high ™sition He retired from active service Fn'the°arm??nT901 with the rank of Lieu- tenant-General and has since then devoted himself to the development and perfection of the dirigible balloon which now bears his name. — ^Bd.l "The Prussians are coming! i-Oe Prussians are coming!" During the summer of 1870 this alarm had sounded more than once in Froscli- weiler Worth and the neighboring Al- sacian villages. Who said so? Where are they? How could any one make sense out of such hubbub ! The people M. Poincare— President of France (Photo by the International News Service) FRENCH SOCIALIST OBJECTS. Gustave Herve Ashamed of Treatment Accorded to Germans and Austrians. "The Fatherland." Gustave Herve, according to infor- mation received by the Neue Freie, Presse from Paris, has demanded that the conditions prevailing in French concentration camps be at once inves- tigated. "The concentration camps," says Herve, "by no means constitute a page of glory in the history of France. For lack of any better ex- cuse for the defeat in the early stages of war, the blame has been put upon espionage. The government has lost its head and ordered all Germans and Austrians to be interned. "These unfortunate victims were herded together in railway trains, and under the shouts and insults of the populace were removed to various places. There they were escorted by a double row of soldiers and police- men to some quarters unprepared and unfit for habitation. For weeks men, women and children had to sleep on a thin layer of straw, if not on the bare floor, and were treated like crim- inals. The number of children who died in consequence of such treatment will never be known. pie's spirits, when suddenly early in the morning of July 24, the boy from the castle came running in as pale as death from Elsasshausen, crying at the top of his voice: "The Prussians are coming! The Prussians are here! I saw them myself. They rode through Elsasshausen and I had to show them the way." And Babe Lanze broke in with : "Oh dear, oh dear ! we are all lost! Every Prussian carries a saber in his mouth crosswise and has a loaded pistol in each hand!" And as they went shouting about through the village, all the others crowded around shouting after them until there was as great a consternation and screaming ;\nd howling as if a hundred thousand brigands were down there by the churchyard and were sure to massacre everything that had skin and hair. Crowds flocked around the parsonage, and especially the women were wring- ing their hands and whimpering and weeping as if all was already lost. And we were admonishing them to be still and leave everything in God's hands, when a gendarme came gallop- ing up from Worth who confirmed the news that a troop of Prussians had rushed through Worth with flashing swords and muskets cocked, shouting "War ! War !" He said he was hurry- ing to Niederbronn to inform the regi- ment so that these marauders would be killed or captured. Then our people quieted down somewhat and every one — both young and old— that went on two feet, stood ready to sacrifice them- selves on the altar of the fatherland. The captain of the squadron, a val- iant and courageous young hero, who was infuriated at the slightest sign of fear and cowardice, could not stay quietly on the spot another moment. He rushed hither and thither with his company, scouted in every direction, down hill, across country and back again, and when one or another of his men wiped the sweat from his brow with beating heart and grave forebod- ings, he consoled them with "Allons, mon 'brave! pas peur! nous mourons povr la patrie!" (Courage, my brave fellow, fear not ! we are dying for our country!) And all who could under- stand it and carried Christian hearts in their breast could not keep back the tears, thinking: "God keep you! Yesterday on mounted steed. Today with hero's heart ableed, Tomorrow in the peaceful grave." So as much as an hour and a half was spent in riding up and down, lying in ambush, coming back, keeping quiet, receiving all sorts of good wishes and words of encouragement, emptying can- teens, filling them up again and strik- ing out in all directions without blood- shed Then the gendarme came back and announced that the regiment had broken camp at Niederbronn and had gone to meet the enemy by way of Gundei-shofen. "They must forget the way home !" opined Lindenbauer, drunk with triumph. "Yes, if they don't run away, or if there is a rear guard be- hind them," whispered the shrewd Wil- libald, "they are hardly likely to be left to themselves." The enemy's forces consisted of an oflttcer of the Wurttemberg general staff Captain Count Zeppelin, three officers from Baden and four dragoons. 124 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES RUINS OF HEIDELBERG CASTLE Devastated in 1G8S by .the French under Malec. previous to the establishment of Militarism (By Courtesy ot the "Open Court") Tliey had orders to recouuoiter across Lauterburg out into the country and see whether any considerable number of troops had mobilized In lower Al- sace. They had succeeded in passing through Sulz, Worth, Froschweiler. and had advanced on an unfrequented mountain path so far from Elsasshau- sen that they could look down upon the railroad tracks from Gundershofen to Niederbronn and also over a good part of Hanau. Whether they had finished their Joshua and Caleb errand or w-ere just about to carry it out we shall not here betray for the best of reasons. But it is our duty to communicate to posterity what took place at the Schirlenhof Inn lying in lonely Isolation iu the woods midway between Eberbach, Gunders- hofen and Reichshofen, and what fate overtook the venturesome horsemen there. They had returned to the courtyard and put up their horses in stables and sheds; they were about to rest a while after their hard ride and already the omelets were merrily steaming in the pan and were going to taste all the bet- ter on French ground — when all of a sudden there was an uproar, the whole cavalry regiment was coming up, the yard was already surrounded. What next? Knives and forks fell to the table, swords were unsheathed, the guests plunged headlong out of the inn .ind barricaded themselves behind their horses. The first shot stretched a French subaltern on the ground ; other shots followed ; Lieutenant Winslow vi'as fatally wounded and others were injured. There were a few shots of retaliation, but superior force had conquered. Two officers and two dra- goons were taken and Winslow bled to death ; but Count Zeppelin and the two other dragoons escaped. The regiment turned right about face and reached Niederbronn again that very evening in the midst of general rejoicing. In Paris the "battle of Schirlenhof" was celebrated with Illuminations, and even iu Froschweiler the joy was so great and the enthusiasm so universal when our squadron came back that our good people never tired of asking questions, praising and admiring, and the soldiers could not finish eating, drinking, and telling stories until far into the night. As booty they brought back with them a short musket and a thick wooden cudgel, still preserved In Froschweiler as a permanent memorial. How these trophies were prized and marveled at ! Count Zeppelin escaped on the black horse of the fallen French subaltern, people in the forest say, and returned to Schirlenhof shortly after the battle and settled his account there. Whether this is true or not he himself must know best, for he is still alive, and even if he does not confess it perhaps history will throw light on the matter at some future day. At any rate he is a bold horseman, for his retreat into Pfalz not only shows a very exact knowledge of our locality, but also such contempt of death as to compel admira- tion. From the scene of the battle he wended his way in a northeasterly di- rection through the "great forest" and it must have been not far from Frosch- weiler that he crossed the Reichshofen military road which at that time was a much frequented highway. Then he pro- ceeded over the outskirts of the for- est into the mountains, always in com- pany with the black' horse, which has become a legendary figure. When Wendling's Peter (God bless him ! ) was tending his cows in the pas- ture that evening close to the wood by the mountain slope between Nahweiler and Linienhausen, there came along a strange looking man who could not be a Frenchmau. He was leading a tired warhorse by the bridle and asked if he couldn't get a little milk. Peter looked at him in alarm. "Yes, I would just as soon give you a little milk if I had something to milk into." "That is eas- ily arranged," said the man and drew a leather object out of his pocket which could be drunk out of and milked into, and Peter milked into it bravely enough. The milk tasted so good to the stranger that he let the cowherd fill the cup again, whereupon he gave the dumbfounded fellow a two-franc piece, said "Thank you" and "Good- bye." And all this happened while French horsemen were scouring up and down not more than three hundred paces away, and were execrating the Prussian in the wood though they did not go into the wood after him. Count Zeppelin went on his way, and that very evening reached Giinsthal. There at the so-called "Big" Peter's house he drank two glasses of red wine for which he paid a ten-franc piece and next day arrived in the kingdom of Bavaria with important communica- tions after his fatiguing ride. But never to his dying day did Wendling's Peter forget that evening, nor how he milked into the stranger's leather cup. There were two dragoons also who escaped from the battle of Schirlenhof, as we said before. They sought and found shelter and lodging in the forest SOME NEWS FROM FRANCE 125 befoim: the days of "militarism" The Eeturu of the French Troups from Petrowski Park (By Courtesy of the "Open Court") while their eouirades were given an opportunity of silent meditation behind the walls of the Niederbronn prison. One of the two who escaped had been shot in the foot, and so the way home on shank's mare through hedges and thorns could not give him any particu- lar pleasure. They had started off straight towards the south not far from Eberbach. had stopped at Albert's Inn (commonly called the Tx)use lun) be- tween Morsbronn and Worth to ask for refreshment and civilian's clothes, and hoped that from there they could suc- ceed in getting back to their home by way of the Hagenau forest near by, which extends down to the Rhine. But they were to find out very soon what Alsacians can do when it becomes a question of protecting their fatherland from barbarians. It was reported that a few Prussians were lurking in the forest, and al- though the regiment at Niederbronn might sleep in peace, in Sauerhof no one could be expected to do so under the circumstances. No indeed, you must not think that Sauerhof is any ordinary place on the map. Who is at all acquainted with it knows that it contains many prominent people, phi- losophers and poets (there is one poet there who is firmly convinced that he reaches at least up to Schiller's ankles!). And here above all we have patriots without a peer. I tell you it's great when these men strike the table and set about dividing up the world! So we can easily understand that no one in Sauerhof could rest in peace un- til those dreadful villains were caught and wiped off the face of the earth. First of all the patricians assembled to take measures to save their country ; the unprecedentedness of such an in- vasion was set forth in its proper light with all its dangers and horrors; the people's wrath was aroused to the necessary pitch by means of large black type; and, to make a long story short, it was decided to make an expedition into the forest and bring back the ban- dits to Sauerhof, dead or alive. Now imagine the village, if you can, at such an exalted moment ! The enthusiasm, the outbursts of wrath, the contempt of death and the joy of victory ! What a pity there were not a hundred Prus- sians lying in the forest Instead of only two. Yesterday they did not as much as imprison one, today each man would kill a dozen. But who will lead the expedition? What a question I You can easily des- cry the vengeance-breathing commander there on the white horse. See how smartly his hair is dressed and how valiantly he gallops up and down under the window of the fine ladies so that the sparks fly from his charger's hoofs. I give you my word of honor that he will take to his heels, and escape across the Kniebis before the first battle!' And there is the adjutant at the head (his name has just escaped me but it does not matter) who has been a sol- dier, even a subaltern. You can tell him by his voice and the Prussians will know him by his stripes. Hear him as with pistol in either hand he goes roar- ing about among the raging crowd. "Where are they? Where are they? Allans, enfants de la patrie!" And the crowd takes it up after him. See how • Pastor Klein says In a footnote that this is what actually occurred in less than ten days, on August 4. the zealous army of citizens with flint- locks, knives, scythes, pitchforks, stakes and all manner of death-dealing imple- ments, swearing death and destruction, surge through the streets, and away they go without fear and without wav- ering, forth, forth to the bloody fray. Only one man, the wise ^sculapius, looks on with a philosophical smile from behind the palings of his garden and mutters in his beard, "Oh ! if there were only some way to muzzle such specimens !" But he nevertheless takes bandages and other remedies, has his gig hitched, and still musing rides along behind the rest to the scene of battle. What incidents occurred on the way, what sorts of "vive la France !" and other slogans resounded through the forest, the present historian cannot say. All he knows is that when the main body of troops in fighting array sur- rounded Albert's Inn (commonly called the Louse Inn) and the spokesman had solemnly demanded the unconditional surrender of the hostile army, there stepped out — two young unarmed strip- lings, who stood silent before their vic- tors as in days of old Vercingetorix stood before Cffisar. "There they are! There they are! Vengeance! a ias la Prusse! We've got 'em!" sounded from a hundred throats, besides what- ever else in the way of curses, threats and patriotic effusions, all who had particularly distinguished themselves in the battle could utter. A beautiful twilight glow spread over the great forest ; the expedition had succeeded beyond all expectations. Beaming with joy the leaders of the army returned to Sauerhof with aj)- plauding legions and barbarians In chains. The doors of the carcere duro 126 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES clanged, and therein lay two captive dragoons tortured the whole night long with curses and execrations. The next morning they were led like ordinary criminals, bareheaded and with torn clothes, through Froschweiler and Nie- derbronn, and the writer will never for- get the look one of them cast up at a window where a foul-mouthed spec- tator was giving utterance to the genu- inely patriotic speech, "Beheading'd be too good for them." .John Bull comes to the assistance of his oppressed friend from motives of purest philanthropy. Prance furnishes the troops and the fighting grounds for the blow which the City statesmen have planned against their unpleas- antly successful competitor. "Let us suppose that France enters into peace negotiations with us," the "Tag" says, "Is it believed in Paris that Kitchener and French will simply evacuate the French territory to which they came ures, as a result of which France's in- dustry and commerce derive some profit from the existing conditions which place England in the position of the Sovereign of the Seas. Evident- ly the fear exists in the minds of the French that England may use her na- val supremacy to the disadvantage of French trade and industry. The French soldiers, too, have be- come disgusted with their English com- rades. The "Mannhelmer General- THE OUSPINSKI CHITRCH AS A STABLE During the days of French Glory, and before the Days of the Modern "Huns" (By Courtesy of the "Open Court") You shake your head, dear reader, and think "Oh, Sauerhof, to what heights hath your patriotism soared !" Be calm and chide not to me the bound- less bravery of the Alsacian people. Down in Germersheim or up In Offen- burg the dragoon hunt against two wounded Frenchmen would have been carried on in exactly the same way. PRANCE AS AN ENGLISH PROTECTORATE. Reports come in continually from the field stating that the antipathy ex- isting between the French and British is increasing considerably. The Eng- lishmen play the part of lord and ruler in many of the most Important French cities, such as Havre, and take the reins of government out of the hands of the French authorities. France is following the same path as Belgium. We know from the latest exposures how Great Britain first offered the Belgian government her assistance and then forced it upon them. Even the members of the French government can no longer give credence to the idea that this war is a German-French passage at arms, in which the knightly only as the saviours of France? Eng- land would further fortify her 't6te de pont,' Calais. To come right down to the truth, England never really got over the loss of Calais. 'When my heart is opened,' said the dying Maria Tudor, 'the name Calais will be found written on it.' " England needs Northern France for the purpose of carrying on warfare against Germany, in whose possession they do not wish, under any circum- stance, to leave Ostend and Antwerp. France has become an English protec- torate. Even the French do not de- ceive themselves as to this fact. The deputies of the Department of the Seine held a consultation, during which the Delegate Laval demanded that a deputation from the French gov- ernment be appointed to adopt meas- Add Horrors of War. Paris, Sept. 11. — One Parisian, seeing his supply of absinthe was reduced, with no chance for obtain- ing more, drank his last bottle almost at one drink and died. — From "The Chicago Tribune," September 12, 1914. Anzeiger" prints a letter from Lieuten- ant-Colonel Ehrt, commander of the First "Landsturm" Infantry Battalion in Heidelberg, written to the Mann- heim Auxiliary of the Red Cross, In which the following incident is re- lated: "A short time ago, French 'Landwehr' men sent the following note to the German troops" : "Do not shoot and we will not shoot, but give It to the English good and hot !" The "Journal" thinks there is no hope that Germany's resources will be exhausted by next summer. In order that peace be brought about, one of the parties must come to the recognition that fur- ther efforts are useless. Germany will have actually conquered, the paper states, when the Allies have been driven back over the Loire, when Eng- land feels herself threatened in her own land, and when the German army has won a battle before St. Petersburg and Moscow. The end of the war will come sooner than It did in 1870, the "Journal" thinks, nnd adds that a general uprising of the French people, after all men capable of bearing arms have been called to the front, is out of the question. — "Hamburger Frem- denblatt." Hamburg, Germany. FREEDOM FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE 127 The Liberation of the Jewish People by Russia AN OPEN LETTER TO ISRAEL ZANGWILL. The Fatherland, New York. Mr. Zangwill, I address to you the following lines, because you have tak- en the liberty of advising the Amer- ican Jews as to what attitude they should take in this terrible blood- shed. True, It is, that we Jews have long ago given up the idea of taking you seriously. But our Gentile brethren still believe that you are one of our "leaders," and that hence you must have spoken with authority in your "Epistle to the Jews." It is on this account that I, as an Amer- ican Jew, am compelled to protest in a publication, read by the general public, against the amazing and un- just statements contained in your "Manifesto" to us. You begin by expressing surprise that some American Jews should sympathize with Prussia, though this war was "made in Germany." Let me tell you, Mr. Zangwill, that not some, but most of the American Jews, and I hope of the entire world, are sympathizing with Germany. All the American Jewish dailies (with per- haps one exception) are out-spoken pro-German. And do you know why? Because we are too intelli- gent to believe the poisoned English press. We do not allow our minds to be made up for us by the anti- German editorial writers. We read the documents and we are convinced, as every honest and sound-minded person, familiar with the political de- velopments that lead to the war, must be, that, in this terrible con- flagration, Germany was forced to take up arms for self-defense against Russian barbarity, French lust for revenge and English greed for money. For what was it, if not the desire to cripple German prosperity, that drove the "nation of shopkeepers" into the embrace of savage Russia a few years ago? And why did now England declare war against Ger- many? I consider you too intelligent to believe that England was willing to sacrifice millions of dollars and thousands of her subjects because she signed a treaty to preserve the neutrality of Belgium. You, as well as I, know that when she has noth- ing to gain, England is not so scru- pulous about her signature. One example is sufficient to prove this as- sertion: In 1878 England signed the Berlin Tractate which contains a distinct clause that Roumania must accord equal rights to her Jewish subjects. Up to the present day, Roumania has been treating her Jews as outlaws, thus violating a treaty which England signed. And what has England done to enforce respect for her signature? She sure- ly has not declared war against Rou- mania. Why? Because there was nothing to be gained for British in- terests by punishing little Roumania, while there is a great deal to be won by weakening powerful Ger- many. r \ 9 1 \ J 1 \ t tfiv^'ii^H - V* l&i f ^Bp-^^M. j NICHOLAS II— CZAR OF RUSSIA This, as we American Jews believe, being the case, how ridiculous it is for you to repeat the futile asser- tions of the hypocritical English press that Britain is fighting against German Militarism. If it is noble and moral to try to crush Germany because she has a splendid army (which, by the way, she has been compelled to maintain, being hemmed in between two powerful and mili- tary enemies), why is it less noble for another nation to destroy Eng- land, on account of her tremendous navy? In which way is Militarism a greater danger to civilization than "Navyism"? You speak of Germany's "barba- rous" behavior in this war. Hence, again, you are condemning Germany without listening to her side of the story. But, in any case, it sounds rather awkward that an Englishman should accuse Germany of barbarism, when the Allies, not satisfied to cast their lot with "civilized" Russia, liave called upon the Turco and Japan into this European struggle. Your so- phisticated excuse that England is using "black means for white ends" is an empty phrase, for you are beg- ging the question. We believe that every war is barbarous, unless it is fought for self-defence. England cannot claim this excuse, hence it is England and her allies who brought about this war; they are the real barbarians. And if you call Ger- many's punishing civilian snipers "barbarous," I should like to know how "civilized" England would treat civilians caught firing at her sol- diers? Your suspicion that the Jews hold off their sympathy from the allies on account of Russia, is only partly cor- rect. Even if Russia would take no part in the war we would sympathize with Germany, because we believe that the allies are wrong. But, now that Russia sides with the allies, of course, no sane person could expect the Jews of neutral states to wish the allies success, for this would mean greater glory for the Czar and more suffering for our Russian co-religion- ists. Your amazing statement that it is better for the Russian Jews to "con- tinue to suffer than that the great interest of civilization should be sub- merged by the triumph of Prussian militarism" surpasses in its cruelty and injustice anything I have ever seen written by a Jew. Mr. Zangwill, do you know what it means to suffer in Russia? You have read about pogroms. Have you ever lived through one? You have heard of your ally, the Cossack. But did you ever feel his lash? And If you say that your imaginative mind can clearly picture to you all the hor- rors of Jewish life in Russia, even though you never experienced them in person, do you still maintain that you are willing to have your unfor- tunate 6,000,000 brethren tortured indefinitely, in order to save "civili- zation," meaning of course, English civilization, which allows such atroc- ities — nay, which, by its alliance with the Czar, sanctions all his barbarities perpetrated on our brethren? You are trying to win our sympa- thy for England by telling us that Sir Edward Grey has assured you that when Germany will be defeated, Russia will be "encouraged" to treat the Jews like human beings. And you, Mr. Zangwill, state that this Is not a promise of "a politician in a crisis." Is that really so? Where was Sir Edward Grey till now? Why did he not "encourage" Russia to stop the scandalous Beilis trial? Why did he not encourage the Czar to allow you, Mr. Zangwill, to enter Russia? I suppose you did not for- get the answer the same Sir Grey gave to the "English Jewish Commit- tee" when they asked him to bring some pressure on the Czar that he respect a British passport in the hands of a Jew? And in conclusion, let me quote a passage from II Chronicles, xx: 37, in which Sir Churchill may be inter- ested: "Then prophesied Eliezer, the son of Dodavohu of Mareshah, against Jehoshaphat, saying, 'Because thou hast connected thyself with Achaz- yahu, the Lord hath broken down thy works, and the ships were wrecked, so that they were not able to go to Tarshish.' " Meyer I. Leff, M. D. September 14, 1914. The Anglomaniac press of New York and elsewhere will have to in- vent a new cause for their anti- German belligerency than that Ger- many had no business to go to war with Russia, for England declared war against Austria for no reason whatever. Austria was at perfect peace with England and was fighting Russia and Prance, not England. 128 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES THE JEWS AND RUSSIA. Herman Ridder, New Yorker Staats- Zeltung. The well-known secretary of the American Jewish Committee, Mr. Herman Bernstein, in his preface to the "American Jewish Year Book," which appears today, says: "The Beilis affair has constituted the darkest tragedy of the Jews in recent years. The evil forces of the Russian Empire conspired against them, an innocent Jew was tortured In prison for two years and a half, and the entire Jewish peonle in Rus- sia was threatened with pogrom panics through this political conspir- acy. In the Beilis affair, the Russian government's policy of cruel, militant and anti-Semitism reached its culmi- nation. Just as the civilized world was shocked at the Kishineff mas- sacres, so it was appalled when the Russian government revised the in- famous hlood legend for the purpose of discrediting the Jewish people and Justifying new massacres. "The list of events in Russia dur- ing the past twelvemonth recorded in this scheme reveals a painful state of affairs. The sufferings and hope- lessness of the Jew in the Pale of Settlement are shown in the simple records of "ordinary" happenings, of wholesale expulsions — silent, word- less progress — of new devices of per- secution, of the suppression of edu- cation, and of the ritual murder de- lirium with which the Russian gov- ernment has crazed the minds of the Russian masses." The "Year Book" contains also an interesting 90-page review of the Beilis affair, which well deserves reading. Some weeks ago it was reported from Europe that the Czar had is- sued a ukase promising to the Jews in Russia complete civil rights. Us- ing this ukase as his text, Israel Zangwill, the noted Jewish author and playwright of England, sent out to the Jews of neutral countries, not long after, an appeal for Jewish sympathy and Jewish prayers for Great Britain in her present "war for freedom." It is apparent from the tone of the Jewish press in the United States and from letters written by prominent members of the Jewish community, that Mr. Zangwill's "manifesto" has fallen, so far as this country is con- cerned, upon sterile soil. The Brit- ish advertising clique was unfortu- nate in the choice of Mr. Zangwill as the man to address the Jews of the world, for great as his work has been In the field of literature, he has come to be regarded by the Jews the world over, with the possible exception of those in England, as one no longer In touch with the sufferings of his race in less tolerant countries and one who has little sympathy with the true racial aspirations of his people. But even had Mr. Zangwill been the one man to appeal, on the strength of the Russian ukase, for Jewish sympathy for England, what had he to offer them in return for such sympathy or as an excuse for his appeal? The story of the Jews in America is known to all — of the Jew in Eu- rope to not so many. I know it suf- ficiently well 10 state, however, that in England alone have the Jewish people received complete civil rights. In France and Germany their condi- tion is not so good as in England, but it is as far divided from their condition in Russia and the Balkan States as high heaven is from hell. The great majority of the Jews in this country come not from the Brit- ish Isles, but from Russia and south- ' eastern Europe and have come here to escape the horrors of the perse- cutions to which they were subjected there. These Jews have not forgot- ten what they and their fathers suf- fered from the lash of the Cossack and the riflebutt of an ignorant and bigoted soldiery. They remember the pogroms of Kishineff as vividly as Mr. Zangwill the banquets at which he has been feasted in Lon- don. And many of them have friends and relatives submitting to this same treatment today, unable to escape from Russia. It is not probable that such Jews will lend their prayers to the Anglo-Russian combine until the condition of their race in Russia has been definitely and concretely im- proved. And what is Mr. Zangwill's assur- ance that in the event of a Russian victory over Germany such will be the case? Sir Edward Grey has said that in that event he will "encour- age" Russia to alter its present atti- tude toward her Jewish subjects! I do not wish to impugn the word of the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Above all, he is "a man of his word." So true was he to the promises that he had given behind the backs of Parliament and the British people to Russia and France, that he plunged his country into an unpopular war. The com- bined efforts of the cinematograph, the spell-binders of the government and a press campaign by such writ- ers as Mr. Zangwill, have failed to rouse England to Sir Edward's duty. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs will undoubtedly carry out his prom- ise and "encourage" Russia, when the Cossack is in Berlin, but of what avail will it be? We have had our own experience in such things. When Russia accepts the abrogation of its American treaty, as a protest against her treatment of the Jew, without turning a hair, what respect may she be expected to show for the "encour- agement" of her ally? The attitude of England toward the suffering Jew In other countries is already in black and white. A clause of the "Berlin Tractate" of 1878, to which Great Britain was sig- natory, demands of Roumania that she accord to her Jewish subjects equal rights with those of other re- ligious beliefs. The treatment of the Jew in Roumania today is known to be and for years to have been no less brutal and revolting than that experienced in Russia. And yet, can we doubt that England, and espe- cially Sir Edward Grey, has "encour- aged" Roumania to alleviate these conditions? England is true to her treaties. She has told us that so often these last few weeks that it would seem impossible for anyone but herself to doubt it. What good has come of it? Has all England's encouragement brought back to life a single Jew foully murdered be- cause he chose to worship God in the manner of his fathers? Has it erased the scars from one Jewish back, wrought there by the lash of an avaricious police? Has it won him the right to live where he will, to possess property in security, and to educate his children in the schools which he is compelled to support? It has done no one of these things, and it will do no more in Russia. In- stead of looking forward to a con- tingency which at best is highly problematical, Mr. Zangwill should have looked back and told the Jews what England has already done for them in the dominions of the Slav. We have seen what the Jew may expect from England in return for his sympathy and support. Let us look for a moment at what he may rightly expect from Russia. The "word of a Romanoff" is a proverb among the downtrodden sub- jects of the Czar. Its value is known to Jew and Christian alike. It is given today and retracted tomorrow. When the voice of the oppressed rises to the ears of the Little Father in times of peace it is stilled by the crack of the knout and the clank of Siberian chains. When the throne rocks on the waves of an unpopular war it is necessary to meet it with other weapons. It is then the open season for conciliatory ukases. Alex- ander I. promised Finland its auton- omy under conditions not dissimilar from those which exist today, and what has Finland profited thereby? The Russo-Japanese war purchased a Duma, but so emasculated that its place is rather with the sewing cir- cles of Victorian England than with the parliamentary bodies of civilized States. The present confiict has de- veloped the inner dissension of the Russian Empire to the limit. Poles are asked to fight Poles, Jews to fight not only other Jews but a coun- try which has treated the race with a large measure of justice. We have had, therefore, two examples of "the word of a Romanoff." The first was to Poles, but that has since been retracted by the Russian commanders in Galicia, when they found Austrian Poles fighting against them. The second was to "my beloved Jews." But what proof has the Jew in Amer- ica that the signature of the Little Father has been affixed to this other ukase, promising his people in Rus- sia full civil rights? It has even been asserted, and on authority quite as good as that on which the publi- cation of the ukase in question was made, that the whole story of the Czar's promise to his "beloved Jews" is a fabrication for foreign consump- tion. I do not doubt that Russia wishes to conciliate the Jews at the present time, not only at home but abroad. She has spurned their religion and cannot, therefore, care very much for their prayers. She can use, how- FREEDOM FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE 129 ever, to good advantage, their money, their brains and their lifeblood. In the last analysis it is that which she seeks. If Mr. Zangwill had been moved by a spirit of loyalty to his race it is that which he would have penned in his manifesto. When, however, he comes before them with the plea that England is fighting a war of freedom against German "militarism" he misjudges his audience. The Jew can read through the tenuous fabric of his words as easily as anyone. It is not a war of England against Germany, but, so far as England is concerned, a war for the destruction of Ger- man sea power and the seizure of Germany's outlying colonies. So far as internal Europe is concerned, it is a war between Russia and Germany. True, Germany has her militarism, but she has also her culture, her re- finement and her justice. Russia has only militarism, in an exaggerated and brutal form. She can offer not one redeeming trait of government or policy. Of the two the Jew will know which to choose. The appeal of Mr. Zangwill asks the Jews of America to forget too much. It asks them also to believe too much. They have no fight with England, but they will not help Eng- land to help Russia. When Mr. Zang- will can guarantee that equal rights will be accorded to the Jews in Rus- sia, they will listen to him. When he can secure the guarantee of Sir Ed- ward Grey to the same effect, they will listen to him. When he can offer the guarantee of anyone but a Romanoff, they will listen to him. But not before. HOPE FOR RUSSIAN JEWS. Editorial from "The Cliicago Trib- une," September 14, 1914. The cradle of race hatred in Rus- sia is the army. It Is the army ofll- eers as a class that foster the perse- cution of the Jews. It is almost a fashion with them to assert them- selves as anti-Semites, to cover up their own petty natures and dark dealings with loud mutterings about Russia's greatness and the need of downing all foreigners, and especially the Jews. It is with considerable interest, therefore, that the Jews of the world will read the news that the Czar has decided to admit members of their race as officers in the Russian army and navy. It was well known in the past that, in spite of the restrictions which government has placed upon Jews as a people, it has recognized the abler among them in an un- official way. Hatred of the Jews, for instance, has not prevented the Czar from calling out a Jewish physi- cian from Berlin to attend his sickly heir, the Czarevitch. It is well known, too, that the editors of some of the most reactionary papers in Russia privately seek the advice of Jewish scholars and students of af- fairs — Russian affairs — just as the Russian government privately turns to Jewish bankers abroad for finan- cial favors. Apparently official Russia is grow- ing tired of this ridiculous policy toward five million of its subjects. Permitting Jews to become army and navy officers is not yet granting all the Jews of Russia political and eco- nomic freedom. But it is a strong move in that direction. Not only Jews, but all fair minded people will hope that Russia will profit from its alliance with England* and France, at least, to the extent of adopting a humanitarian attitude toward a people it has outraged and oppressed for centuries. RUSSIA'S DECLARATION OF liOVE FOR THE JEW AND POLISH. *Does "The Chicago Tribune" in- clude itself among "all fair minded people, who will hope that Russia will profit from its alliance with Eng- land" to the benefit of the outraged and oppressed Jews? "But it is a strong move in that direction," says "The Tribune." We suppose it ar- rives at this conclusion because "the Czar called out a Jewish physician from Berlin to attend his sickly heir, the Czarevitch." It is remarkable what "profound" arguments are brought forward by a vast number of Anglo-American newspapers in thoir efforts to whitewash England's new comrade — Russia, in order to make their readers believe that such com- panionship will have the beneficial in- fluence of forcing Russia to keep her promises to the Jews. We cannot share this present cheerful view of the Anglo-American press which, only shortly before the war, could not find terms hard enough to de- nounce Russia in its attitude towards the Jews. "Apparently official Rus- sia is growing tired of this ridicu- lous policy toward five million of its subjects," says "The Tribune," in trying to find some further proof that the Jews in Russia will from now on be treated somewhat like human be- ings. It strikes us as somewhat pe- culiar that the editorial writer of "The World's Greatest Newspaper" should use the adjective "ridiculous" in referring to a long series of blood- shedding cruelties and outrages, trials of ritual murder and the restriction of the possibilities of making a liv- ing. The reports that are being re- ceived of the treatment the invading Cossacks are giving to the Jews in Galicia should tend to open the eyes of the editorial writer in "The Trib- une," who seems to he but one of many who have been hoodwinked by the Czar's promises to his "beloved" Jews. It should make him realize that if Russia wins the lot of the Jews in Russia will be the same as before, if not worse; in other words, that it will be a repetition as car- tooned in the first and third of the pictures illustrating "The Czar and His Beloved Jews." We also refer our readers to "The Jewish Year Book" and "An Open Letter to Israel Zangwill;" for the latter consult the Index. — The Editor. Translation, Editorial, Illinois Staats- Zeitung, Chicago. The present war brings strange things to maturity and makes strange bed-fellows. England walks arm in arm with Russia, pretending to fight for liberty and right, and the same England calls at the same time upon Eastern Japan against Western civil- ization. Animated by the noble example set by England, Russia entered also the road of humanity and tries to prove how serious and sincere her fight for freedom is. Russia has rendered already the first evidence. The Jews were promised religious freedom and the Polish home rule. Necessity teaches even Russia to pray. Russian self-consciousness, Russian belief in victory stands on lame legs if the almighty Czar thought it advisable to enter into ne- gotiations with the despised Jews and with the fettered Polish to arouse sympathies in them in favor of Rus- sia. The sudden human inclination of Russia, even though it presents itself In the form of a Russian promise only, that Inclination as well as the tears of the London Times, shed the other day, arouse the suspicion that the recent French and Russian vic- tories do not look exactly as the cable dispatches from London, Paris and St. Petersburg would have them look. It is more than suspicious to see Russia make love to the Jew and to the Polish. Great troubles seem to have confounded Russia's mind, which has never been altogether sound. The Czar and his advisers, if clear-minded, would never have as- sumed that a mere promise given to the Jews would extirpate from their souls the memory of the bloody po- groms, the trials of ritual murders, the restriction of the possibilities of making a living. And a clear-minded Czar would not allow himself to think for one moment of the possibility of a mere promise converting the Polish to Rus- sian patriots and induce them to shed their blood for the hangman of their national existence. Since the overthrow of the resur- rection led by Kosciousco and the third and final division of Poland in the year 1791, the Polish, who can- not and never will forget the glori- ous history of their country, nowhere else except in Russia met with the hardest and most brutal persecution. The honeyed bread of the prom- ise of home rule will hardly sweeten the bitter memories. The Polish in Russia will never warm up to the Russian that seized 200 Polish, part of whom were beheaded and part of whom were deported to Siberia thirty years ago. The Polish in Russia will never forget that the Russians confiscated their church goods in 1865 and sub- jected them to the fanatics in St. 130 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES Petersburg. The Polish in Russia will never forget the brutal force which brought about their Russifica- tion. And this Russia has the audacity to talk about the liberation of the Slavs. When had the Slav national- ities in Austria and Hungary to en- dure similar oppressions? When did Austrian or Hungarian authorities confiscate church goods of the adher- ents of the orthodox church? And still the claim is that the oppression of the Slavs in Austria and Hungary was the primary cause of the present war. And England sings the same song and joined Rus- sia to liberate the Slavs — outside of Russia — and glorify the orthodox church. And England calls this a fight for liberty and for civilization! If that word in the lips of England does not mean a simple phrase, if constitutional and democratic Eng- land is actually striving for the lib- eration of others, it should start with the subjects of its Russian ally. It should induce Russia to grant at least Finland and the Baltic prov- inces some liberty of speech and of religion. As long as England does not even try to accomplish that her protesta- tion of trying to further the cause of civilization should be reduced to the value of the Russian promise to the Polish and the Jew. AS WAS EXPECTED. Editorial from the "Milwaukee Free Press," October 3, 1914. Skepticism anent Russia's good faith in promising relief to Jews and Poles appears to have been well jus- tified. The Russian embassy in London informs the press that it knows of no new privileges given to Jews in Russia, and intimations are being made that the promises to the Poles have been "withdrawn," on the ground that some natives of Austria and Prussian Poland have been fight- ing against the czar. Since such an event was inevitable, its assignment as a reason must be regarded as a pitiable pretext — ^proof that the formal promises made to the Poles by Russia were meant to be broken from the first as soon as they had served their purpose. With respect to the Jews, the Rus- sian government does not see fit to manufacture so much as a pretext for its breach of faith. It will be remembered that another of the czar's promises related to the forgiveness of political exiles provid- ed they returned to fight for Russia. This appears to have been a similarly base subterfuge, since we are told that Bourtzen, the revolutionist, who went back to join the colors upon the strength of this assurance, was arrested in Finland and shipped to Siberia. So Kipling's old warning seems still to hold: "Make ye no truce with Adamzad, the bear that walks like a man!" The Brooklyn Eagle in seeking to explain this shocking duplicity of the Russian government says: "We suppose the explanation Is that the powerful state church influ- ence has been exerting itself in Pe- trograd. Politically reactionary, it has no mercy for liberal thinkers on governmental problems. It is against the Jews as Jews; against the Poles as Roman Catholics. Perhaps it is seeking to stultify the czar without the czar's consent. In that case the autocrat's personal strength of char- acter will be subjected, or is being subjected, to a severe test." That is only half the truth. To say that the church "has been ex- erting itself at Petrograd" is to im- ply that it is not always in the saddle, riding hand in glove with the grand- ducal clique. The present czar has been a pawn in the hands of these ruthless reactionaries from the be- ginning of his reign; he was its tool in covering up the Russian prepara- tions for war just as he was when he put his name to promises that were never intended to be kept. His "strength of character" is un- dergoing no severer test today than it has for years past. Whatever that strength amounts to it is as helpless as a babe's before the real rulers of Russia. Until these and their government are overthrown, there can be no hope for the oppressed races, the oppressed masses of the Muscovite realm. ZANGWILL ASKS JEWS IN XJ. S. SUPPORT THE AIjIilES. Reprinted from the "Chicago Amer- ican," September 10, 1914. London, Sept. 10. — Israel Zang- will has sent to the "Standard" an appeal to Jews of neutral countries, especially those in America, to sup- port the allies against Germany. He writes: "Though the most monstrous war in human history was 'made in Ger- many' and although Germany's be- havior in war is as barbarous as her temper in peace, I note with regret that certain sections of Jewry in America and other neutral countries seem to withhold sympathy from Britain and her allies. "In so far as these Jews ar« Ger- man born their feeling for Germany is as intelligent as is mine for Eng- land, but in so far as they are swayed by consideration of the in- terests of Russian Jews, to whom Germany and Austria are offering equal rights, let me tell them that it would be better for the Jewish mi- nority to continue to suffer and that I would far sooner lose my own right as an English citizen than that the great interests of civilization should be submerged by the triumph of Prussian militarism. Explains Black Army. "And in saying this I speak not as a British patriot, but as a world pa- triot, dismayed and disgusted by the inhuman ideal of the Gothic super- man. "I am well aware Germany's press agent paints Germany as the guard- ian of civilization, an angel fighting desperately against hordes of sav- ages imported from Africa and Asia, but if we are using black forces it is for a white purpose. She is using white forces for black purposes. "But it is not even certain the Jews of Russia would continue to suffer once England was relieved from this Teutonic nightmare. I have been privileged to obtain from Sir Edward Grey the assurance that he will neglect no opportunity of en- couraging the emancipation of Rus- sian Jews. Trusts in England. "This marks the turning point in their history, replacing as it does windy Russian rumors by solid polit- ical bases of hope. Nor is this the mere utterance of a politician in a crisis. I am in a position to state that I represent the attitude of all that is best in English thought. "It is with confidence, therefore, that I appeal to American and other 'neutral' Jews not to let the shadow of Russia alienate their sympathies from the indomitable island, which now, as not seldom before, is fight- ing for mankind and which may yet civilize Russia and Germany.'"* *See Dr. Meyer L. Seff's reply to Zangwill, the leading article of this section. — Editor. "MY BELOVED JEWS. From "The American Jew." The Czar of Russia seems to real- ize that his Jewish subjects are, after all, — Men. Now, when the physical strength of the Russian Empire is put to the test, the barriers of relig- ious prejudice and hatred fall, and in the gigantic chess game across the seas counts only the strength of arm, the clearness of vision, the bravery of heart. The Russian Jew is no coward. It takes strength, su- perhuman courage, to endure what has been meted out to our poor breth- ren in Russia. They who faced death a thousand times, death in its most barbarous form, — ^who welcomed the reaper's touch when Russian fiends desecrated their homes and tortured their loved ones, — know how to wage a loyal fight. It will take more than war to liberate the Russian Jew, more than mere words, spoken in the hour of need, to establish our faith in the Czar's promises. THE CZAR'S UKASE. From "The Fatherland," New York, September 30, 1914. Apropos of the Czar's message to the Jews in Russia, the "Censor" in its last issue terms it "about as sar- donic a bit of jesting as has come out of Russia in a long time," writes "The American Jew." "If the prom- ise were meant to be kept," says the editorial, "it would still be a joke in its method of address, for as the world knows the Russian autocracy has always been in the habit of testi- fying its 'love' for the Jews by re- FREEDOM FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE 131 morseless proscriptions, imprisoning them in gliettoes, and once and again promoting a 'pogrom' tliat slaugtit- ered them without discrimination, for no other reason than that they were 'Jews'." Our esteemed contempo- rary cannot, therefore, agree with us when we commend the Russian Jew's loyalty to his country. The Czar's Ulcase is sheer hypocrisy. He does not love the Jew. He does not mean to respect the Jew's rights. And the Jew knows it. Knows that he is the cast-off, despised plaything of Rus- sian brutality — the social underling of Russian autocracy. REVOIiUTIONARy MOVEMENTS IN RUSSIA. A Sofia paper writes that a Bulgari- an wholesale house received a report from its St. Petersburg representa- tive, relative to the increase to the revolutionary movement in Russia. The police of the secret service caused many hundreds of arrests during the last weeks. In St. Petersburg only the arrest of Social Democratic repre- sentatives to the Duma have been pub- lished. Reports have been spread re- garding a plot against the Czar, in which Representatives Jekaterinoslaw and Petronski were entangled. In Lu- pansk wholesale arrests took place. The calling in of the troops does not go on quite smoothly. In some dis- tricts, scarcely half of those liable to military service put in an appearance — the peasants have to be gathered by force. — "Hamburger Fremdenblatt," Hamburg, Germany. The Czar's promises to treat the Jews just as he treats his other sub- jects are calculated to send a shiver of apprehension throughout Israel. — From the "Boston Transcript." Great Britain's and Russia's Part in the World War ENGLISH PERFIDY AND RUSSIAN ATROCITIES. The Vital Issue, New York. Editor's Note: Below we publish one of the most re- markable articles ever printed in an Amer- ican journal. It is very unusual that newspaper reprints have ever appeared in an American newspaper. Usually, the or- dinary newspaper does not publish such telling material as we give below, but it Is only right and fair that the great Ameri- can public should be told. They want to know facts from both sides. Here follows a letter written by one of the best known college professors in Eng- land to "Egypt" of August, 1912. Please remember that the letter was written two years ago and that it has therefore no reference to the present European Crisis. For this reason the manuscript is remark- able and not influenced by sentiments caused by the present European Crisis. Our English correspondent condemns bit- terly the Russian government and its agents. We quote his own words : "Our 'Friends,' as the London 'Times' and its congeners persist in calliing the Russians." Remember that this was written two years ago by an English college professor, and it is true today. The pictures which we reprint herewith are reproductions from actual photographs, and show the most gruesome and abominable deeds of Rus- sian governmental agents. These pictures show Russian methods in their despicable rdle. It is these Russians who precipitated the present European war. Similar meth- ods were employed by them through the Revolution in the Baltic provinces a few years ago. It is these dreadful Russians who have now set out to destroy German Culture, German Ideals and German Thought. The picture is mute evidence of the ac- tual behavior of the Russians, and the ar- ticle describes the sentiments and the atti- tude of a certain British clique. Their envy of Germany was rapacious and their commercial greed insatiable. Russia fvonld never have attacked Germany if before the outbreak of the Tvar E^n^land had not quietly enconragred Russia. Such underhand support is hard to prove, but now we see that this same British clique openly joins hands with despotic Russia to destroy German Cul- ture and German Freedom. The Brit- ish even ask the help of the Yellow Men and transported peaceful Hindus to Europe to help them in their devil- ish plans. What fearful responsibil- ity must fall upon the shoulders of a band of men of such a low and perfidious character. May Heaven punish them!* *I did not have the heart to give you more than the word-picture of these bar- barities : out of charity toward the de- fenders I refuse to show the ghastly pho- tographic reproductions of the incidents described. However, I emphasize the sentence in small black, above, — Editor of War Echoes. By PROFESSOR ROBERT D. GREENE, of Oxford University, England. Sir. — Today's papers are full of reflection on the result of the elec- tion at North-West, Manchester, and while they differ according to their political tenets as to the interpreta- tion of the results, they all notice the significant fact that the success of the Unionist candidate was due less to any remarkable enthusiasm for the principles which he advocated than to a very conspicuous lack of enthusiasm on the part of Liberal voters, some 1,200 of whom appear to have abstained from voting. This lack of enthusiasm is vari- ously ascribed to dislike of the In- surance Bill, or of Home Rule, or of Welsh Disestablishment; but I have not seen it suggested that a pro- found mistrust and dislike of the foreign policy of the present govern- ment had anything to do with It. I think, however, that there is good ground for believing that this is the case. Liberalism, as a power capable of generating enthusiasm, is not a mere name or label, but an idea, or set of ideas, often denounced by its opponents as "sentimentalism," but at least inspired by a deep-seated be- lief in abstract justice and truth; a desire for and belief in moral ad- vance; sympathy for the weak, and hatred of oppression; and a profound conviction that a nation cannot, any more than an individual, ignore righteousness, surround itself with an atmosphere of falsehood, or defy expediency with impunity. Illiberal Foreign Policy. Now I venture to say that seldom, if ever, in the history of this conn- try has a foreign policy been pur- sued at once so illiberal, so immoral, .so contemptible, and so perilous as that pursued by the present Govern- ment. Illiberal, because, contemptuously regardless of the claims to our sym- pathy of small nations "rightly struggling to be free," it has shown itself as ready to go to war for a bad cause ( such as the enslavement of Morocco to France), as it was un- ready to make any effective effort to restrain its new "friend," Russia, from acts of brutal aggression in Persia. Immoral, because it has almost succeeded in muzzling our vaunted free press in all that concerns for- eign affairs, poisoning the very well of truth, and, partly by suppression, partly by suggestion, in so distorting facts that only to such as possess special sources of information on any particular question of foreign policy is it possible to see things as they really are. Contemptible, , because it has destroyed England's reputa- tion for truth, honor, and love of fair play. Perilous, because, in spite of con- stantly increasing expenditure on armaments. Lord Morley has to reply querulously to Lord Curzon's tren- chant criticisms of the insane project of an Indo-Russian railway that we cannot say "No," lest worse things befall us. The net result, then, is that, as the Persians say, we have neither this world nor the next, and that our ex- piring influence in Asia has been con- sistently used since this government came into power on the wrong side, the side of tyranny, reaction, and vandalism. The Situation in Persia. It is of Persia chiefly that I am thinking, and of an unusually odious leading article on Persia in today's "Times" (which, unhappily, too of- ten foreshadows the intentions of the Foreign Office), and of two sets of documents which lie before me: the last White Book, and a dozen of the most frightful photographs it has ever been my misfortune to see. The latter (which it would be well that all Englishmen should see, were they not too horrible for publication) rep- resent the way in which the Russian Government and its agents "Our friends," as the "Times" and its con- geners persist in calling them — understand Christian civilization in the twentieth century, and how they celebrated last New Year's Day in the unhappy city of Tabriz. The one "constructive" feature of their policy is the gallows, from which swing the poor, mortal re- mains of some of the bravest and most enlightened of the Nationalist 132 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES leaders of Tabriz; the other features, which can scarcely be called "con- structive," include the closing of schools and printing presses, the dynamiting of ancient monuments and private houses, and the restora- tion of the worst elements of the old regime. Some of the photographs show the Russians at work in the way familiar to all who have followed their doings in the Caucasus, the Baltic Provinces and elsewhere; others (yet more re- pulsive) show the work of Samad Khan Shuja-ud-Dawla, ardent re- actionary and partisan of the ex- Shah, who followed them into the city he had so long failed to subdue, was recognized by them as de facto governor, and, with their sanction and approval, at once set to work to do such things as they could hardly do; to stab, mutilate, hang head downwards, cut men in two like sheep, and hang the pieces in the shop. All this, appalling as it is, is only what anyone who had read history wonld have ejtpected, but what Bhocks us most is to find the British Consul at Tabriz recommending the recognition of Samad Khan as Gov- ernor of the town, thinking that he "will not be a bad Governor," and telegraphing to the British Minister at Teheran that it was "in every way desirable to recognize him as Gov- ernor-General, as he was popular ( ! ) and possessed influence among no- mads." I wish the photographs before me could have been reproduced as illus- trations to the White Book, so that all its readers might at once have seen (what the text omits to men- tion) the methods by which Samad Kahn Shuja-ud-WawIa commended himself to the then British Consul at Tabriz as "not a bad Governor," and obtained "popularity" and "Influ- ence"! I must not, however, pursue this topic further; but I enclose herewtlh some of the photographs to which I have referred, In order to convince you. Sir, that I do not speak too strongly, and, though I count myself a Liberal In the sense In which the word was used formerly, and though I have no assurance that a Unionist Foreign Minister would or could re- verse or ameliorate the lamentable foreign policy of Sir Edward Grey and his lieutenants, 1 think I would do what I could to put the matter to the test In the certain assurance that things could hardly be worse than they are now. How I should vote Is a matter of very little con- sequence, but I have reason to think that a very large number of Liberals are In the same position, and that a deep disgust of the present Govern- ment's foreign policy played, perhaps, a not Inconsiderable part In the Man- chester election, and is likely to play a still greater part in future elec- tions. _ ROBERT D. GREENE. Oxford, England, August 9, 1912. The above letter was written by an Englishman of International repu- tation, a historian and a student of politics. The letter gives proof of much knowledge. We have an absolute legal and moral right to publish it; in fact, the letter was printed and circulated within a small but select circle two years ago. But whether the profes- sor would like to see his name print- ed with his scorching letters at the present time is a question. Though not at fault, the British government (the humane and honorable mem- bers* who are his friends, have since resigned from the British Cabinet) might apply some drastic Russian punishment to the professor, so strong is his condemnation of the sneaking and Intriguing policy of Edward Grey. For this reason, and because of friendly and personal feel- ings toward the professor as an in- dividual, we have substituted another name, and we hope he will approve of our course. The bad policies and the mean methods of Grey are well under- stood and severely condemned by a large part of the English public. It is openly stated that never before had the Morale In high English cir- cles such a low standard. It has been hypocrisy. Intrigue and under- handed work throughout for years past. Any man who will look at a photograph of Mr. Grey (Sir Ed- ward) will see these words-f- * * * In this vein many British papers have written. But will any of our readers point out a single American news- paper in which Professor Greene's letter and the above plain statements have appeared? Pew, if any, papers will yoTi name. And yet this letter was published in London, England. Do you not find it rather strange that no (or few) American papers have re- printed such telling material? Boes this not cause you to think? What is the reason? The reason is very plain: American Newspapers receive almost all their foreign news from English correspondents, and with little thought (if any) print what the British give them. •Lord Morley and Hon. John Burns resigned their' portfolios rather than follow Sir Edward Grey in his war upon Germany. — Editor. tAprain out of charity towards the offenders the Editor of War Echoes omits even a portion of the "Word Picture.*' TAKES ISSUE ON RUSSIA. Reprinted by Courtesy of The New Republic, March 13, 1915. I/. N. Harper. Sir: My attention has been called to the article by H. N. Brailsford, "The Slavic Hope," in The New Re- public for January ninth. This arti- cle shows either complete ignorance of or simply failure to grasp most ele- mentary facts of Russian history and politics; it should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. Panslavism and Slavophilism are related but not interchangeable terms. Further, it has always been clear that there is no real tendency toward political unity in the Slav world. Political Panslavism bears the trade-mark "Made in Germany." As one writer says (Levine, Political Science Quarterly, December, 1914): "Political Panslavism is, for the Ger- man, a useful cover for the deeds and misdeeds of economic Pangerman- ism." And whatever Slavophilism may be, Pobedonostev was not a Slavophil, but a simple obscurantist; he himself harked back to earlier Slavophilism, but when he did so he represented a perversion of Slavo- philism. At the present moment a small unrepresentative group is call- ing up the teachings of the Slavophils, attempting to apply this theory to the present situation. To do this they must and do consider Germany and Europe as synonymous. This lack of respect for facts has been called to their attention. A Russian historian (Professor Kisevetter, in the Russkiya Vedomosti for January 21, 1915), writes: "No, we are not fighting Europe, but Germany. Fur- thermore, it is in alliance with Eu- rope that we are fighting Germany, and we can do this only because we too are of Europe." Mr. Brailsford compares the aboli- tion of the government vodka monop- oly to the decree of Peter the Great prohibiting the wearing of beards; he sees here proof of further loss "in liberty by this return to the habit of autocratic legislation." Is the writer ignorant of the movement for temper- ance that has been going on in Russia for many years, of the protests com- ing from conservatives as well as lib- eral and radical circles, against Rus- sia's "drunken budget," to use an ex- pression so current in Russian poli- tics? Does Mr. Brailsford know of the debates on a local option law passed by the Duma and the Imperial Council just a year ago, and of the dismissal of a Minister of Finance on this very issue? And finally, did the writer take the trouble to read the Russian newspapers for the month of August last, the first month of the war? Had he done so, he must have seen how all parties worked to se- cure the permanent closing of the government vodka shops, which had been shut down originally only for the term of mobilization. The attitude taken by all parties and all classes toward the vodka question, and this at a moment when the public was occupied with the many questions relative to the begin- ning of hostilities, testified to the moral awakening of the Russian peo- ple of which so many of her friends are firmly convinced. And the per- manent closing of the vodka shops was a clear victory for the people as against the government policy and the bureaucracy. Mr. Brailsford represents an im- portant group of English thinkers. And it is interesting to note how now, as at other times, the views and state- ments of the English Radical with re- gard to Russian politics coincide most strangely with the views and state- ments of the Russian reactionary. As Russian newspapers are emphasizing, it is these two groups that are now evidencing, in their respective coun- tries, the same "Germanophil" ten- dencies. The "peace party" in Russia at the present moment is the old friend whom we always called the "German party." Their recent in- trigues have been exposed to the light GREAT BRITAIN AND JAPAN 133' and thus rendered ineffective. They are led by Count Witte and Markov 2nd, who have always been the frank opponents of liberty and progress in Russia. By the attitude they take toward Russia, are not the English Radicals playing into the hands of these intriguers? Mr. Brailsford may believe that the Liberals in Rus- sia are over-confident of the victory of their cause. But he should be more careful to collect his facts be- fore he draws his inferences and states his belief. There is another equally valuable article in War Echoes from T7ie New RepuhUe. The French View of German "Kultur." See: New Republic, or "Kultnr," in the Index. — Editor. WHERE OXJB SENTIMENTS SHOULD BE. Editorial from the "Irish Advocate" It is not true to say that Ameri- can sentiment is altogether with England, Prance and Russia in this war with Germany and Austria. There is enough German blood in this country alone to assure a large volume of German sentiment. Irish- American sentiment is more German than English or French, and this is only natural, considering that the Irish and German peoples have got along together in this country for two generations better than any other two nationalities. The daily papers of America, for reasons best known to themselves, have tried to fasten on the Kaiser all blame for bringing the war to a head, and, therefore, according to this theory, American sentiment must of necessity be with the Triple Entente. Deep down in American minds and feelings there Is no such sentiment. As for Irish-Americans they have every reason to feel in common with their German neigh- bors in this conflict. It may be very diplomatic for Mr. Redmond to ex- press the sentiments of England in England's House of Commons, but this declaration does not bind Irish- Americans to pledge their moral sen- timents in England's favor. Anglo- Japanese Machinations and American Safety JAPAN AND THE WAR. This is the sixth article of a series on THE EUROPEAN WAR, lohich ap- peared in the October Number of THE OPEN COURT, under the title "Japan," written iy the Editor, Dr. Paul Cams. Consult the INDEX for the complete series, and, in order to see where, in the various Chapters of the book, the different articles of this treatise may be found, look for EUROPEAN WAR (THE). In this way the reader' may read the entire series of articles in their original order, if he chooses to do so, while the present arrangement still gives him, the advantage of bringing the various articles under their proper, re- spective Chapter-headings of the book. This is a series of exceptionally fine articles on the subject in question, and they bear a unique and important rela- tion to each other. Be sure to read them alto in their- original order. — Editor, "War Echoes." Japan has joined the war. The action of Japan has been re- ceived in the United States with feel- ings of deep distrust. On the one hand it seems an indication that the English cause must be very weak if Japan's help is needed, and on the other hand it seems to open the possibility of drawing the United States into the war. We have sym- pathized with Japan during the Rus- so-Japanese war, but since then the Japanese have shown a strange an- tagonism towards the United States in the Philippines, in Honolulu, in Mexico, and now they manifest an ambition to take possession of Ger- man China as well as of the German islands in the Pacific. Their assur- ance that they do not enter the war for the sake of self-aggrandizement has been officially believed by Presi- dent Wilson and Secretary Bryan, but finds little credence among the peo- ple. Here are some sentences quoted from the "Chicago American" show- ing William Randolph Hearst's re- flections on this subject, views which have found an echo all over the United States: "The intrusion of Japan into the European war is a matter to excite the especial interest and attention of the American public. Japan has no quarrel whatever with Germany or Austria, no reason, so far as surface indications are concerned, for in- jecting herself into the European situation. What, then, was the secret or subterranean reason for Japan's action? "Great Britain has often assured the government and the people of the United States that no such intimate alliance with Japan existed, but the plain facts and Japan's frank ac- knowledgment are incontrovertible. The action of Japan is wholly in- explicable upon any other assump- tion. "Never before in the history of the country has the far-seeing wisdom of George Washington in enjoining our government to keep free from entangling alliances with foreign powers been more apparent. "But if, in order to keep free from conflicts like that now raging in Europe, we must not enter into any alliance with any other nation, then must we all the more depend on our own resources and have resources sufficient to depend upon. "But we should have a great navy. "Furthermore, we should have a Panama Canal owned by the United States, controlled by the United States, fortifled by the United States and in time of war at the service of the United States alone. "If the people of our nation im- agine that the reason we are not involved in this war is because of any special diplomatic inspiration of our government, or because of any impregnable situation of our coun- try, they are as absurd in their as- sumption as the ostrich, who thinks if he hides his head in the sand he will not be hit by the hunter. "We always are and always will be anxious to avoid war, but in the light of recent events it is evident that no country can tell when it will be compelled to defend itself. A great navy is our best protection and all far-seeing citizens of the United States hope that the party now in power at Washington will end its foolish and dangerous "no navy" pol- icy and proceed promptly to give our country the protection it needs and demands." The attitude of Japan and her pro- cedure against Germany is a warn- ing. Might we not over night have a war on hand on account of the secret treaties between Japan, Eng- land, and Russia, in which Mexico and the South American republics would join just for the fun? Japan. And here is Mr. Jourdain's reply to the Editor's discussion of this subject.^- Bditor of War Echoes. The action of Japan has been so cor- rect that no reasonable American paper shows a trace of Mr. Randolph William Hearst's notorious scare on this sub- ject^ in the "Chicago American." The conclusion is so grotesque that it needs no comment or refutation. "The atti- tude of Japan and her procedure against Germany is a warning. Might we (i. e., America) not overnight have a war on hand on account of the secret treaties between Japan, England and Russia in which Mexico and the South American republics would join just for the fun?" 2 "Ibid.," pp. 61S-619. By consulting the Index the reader can find the connection of the Foot Notes. To describe the possible align- ment in any such a future difficulty as "crotesque" is not refuting its possi- bility. Mr. Jourdain; don't you think that plenty of men and women would have described the present European alignment as "crotesque" only ten years ago? — Editor War Echoes. JAPAN AND KIAUTSCHAU. Translation of Editorial Which Ap- peared in German in the "Illi- nois Staats-Zeitung," Chicago. When Japan addressed its note of extortion to Berlin and turned up as the eighth foe of Germany, we knew that the black-white-red colors flying at Tsingtau were doomed to descend. The small band at this forlorn Ger- man outpost could not hope that its heroic resistance would save the colony for Germany: but it defended the honor of German arms to the last and threw away their lives for the ethical and moral treasures which the white race must protect against the covetousness of the yel- low people, but which England be- trayed for the sake of a shopkeepers' profit of five thousand men probably a few hundred had gathered within the walls of the Tsingtau forts at the call of the Kaiser. Three divi- sions of full strength crossed the sea 134 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES to take possession of this defiant burg. Althougli only a small force, the spirit that prevailed among the defenders of Kiautschau from the governor down to the rawest recruit, more than made up for the disparity In numbers. "We will fulfil our duty to the last," Meyer-Waldeck wired to Berlin when informed of the Japanese ultimatum and the Ger- man heroes in the far east stuck to their post until buried under the ruins of walls and ramparts. The defense of Kiautschau will be mentioned first among the glorious German and Austrian feats of arms. Fortresses, which were considered impregnable, owing to their great steel sides and immense concrete walls and that were defended by tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands fell after as many days as it took weeks to capture Kiautschau. We are pained that the inevitable regarding the fortress has come to pass; but we are consoled by the thought that owing to the dispro- portion in the strength of the oppos- ing forces — ten against one — it can- not be said that the Japs covered themselves with glory. As already stated, the honor of the German arms was preserved at Tsingtau. The harbor of Kiautschau would have furnished a fine base of operations against a British squad- ron in Asiatic seas and this it had been intended for. For that reason this territory was not in charge of a civil governor as is the case in all German colonies, but a naval oflScer in active service. The British-Jap alliance was badly disappointed in its hope of destroying the German- Chinese squadron when it took Kiautschau, for the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst, after making wrecks of two British cruisers prior to Japan's participatioil in the war had reached the high seas and shown, that with- out having a base of operations, they could become a terror to the enemy. At all events the only result of the fall of Kiautschau to be deplored is, that the squadron heretofore blockading the harbor can now be used in operations against German cruisers. The tremendous losses suffered by the Japs in their struggle with the heroic band of German defenders makes Kiautschau a very costly ac- quisition: nevertheless their title will only be a temporary one: the fate of the German colonies will be de- cided on the battlefields of Europe, no matter what the outcome of the struggle on their own soil may be. If, at the conclusion of the war, ne- gotiations regarding Kiautschau will be carried on with China, the second party will not be Japan, but Ger- many. Defeated England may then be given the task of regaining the German possessions in the Yellow and South seas from her Japanese ally, which she had incited. Honor the heroic sons of Germany, who in the far east fought for the glory of their country: their loss will be charged to England's account and Germany's mailed fist will rest heav- ily on the island kingdom until all accounts, among which will be Kiaut- schau, have been settled without a , remainder. THE CRYSXAIililZATION OF THE ANGLO-JAPANESE ALLIANCE. New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, New York. Herman Ridder. A tragedy that will live as long as heroism is remembered is being staged today in a small outpost of western civilization on the coast of China. The spectacle of the 4,000 Germans in Tsingtao defying the Japanese nation is not one to be lightly regarded. There is more to it than the mere fact of a gallant defense — more to it than the fact that since Leonidas tried to hold Thermopylae against the East of his day, no greater example of deter- mined gallantry and patriotism has been given to the world. There is a deeper meaning in the defence of Kiaochow, significant to all the West and peculiarly significant to Amer- ica. It marks the beginning of the end of the West in the Bast. The pretext which Japan advanced to cover her intrusion into the war AMERICA AND JAPAN. An American who has recently re- turned from Japan after a prolonged residence in that country states that in military, naval and official circles there is no longer any attempt to dis- guise the feeling that an approaching conflict with the United States is in- evitable. In the event of a defeat of Germany in the present war it is be- lieved in the Mikado's empire that England will fulfil her obligations as ally, and come to her aid against Uncle Sam. In view of the ready re- sponse on the part of Japan to Eng- land's demand upon her to attack Tsingtao, the Tokio government seems assured that it can rely upon Eng- land's fleet a-'d army in the event of war with tb United States. The AmeiiCan declared that Japan has been carefully preparing for a long time for such a contingency. He said that every Japanese subject in Amer- ica has an alloted task assigned to him by the secret service and that every Japanese in America is in reality a governmental spy. The bridges, tun- nels, and railroad connections will be immediately destroyed by these Jap- anese, before Uncle Sam has time to collect his faculties, in order to pre- vent the transfer of troops and war material from the East to West. The American military authorities are sadly negligent in guarding against such unexpected possibilities and be- fore proper precautions are taken, there is no doubt that the gravest damage could be done to the lines of communication. It cannot be too strongly urged on the American War Department to exercise control over all Japanese in the United States, that specific and definite instruction be given to all po- lice authorities to keep watch over and report their movements and imme- diately confine them, if the situation became critical. — The "Continental Times," Berlin. was as transparent and as easily dis- posed of as was England's. The ex- cuse advanced for her by her apolo- gists that she harbors a feeling of enemity toward Germany on account of the latter's protest against the occupation of southern Fengtien by Japan in 1895, is true but not com- prehensive. For France and Russia, who are now Japan's allies against Germany, were joined in this pro- test and Russia, who subsequently inherited the leasehold of Port Ar- thur, was its instigator. Japan threw in her lot with the Allies on account of her enmity for Germany; but the roots of that enmity were fed in far deeper soil than that of the Liao- tung Peninsula. A few years ago a great deal more was heard of the "Yellow Peril" than we hear today. Our interests in the Pacific have brought us into fighting distance of Japan and the phrase has consequently been forced, in this country at least, into the class of taboo. We scarcely longer dare discuss the internal administration of the Philippines for fear that we may give the jingoes of Tokyo cause for agitation. But not so Germany. The Asiatic "peril" was first enunciated by her thinkers and she has never ceased to realize and discuss its im- port. With perhaps no greater ap- preciation of its dangers than we have had, but certainly with a greater de- gree of fearlessness in discussion, she has never lost an opportunity to point out the significance and mean- ing of the coming struggle between the Occident and the Orient. Japan could not fail to remark this. And it is just this which underlies the in- tense and lasting hostility of Japan to Germany. The aspirations of Japan to the pre-eminent position in Asia and in the Pacific are well known. Her lead- ing men have taken but small pains to conceal them. In times of ex- citement they are a theme for her demagogues from Tokyo to Nagasaki. One nation, especially, stands in the way of their realization — the United States, whose shores, like those of Japan, are washed by the Pacific, and another nation, Germany, has stood by ever ready to assist the United States in the defense of its claims. On all the Continent of Europe Ger- many alone has stood out clearly and irrevocably for the West as against the East. England has long been an ally of Japan and today Prance and Russia are fighting under the same standard. On the other hand, Ger- many has never once retreated from her position as champion of the civ- ilization of Europe and America. When it came to a choice between two evils she chose in 1904 the lesser and supported Russia against Japan. For all this Japan cannot and will not forgive her. But it is not so much the Germany of Europe, which can never hope for predominency in the Pacific, that ran- cors Japan, but Germany the silent ally of the United States. Until the advent of the present war the efficacy of the Anglo-Japanese alliance in case of war between ourselves and Japan admitted of a certain amount of doubt. Japan may still think that SERBIA'S CAUSE AND CONDUCT IN THE WAR 135 this condition continues to exist, though England's conduct has re- moved any such impression from the minds of the American people. In any event, her logic ran, the hour had struck for putting Germany out of the class of dangerous enemies. When she had been disposed of the one and only ally to whom the United States could look would no longer exist. To deal then with the United States would be a much sim- pler task. When, further, she ar- gued, by warring on Germany she could put herself in possession of points in the Pacific particularly helpful in the coming conflict, the case of Japan was complete. The possession of Kiaochow can- not be regarded as other than a sec- ondary consideration with Japan. With half of Manchuria to develop in, she does not need it. The great things for which Japan is fighting are the destruction of Germany, the crystallization of the Anglo-Japanese alliance and the occupation ot terri- tories in the Pacific strategically im- portant in the struggle which she knows is doomed to come with this country. All three of these motives bear directly on that struggle.* It is for this reason that the Amer- ican people should not forget the significance of the fight that is be- ing put up by the handful of Ger- mans in Tsingtao. It is impossible that this fight can go on much long- er. The odds are too frightfully great. It will probably end in slaughter — and when it ends there will be great rejoicing in Japan. The last stronghold of Germany in the East will be in the hands of the enemy and the first and last ally of the United States in the Pacific will have been humbled. The victory it- self will not have been great in ma- terial things but it will symbolize the racial aspirations of the Japanese. The twenty-four centuries which divide the Spartan defence of Ther- mopylae against Xerxes and the hordes of Persia, from the battle to hold Tsingtao against the East, re- veal nothing so significant in the con- flict of races. *J. I. F. C. Have you any reason to state that the Japanese desire more than the recovery of Kiaochow to return it to China? Has she ever given reason to believe that she is working only for the peace of the Far East? It is the opinion of those who know the Far East tolerably well that Ja- pan will never return Kiaochow to China. As to your further question I quote from the Nokington of Tok- yo of 1905, while the war with Rus- sia was still on, as follows: "There is something utterly ridic- ulous in the idea which our diplo- mats made the European powers be- lieve in, that we are only fighting to insure peace in the East. They will soon know better when their turn to take the medicine we are now giving to Russia comes. "Unless we had something of im- portance to gain for ourselves why should we have undertaken this war which has cost us so much valiant blood and so much treasure? We have a purpose and will keep that before our eyes until it is accom- plished; that is when the foreigners have been shown the way back to the countries from which they came to swoop down like vultures on what they thought was a dead body. They probably see that they have made a mistake now for even if China is dead and unable to defend herself, Japan is very much alive. "We will never allow the Far East- ern question to be settled by the Europeans and Americans, who have invaded this part of the world with- out a shadow of right, and who will always be aliens to us. The Far Eastern question must be settled by an empire which has risen in the Far East — Japan. The peace of the Ori- ental Far East requires that by a union of all Orientals in the Far East, under the transforming influ- ence of Japan, a great empire be formed on the Far Eastern shores of the Asiatic continent."- — From the "Questions and Answers" column in the "New Yorker Staats-Zeitung," October 28, 1914. — Editor. Serbia's Cause, Position and Her Part in the World War SERVIA'S DREAM OF EXPANSION. The Literary Digest, New York. The tragedy of Serajevo has not only acted like an earthquake whose shock has passed through Europe and the world, but, like an earthquake, it has laid bare things below the surface of which the world did not dream, and threatens to end in international catas- trophe. It has not yet been shown that the death of Prince Francis Ferdinand is to be attributed definitely to any poli- tical party at Belgrade, but Servia's re- ply to Austria's ultimatum did not deny the possibility that Servian ofiicers may have been involved in the intrigues against Austria. The deadlock that brought on the war lay in Servia's re- fusal to let Austrian oflicials have a hand in finding and punishing the guilty. And the Berlin Vossische Zei- tung, in a long article, traces the trag- edy to certain "revolutionary anarch- ists" who claimed to be patriots because they were striving to bring under the direct control of Belgrade the very out- lying Slav provinces which Francis Ferdinand was laboring to unite under the crown of Austria-Hungary. Servia's culpability is thus indicated: "The bloody crime of Serajevo was only one link in the long train of assas- sination and horror by which the revo- lutionary propagandists in Belgrade were working to promote the oflScial policy of Servia. As early as the coro- nation of King Peter the Servian Minis- ter of Foreign Affairs published the Peter I. King of Servia. following- program of the movement: Servia was to form an alliance with Montenegro and to enter into some agreement with Bulgaria regarding Macedonia. Belgrade was to give sup- port to the Servian-Croatian opposition party in Croatia. Servia Was to be emancipated from the trammels of trade with Austria. A revolution was to be stirred up in Bosnia, and the Aus- trian authorities there were to be dis- credited; the Adriatic question was to be settled with Italy, and a traveling committee was to be formed for the carrying out of these projects, as it was impossible for Servia to act oflicially in the matter." This writer goes on to say that the program was directed to the end of uniting all the Slav inhabitants of the South Slavic countries. It was ap- proved by King Peter in 1906, and his Minister of the Interior, Stojan Pro- titseh, spoke of it as "a torpedo which Servia is now in the act of hurling for the purpose of blowing up the Austro- Hungarian monarchy and the whole Triple Alliance." This history of Servian intrigues, brought up to date, describes the methods by which the revolutionary propaganda was spread in the schools of the various Slavic pop- ulations : "Since 1909, there has existed out- side the governmental circles of Bel- grade a band of revolutionary na- tionalists whose members were close- ly connected with the South Slavic youths of Austria-Hungary, so that in 1910 the nationalistic anarchistic propaganda reached a crisis and se- cret societies were formed in the grammar schools, the preparatory and other schools. The center of the move- ment, as hitherto, still remained in Belgrade. Measures were taken that the yoimg men from the South Slavic countries of the monarchy in ever-in- 136 THE ENTENTE AND OTHER ALLIES creasing numbers should flock to Bel- grade. These youths were received with open arms, and on the recom- mendation of certain politicians were permitted to domicile there as trust- worthy. They were employed at a wage of from ten to fourteen dollars a month on light clerical work for the office of the Skupshtina, which only required of them from two to three hours' work daily. From these lads, on their return home, were recruited the agitators of the Greater Servia prop- aganda. Among them mingled degener- ates who adopted the ideal of Servian expansion as the last anchor of deliver- ance for their almost shipwrecked lives. From people of this type sprang the man of violence, Savro Princip, the murderer of the heir to the crown, Grand Duke Francis Ferdinand. He was just such a beggar student. In the Belgrade free coffee-stands, where a meal for five cents goes with the coffee, some dozens of these fellows were lounging ready at any time to commit violence, indulging their morbid vanity in order to be feted as national heroes." The hatred of Servia for Austria- Hungary and the exultation felt over the fate of the Heir Apparent are re- flected in the utterances of the Bel- grade press. The Pravada is a lib- eral and progressive organ and remarks sarcastically : "The public mourning for Archduke Francis Ferdinand made small excite- ment in Austria-Hungary. The only genuine tears shed for the Heir Appar- ent were those of his children. All others were crocodile tears." Austria has more than twenty million Slavs in her population ; inevitably they will, early or late, side with their compatriots. One of the English jour- nals said yesterday, 'Whoever in East- ern Europe lifts his head against Russia or the Slavs will in due time share the fate of the Austrian Crown Prince. So it would have been with Prince Alex- ander of Bulgaria if he had not abdi- cated. The Bulgarian leader Stam- bouloff was killed because he was an enemy of Russia. Had not Russia a finger in the assassination of King Alexander of Servia? Had not the taking off of Austria's Crown Prince the same cause?' This finding the end of the cord that forced these assas- sinations in Russia is correct, we know, but while the Crown Prince was polit- ically opposed to Russia, he was friendly to the Slavs ; and was not the Princess, so ruthlessly murdered, her- self a Slav? "National rivalries were in evidence in the last century in every part of Europe, but those principal nations, the Germans and Italians, for example, ob- served reasonable limits in their am- bitions. The Slavs are of an earlier race and have not been able to shake off the barbarities of their origin, bloodthirsty still even in their most sacred aspirations. Here is, in our opinion, Europe's most troublesome problem in the Balkans. The Balkan regions (Belgrade) had formerly among its chief con- tributors the noted anarchist Cioe- varics, who contributes an article on the assassination, in which he re- marks: "It is not the Heir Apparent as an individual that ought to be mourned over, but only his worth to the country, which was practically nil." In Germany the Servian threats and muttered complaints against Austria- Hungary were considered to be mere "sound and fury signifying nothing." The Lokal Anzeiger (Berlin), which is considered to echo the opinions of the military authorities and the court, said, in an article on "Europe's soli- darity against the great Servian agita- tion," that "Austria-Hungary will take no steps against Servia," an idea which subseqtuent events have belied. A fur- ther quotation is interesting as show- ing how unexpected the Austrian thunderclap was to even this well-in- formed court organ : "This self-restrained attitude of the Danube monarchy is more intelligible when we consider that no decided re- sult of the inquiry into the responsibil- ity for the Serajevo assassination has yet been arrived at. . . . But we believe that we are not mistaken when we declare that to men in other states where moral order reigns this attitude of the Danube monarchy is incon- trovertlbly correct." THE "TRIPLE" ALLIANCE GERMANY, AUSTRIA, AND OTHER ALLIES Germany, Austria, Italy; Turkey DEFENDING THE FATHERLAND The Underlying Causes of the Great War; The Part Germany Had In Its Advent INTRODUCTION AN ADDRESS BY REV. ALFRED E. MEYER DEFENDING THE FATHERLAND. Mass Meeting of German- Americans. Auditorium, Chicago. Address by Rev. Alfred E. Meyer. (Translation from the German, published by the "Abendpost," Chi- cago, in its issue of August 12, 1914.) The die is cast. The dark war clouds that have gathered over Europe for years have burst. The tempest, dreadful, devastating, mur- derous, has broken out. In the bolt- hole of the Balkans it arose, hurling its first flash jvhen the bullet of the conspirator hit Austria's heir to the throne. From the black Ural Moun- tains" it reverberated dismally, awak- ing shrieking echoes, like fiendish laughter, in the distant Vosges and over the English Channel. And in the path of the storm the peaceful realms of our dear old Fatherland! We stand shocked, frightened, hor- rified, aghast! For a tornado it threatens to become, such as the ■world has never seen before. And in its path our dear old Fatherland! War, w,ar! Horrible word! Terror of man! Uttermost abomination! And such a war, in the heart of civ- ilization, with the murderous wea- pons of modern times! Have mercy upon us, O Lord God! And in the midst of that war, in the battle to- wards East and West and North our beloved Fatherland! Was it not possible otherwise? Did it have to come? Could not the strong man in the heart of Europe avert the world-calamity, William II., the strong pillar of peace? Ask, good friend, for an answer the Anglo-Saxon press of our country and the larger part of it replies with a loud, embittered Yea! It was in his power to avoid the war, but he did not want to. It is he who with mailed fist extinguishes the light of civilization, who alone has the re- sponsibility for the greatest dis- aster that ever befell Europe. Did he not declare war to Russia? Did he not have his army invade peaceful France?- He it is and Germany who are accountable for the dreadful European conflagration. Terrible accusation! If it be well founded, what a guilt! What pros- pects for Germany before the al- mighty, righteous God, "who dis- penses a strict and rigid judgment?" But What About That Accusation? We German-American citizens do not believe it. We know that it is unjust and unfair in the highest de- gree. Therefore we protest. There- fore we demand that the other side, too, be heard and discussed in the Anglo-American press. We demand no favors, no privileges, only justice, fairness and truth, no more. But that much we German-Americans as a strong and Integral part of the American nation, have a right to ex- pect, a right, by the rivers of German blood shed for this country in the battles for its independence, from England and for the preservation of the Union; a right by the German labor and toil without which America would never have been what it is to- day; a right by the German culture and -mental accomplishments which we and hosts of other Americans have gathered in Germany and brought to the land of our choice; a right by all the laws of justice to- wards a nation which has always lived in peace with the United States, whose independence, among all rulers of Europe, a Hohenzollern first recognized, Frederick the Great of Prussia; a right by the sacred- ness of truth which to serve, espe- cially in crises like the present, is an imperative duty of those who would be leaders of public opinion. We know that Germany did not want war, that it declared it because it was compelled to do so; that it does not bear the responsibility for^ the European conflagration. We have good reasons to believe the German "White Book," which shows clearly that the declaration of war was an act of defense, an act neces- sary to preserve the existence of a people whose destruction for a long time had been decided in the coun- cils of jealous and envious peoples. We believe the "White Book," be-' cause we know from history that German oflicial declarations may be trusted, which of some other nations' official publications and bulletins cannot always be said. But we have other reasons besides the "White Book." Should a people which alone of all the leading nations of Europe has preserved peace for over forty years and has become what It Is by its marvelous works of peace, throw it away by sheer eagerness for war which It has never known? For centuries the despised battlefield of Europe, without natural protection at its frontiers, spurned, assaulted and sat upon by ruthless enemies on all sides until it was welded together in the /'blood and iron" of a great time, its very national hymn a true mirror of its soul, a song not of aggression, but defense, not vainglo- rious challenge, hut watchful love of home and Fatherland, The Watch o'er the Rhine. The present war, too, is a war of defense; more than that — a war for Germany's existence! Whosoever knows the A. B. C. of the premises of the present war cannot deny that. What are the premises? Not a sud- den eruption of passions, not an un- expected clash of interests, but a political situation that had taken ever more the form of a plot to de- stroy Germany, resting on three fac- tors which we may well call the A B C of the present situation! A, The Implacable hatred of France; B, The insatiable greed of expansion of Russia with the ideal of Panslavism; C, The spiteful jealousy of England. France's Hatred About the A we do not need to say much, for every schoolboy with Ger- man blood in his veins knows France's slogan and bloody cynosure since 1S70; Revenge! Revenge on Germany because it had dealt a se- vere blow to the vanity of "La grande nation;" revenge, because she had taken back Alsace-Lorraine which France had stolen from Ger- many some centuries ago. Therefore 138 THE ALLIANCE AND THEIR ALLIES THE DUCHESS OF BRUNSWICK, THE KAISER'S ONLY DAUGHTER (To the Reader's Left) THE GERMAN CROWN PRINCESS (To the Right) Wearing the Uniforms of their respective Regiments (By Courtesy of the "Open Court") the feverish exertion of a nation which has condemned Itself to slow extinction by race suicide. Therefore the unbearable revolutionary activ- ity in the German frontier provinces. Therefore the introduction, as a last measure of war preparation, of the three year military service which meant to all who had open eyes im- minent war. For that burden France for physical as well as political rea- son could not bear long. The B of the political situation lead- ing to the war is Russia's insatiable greed for expansion with the strong ad- mixture of Panslavism as a political ideal. Not content with its immense European and Asiatic possessions whose inner administration has not yet over- come the conditions of semi-barbarism it has always sought expansion on the way of least resistance. A friend of Germany at Bismarck's time with whom it bad a temporary protective agreement, it changed its position when that agreement was suspended by the successor of the great chancellor. French gold and flattery brought about the alliance with France which strengthened immensely the latter's hope for revenge. But it was no help to Russia in the Par East, for England, then Russia's enemy, with characteris- tic political shrewdness, bad made Ja- pan its police officer to lick Russia without any harm to John Bull. Weak- ened and reconciled by some concessions in Persia, Russia was drawn into the Triple Entente which on France's and England's side was mainly directed against Germany while Russia looked for compensation in Turkey or the Balkans respectively, thereby becom- ing a constant menace to Austria whose very existence it threatened by its pan- slavistic agitation. But right there on the Balkans one mistake showed which Edward VII, in his "encircling policy" had made. The physic which he had Japan administer to Russia had been a little too strong for the welfare of the Triple Entente, and when. Aus- tria, to prevent further panslavistic agitation laid her hands on Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Germany, faith- ful to her ally, stood by her, Russia felt too weak to strike the desired blow. Growling she retired with hate in her heart against Germany never known before in that intensity and preparing for war against her with such energy and insistance that the law had to be passed in the old fath- erland augmenting the standing army to be prepared for any emergency. England's Jealonsy The third factor which led to the present war is England's spiteful jeal- ousy of Germany which found its prin- cipal political expression in the policy of Edward VII, whose evil seeds have now borne fruit. It is a well known fact that the cause of this jealousy is the unparalleled development of German commerce and the German navy. England, the proud mistress of the seas, the first commercial power of the world, was rapidly caught up with in what, in characteristic British impudence, it considered its personal privilege, and that by a power to whom yet in 1861 Lord Palmerstone had com- municated by his press that the Ger- man might be good enough at plowing hi^ field, sailing with the clouds and building air castles, but not at sailing in Zeppelins. But never had he had the genius of navigating the oceans or even the smaller seas. Some statistics: From a commer- cial power which, as an absolutely negligible quantity to England, already in 1892 Germany had risen to a com- mercial position where the volume of its trade, both exports and imports, exceeded half of the British: Eight billion marks against England's fifteen billions. In 1900 it was eleven billion against England's eighteen and in 1907 seventeen billions against England's twenty-three and a half. Looking back- ward statistics show that for every two steps that England took forward in Its commerce Germany took three, so that with the past relative growth, without an interruption like the pres- ent war, within about fifteen years England's volume of trade would have been reached by Germany. A large commercial fleet like Ger- many's scattered all over the world, needs for its protection a navy, and the German navy could have been more than two-thirds as strong as 'fifngland's without being disproportioned to the commerce it had to protect, at least if it took England's proportion for an example. It was therefore mere hyp- ocrisy when England said of the Ger- man navy which was and is so much smaller numerically than England's, that it constituted a menace to Eng- land. If compelled to fight, however, as it is now, it may prove more formid- able than England expects. The real thoughts of England, not only regarding the German navy but also German trade were revealed by such voices as that famous article of the "Saturday Review" of September, 1897, which clearly brought out the idea that England could only prosper if Germany were destroyed. England, it said in this article must meet the severest competition of Germany in every corner of the globe. A million of small frictions are making for the greatest war which the world has ever seen. If Germany would be de- stroyed to-morrow there would be no Englishman in the world who would not be so much richer for it the day after to-morrow. Can there be a more selfish, ruth- less, brutal incitation of war than in these words? Further the article says : The growth . of the German navy will only add to the severity of the blow which will be struck at Germany. Her ships would soon be at the bottom of the sea or be captured. When England's work were done she could without difficulty say to France and Russia : Get your com- pensations. Take of Germany what you want, you may have it. "(ierman- iam esse delendam." "Germany must be destroyed!" so this article is con- cluded. In the same sense, only that his words were still weightier because he was an active member of the govern- ment, spoke Arthur Lee, civil Lord of the Admirality in a public address on February 3rd, 1905. The balance of naval power, he stated, had changed within recent years. England would in the future have to direct its at- tention to the North Sea. If a war should break out the English navy could strike the first blow before the other party would find time to read In the papers that war had been declared. Referring to this speech the "Daily Chronicle," one of the widest circu- lated and most influential papers of England said: "If the German navy had been destroyed in October, 1904, DEFENDING THE FATHERLAND 139 (referring to the Incident with the Russian navy), we would have had peace in Europe for sixty years. Therefore I consider the declaration of Mr. Lee as a wise and peaceful declaration of the unchangeable de- termination of the mistress of the seas. This, then, was the wise ( ! ) and peaceful ( ! ) unchangeable determi- nation of England: her "Ceterum censeo: Germaniam esse delendam," Germany must be destroyed! This was the aim of the policy of Edward VII, which gave new and strong im- petus to France's and Russia's ag- gressive attitude, won Japan as Eng- land's ally, befriended Spain through a marriage, while Portugal became practically a dependency of England, and tried to sow the seed of discord in Italy, in short, created the condi- tions which at the given moment had to lead to the European conflagra- tion, so coolly and cynically predicted by the "Saturday Review." What flagrant hypocrisy for a people and government that has with evil dili- gence for years planted the mines with which to destroy a neighboring nation, and has repeatedly and open- ly declared this intention in brutal words, to pose, when the fuse burns, as a lover of peace! Albion, we know thy bloody, faithless, cruel history! Be Fair Friends, does that look as if that part of the press were right which so emphatically says: The blame for the war is Germany's? If a peo- ple knows that its destruction is in- tended and planned, that its very existence is at stake, has it a right to draw the sword in self-defense, or should it wait until the others bad gotten ready to strangle it? Therefore we as German-American citizens ask with just Indignation those of the Anglo-Saxon press who judge and condemn Germany without thinking of giving it a fair trial: Why do you forget that justice and fair- ness which is such a great trait of the American character, when Ger- many is concerned? Why those in- sulting cartoons, those misleading headlines, those inimical editorials of your press? Give us justice, give us equity, be fair! "Germania Delenda" Germany, our dear old Fatherland, with its ally fighting against tre- mendous odds, fighting for its very existence! What can we German- American citizens do for her? This is our first duty: Try to heal the wounds which the terrible war is striking at this very minute, heal, relieve, assuage under the sign of the Red Cross. A special appeal to you for this purpose will be made. Fol- low it. You who wear on your breast the "iron cross" of Germany's great- est time, you who look up to the cross as the sign and symbol of your faith and love, you all on whom presses the blood-red cross of a world's dire distress. And Thou, Germany, with the ally Austria marching in the same step, battling for thy existence, for thy all — land of our fathers, land of our brothers — God with Thee! The German Government and the German People THE GERMAN POSITION. Dr. Dumberg's Statement. New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, New York. Herman Ridder. I reprint below the statement of Dr. Bernhard Dernburg in connection with the charge which has been made so frequently in American papers of late, that the German Emperor alone was responsible for the declaration of war against Russia and that the Ger- man people had no voice in the mat- ter. This statement first appeared in the New York "Sun" and was later copied by the New York "Times" and by the latter made the subject of editorial comment. The "Times" leader is also reprinted. DR. DERNBURG' S STATEMENT. When I arrived in New York a fort- night ago, I was greatly surprised on reading in the papers big headlines such as "The Kaiser's War," "The Kaiser's Army," "The Kaiser Beaten," etc. I thought at first that this was only a sort of abbreviation and that the "Kais- er's" name stood as a symbol for the whole of Germany in this war forced upon our nation. I soon had to see, however, that something quite different was meant and that a large portion of the American people were of the opin- ion that the Emperor was more or less responsible for the breaking out of the war, and that the German people, whom they all knew to be good and peaceable, had been dragged into it in consequence of autocratic institutions peculiar to Germany, and as a sequel to militarism rampant in Germany. I consider it, therefore, of interest to explain here the constitutional basis on which our institutions rest. The Ger- man Empire is a Union composed of all the States which formerly belonged to the German Federation, with the ex- ception of Austria-Hungary. The Eleventh Article of the German Consti- tution says : "The Union shall be pre- sided over by the King of Prussia, whose title is to be 'Deutscher Kaiser.' " There is a great similarity with the Constitution of the United States, which is also a Union of a number of independent States, who have given part of their sovereignity in favor of the Union. While the Kaiser repre- sents the empire in its foreign relations, he may not declare war in the name of the empire without the consent of the Bundesrat, representing these single States forming the empire, except when German territory is attacked. In this Bundesrat of fifty-four equal votes the Emperor in his capacity of King of Prussia has only seventeen votes. It follows that the Emperor could not, and, as a matter of fact, has not, de- clared war on his own account, but that he had to have, and in fact, had the consent of his allies, represented by the Federal Council. This consent was unanimous. This is a much greater check than the control placed by the Constitution of the United States on the President, who of all great rulers of the earth concentrates in himself the greatest power. The German Kaiser can no more than the President of the United States, make war at pleasure. Neither is the Emperor what is called here "The War Lord." He has not the disposal, that is, the absolute command, of the forces of the entire German Army. Article 66 of our Constitution says that the German Princes, more es- pecially the Kings of Bavaria, Wurttem- berg, and Saxony, are the chiefs of the troops belonging to their territory (six army corps of twenty-four) ; they nom- inate the officers for these troops, they have the right to inspect these troops, etc. Consequently the absolute disposi- tion of the German Army passes on to the Kaiser only in the moment when the consent of his allies, viz., the States who with Prussia, form the empire, has been obtained for the declaration of a war. But there is a further and much heavier check on the Emperor's doings. All measures providing ways and means for conducting war must be passed by the Reichstag. The Reichstag is a body elected on the most liberal ballot law that exists anywhere, more liberal even than the ballot law of the United States for the election of a President. The German law, ever since 1867, has been a one man, one vote, universal, secret and direct ballot law. The German peo- ple are represented as directly and dem- ocratically in the Government as the American people are in theirs. The right to vote does not depend either on a census or on any educational test. Any German being twenty-five years and over may vote. The Reichstag con- sists of 397 members. The conserva- tives, the so-called "War Party," from which most of the officers are being re- cruited, is in a hopeless minority, about 55. There are 110 Social Democrats and about 1(X) Liberals, so that in fact there is a Liberal majority in the Ger- man Reichstag. Notwithstanding this composition, this Reichstag has voted unanimously the necessary laws and credits for conducting the present war, and although the Social Democrats re- ject war on principle in their program, they have indorsed unanimously the pol- icy of the empire as speeiflcally an- nounced by the Emperor's Chancellor. I say this to prove that this war is not "a Kaiser's war," because he can- not make a war, but it is the "German people's war." A modern war, accord- ing to Prince Bismarck's great speech in 1887, with its enormous armies compris- ing whole peoples, cannot be undertaken with safety nor carried through with success except by the full consent and enthusiastic assistance of the whole na- tion. Americans returning from Ger- THE ALLIANCE AND THEIR ALLIES ALSO A VOLUNTEER A new klud of Peanuts for the famous Hagenbeck Park Elephant to handle (By Courtesy of the "Chicag-o Abendpost") many will tell you that this consent and enthusiasm are there in the highest de- gree and that there has never been such a unity of the German people, between Princes and people, between parties and creeds as there is in these trying times, where no less than seven nations have joined hands to down our people. (From the "Times.") DR. DERNBURG'S ARGUMENT. Far and away the ablest and the most subtle presentation yet made of Germany's case is that from the pen of Dr. Bernhard Dernburg, which in this issue of The Times we reprint from The Sun of yesterday. Having been a part of the German Government, a Secretary of State for the Colonies, Dr. Dernburg knows his subject, he knows precisely the impression he wishes to produce, and he has surpassing skill in marshal- ing his argument to produce just that impression. His method is so exceed- ingly adroit that if he be not read with constant wariness of mind the reader may find himself granting one assumption after another until he is swept helplessly along to a conclus- ion that Germany has been the most peaceful nation on earth, that the Kaiser is merely the humble servant of his people, and that the war was imposed upon Europe by a higher fate quite beyond human control. There are three leading conten- tions in Dr. Dernburg's argument. The first is that the German Emperor is no more a man of war than our President and has less power to make war. Dr. Dernburg points out that ex- cept when German territory is at- tacked the Emperor may not declare war without the consent of the Bun- desrat, and that this is "a much greater check than the control placed by the Constitution of the United States on the President." But our President cannot declare war at all. Congress alone has that power. Dr. Dernburg assorts that the Emperor "must have, and in fact had, the con- sent of his allies, represented by the Federal Council," and that the con- sent was unanimous. We do not ques- tion the statement, but we recall no report of a meeting of the Federal Council. The declaration of war was contained in a telegram of the Im- perial Chancellor to the Ambassador in St. Petersburg, declaring that "his Majesty, the Emperor, my August Sovereign, in the name of the Em- pire, takes up the defiance and con- siders himself in a state of war against Russia." Dr. Dernburg in- sists that Wilhelm II. has been a man of peace. In his aversion to war he is put on a level with President Wil- son. If the comparison is just, then we must assume that in the Emper- or's place Woodrow Wilson would have given Austria a "free hand," would have warned all civilized na- tions that they must not interfere be- tween Austria and Servia, and would In the crisis of the affair have gone to war with Russia, France and Eng- land. Do we believe that? Does Dr. Dernburg expect us to believe that the firm mind and hand that kept us out of war with Mexico would have plunged all "Europe into a bloody strife in support of Austria's unbearable attitude toward Servia? The difference is not merely in the men, the training and environment count for everything, and what they are in the case of the Kaiser one may learn from the book of von Bern- hardt, one of the chiefs of the war party, in which war is lauded as "the greatest factor in the furtherance of culture and power." It will be observed that in its com- ment on Dr. Dernburg's argument the "Times" pursues no less adroit a method of securing the good will of its readers than that which it ascribes to the gentleman whose assertions it wishes to rebut. It opens with an at- tempt to poison the reader's mind by the insinuation that Dr. Dernburg's points are established rather by ef- fects of style than by their intrinsic verity. When one has read the feeble defense opposed by the "Times" to the logic of its self-chosen adversary, the necessity for this method Is read- ily seen. The first statement of Dr. Dern- burg to which the "Times" takes ex- ception Is that "the Emperor may not declare war without the consent of the Bundesrat, and that this is 'a much greater check than the control DEFENDING THE FATHERLAND 14t placed by the Constitution of the United States on the President.' " The "Times" replies: "But our President cannot declare war at all. Congress alone has that power." We need not read so very far back in American history to find the quib- ble. The "Times" has expressed a theory, but the facts have differed widely from it In recent years. When President Wilson went before Con- gress and asked its approval of his conduct in Mexico he had already de- clared war on that country. It was to our purpose at the time to pro- claim that "a state of hostilities ex- isted in Mexico," but no war, and that we "got away" with it was due solely to the fact that the Mexican Govern- ment was impotent to protect itself against that most incontrovertible declaration of war — the infringe- ment of a nation's sovereignty by the seizure of its territory. If we go back to 1898 we find a still more co- gent refutation of the "Times" posi- tion. On April 25th of that year. Congress passed a joint resolution "That war be, and the same is here- by declared to exist, and that war has existed since the twenty-first day of April, anno Domini eighteen hun- dred and ninety-eight, including said day, between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain." In other words, four days after a state of war had existed with Spain and then only at a suggestion from President McKinley, contained in his special message of April 25th, Con- gress came through with that formal declaration of war on which the "Times" places so much importance. Was it, in this instance. Congress or the President, who first made war on Spain? The second point on which the "Times" bases its contention is the language in which the Chancellor's telegram to St. Petersburg was couched. Without denying that a meeting of the Bundesrat was held and the declaration of war decided upon by that body, and overlooking the fact that it was made by the Em- peror "in the name of the Empire," the "Times" attempts to read into the form in which it was presented to Russia something autocratic and un- American. The truth is that the Bundesrat was convened and is still in session, and that it voted the war. The Chancellor was but its spokes- man in conveying the sense of its ac- tion to St. Petersburg. The essentials are not contained in the words of the Imperial Chancellor, but in the action of the Bundesrat itself. The object of the "Times" is appar- ently to blind its readers to the fact of the Constitution on which is based the whole structure of German unity and which in essentials differs from our own only in the method of con- stituting courts and the tenure of the Executive. As a matter of fact, there is less dissimilarity between these two constitutions than there is be- tween the Constitution of the United States and that of any other country of Europe. There is no evidence at hand to show that the German Em- peror on any one point has exceeded his legal rights under the supreme law of the land. The question of Emperor vs. Presi- dent as a candidate for the Nobel Prize is one on which every American will form his own opinion. The fact is that Austria, and her ally, put up THE GERMAN ARMY IN BELGIUM The advance Troops are ever on the alert, and seek the most advantageous screens to watch the movements of the Allies. Notice the Soldiers in front, wearing the Iron Cross. No doubt they are going to have Chicken Dinner. But Order and Seriousness mark every Scene (Photograph by the International News Service) 142 THE ALLIANCE AND THEIR ALLIES for years with conditions on her bor- ders that would have made General Weyler blush at his own moderation. When out of those conditions came open and flagrant murder not even "the firm mind and hand" of Presi- dent Wilson would have availed to re- strain the righteous indignation of the sufferers thereby. The spirit of 1898, that drove Spain from Cuba, was not one whit more justifiable than that which prompted Austria to demand redress for her wrongs and her ally to support her in that de- mand. IT IS NECESSARY TO FIGHT WITH THE WEAPONS OF THE ADVERSARY. New Yorker Staats-Zeitimg, New York. Herman Ridder. Among the many able friends of Ger- many in the United States who have de- fended their convictions by pen and voice, Dr. Bernhard Dernburg ranks with the first. The second article from Dr. Demburg's pen, which appeared in The Sun of the 27th inst, leaves little to be desired from the iwints of view of logic, comprehensiveness and lucid- ity. I agree with The Sun when it says of Dr. Dernburg that "both in temper and in method of presentation he is by far the most effective of all the advocates now writing or speaking in behalf of Germany's cause. . . . Dr. Dernburg's arguments are all legi- timate, and the tone of his expression is so moderate and his line of reason- ing so plausible that it is not impossible he may lead many American minds into that very attitude of biased unneutral- ity which he warns us against (if the sympathy be for England) as incapaci- tating the United States for a media- tory r61e." The Sun continues, however: "We shall therefore content ourselves with saying that if Dr. Dernburg's spirit and skill and tact had directed the unfortunate efforts of some of the organized and volunteer and individual propagandists who have undertaken to create in this country a public opinion favorable to Germany, the sentiment here might be quite different from that of which they complain." This implied criticism of the efforts of other and less fortunately situated friends of Germany to counteract the designs of her enemies needs little an- swer or explanation. It is necessary to fight with the weapons of the adver- sary. I can sympathize with the point of view of those who have been taunt- ed into possible hyperbole or violence of expression by the evident bias of the Anglophile press. Would that it might be given to us all to maintain an atti- tude of calm logic and friendly good na- ture under the extreme provocation of seeing what we respect and admire trampled ruthlessly under foot. Too often, however, the human hand is di- rected by the impulse of a superheated collar. Too often we respond to the sting of some glaring injustice, and our pen runs riot. The human element grips us strongly and we react to the beat of our hearts. It is not, however, for those who laid the train to such ex- plosions to criticize the result. Germany — the German Emperor and the German people — is making a mag- nificent fight for existence. One may differ from her in opinion, but we can- not withhold the admiration that Is due a determined nation fighting for all it holds nearest and dearest in life. Surrounded by enemies actuated by the most divergent motives and one only in the desire to crush Germany, over- whelmed by numbers, she, with her single ally, is showing the world an example of patriotism, of united effort and determination, for which history cannot fail to give her full credit. The German papers in this country have shown a united front in preach- ing the cause of Germany. I do not refer, of course, to other than bona fide German papers, and certainly not to Mr. Hearst's German editions, in which the word is the word of the German, but the thought the thought of a Hearst. In this connection we quote "Collier's Weekly" as follows : "The war shows again the brazen effrontery with which Hearst dishes up the stuff he publishes. One day last month the so-called "American" (New York) had a cut with the line: 'This is the type of English soldier who Is doing such tremendous work on the battle front in France.' On the same day the German edition had the same cut, but gave it this title : 'British troops who are able to sprint so fast that the German soldiers cannot catch up with them.' If you want to be bun- coed, just read the Hearst papers. Wil- liam Randolph will do the rest — and you." There is no stronger defender of the German side of the war than the Ger- man Herold of Mr. O. B. Wolffram. In the columns of this paper Mr. Wolffram has, in a quiet, careful, unobtrusive manner conducted an able campaign for the advancement of German thought and the presentation of German argu- ments. The times have given rise, also, to a weekly publication, The Fatherland, which is no less inspired by patriotic motives in its attempt to represent the spirit of fair play. In its issue of the 30th inst, The Fatherland puts the fol- lowing questions: "To the fair-minded American citi- zen, who can't be fooled all the time, even by the newspapers, the following questions are offered for consideration : "First — Why is Zabern cited, but Kishineff forgotten? "Second — Why is it a crime against humanity for Germany to maintain the biggest army in the world, but a mere means of defense, just, natural, and proper, for Great Britain to maintain the biggest navy in the world? "Third — Why is it hysterical or hypo- critical for Germany to speak of 'the Slavic peril,' but wise, foresighted, and righteous, all this last decade, for Eng- land in every possible way to fill the minds of her people with the idea of 'the Germanic peril?' "Fourth — Why was it outrageous of Austria to question the sincerity of Servia's acceptance of seven of the eight conditions of the ultimatum, but mere statesmanly foresight on the part of Sir Edward Grey to question the sin- cerity of Germany's efforts to keep the peace? "Fifth — Why was it disgraceful of Germany to keep faith with her ally, Austria, but noble and heroic of Eng- land to keep faith with her ally, France? "Sixth — ^Why is Germany's Invasion of neutral (?) * Belgium an outrage, but Japan's invasion of neutral China a negligible matter? "Seventh — Why is every Belgian, French and English account of Ger- man outrage to be swallowed, hook, line and sinker, while German accounts of Belgian and Russian outrages are to be sneered at as mere fakes? "Eighth — Why is it improper and a breach of neutrality for Americans of German descent to express their sym- pathy with Germany, but proper and commendable for Americans of Eng- lish descent to express their sympathy with England and her allies? "Ninth — Why is it fanatical and bar- baric of the Germans to believe in the destiny of Germany, but right and nat- ural of the Englishman to believe in the Heaven-appointed destiny of England to rule the earth?" I have attempted in my own small way to offset as much of the hostile and unfounded criticism levelled at Germany as possible, by presenting the readers of the Staats-Zeitung with the other side of the shield. There is a certain amount of right, of logic and of pure, unquestionable faith in the justice of its own cause to be found in each of the armed camps of Europe- Only when the attempt is made to con- vince the American people that this is not true of Germany I object — and I object not as a German but as an American, not more because of the di- rect injustice done thereby to a friendly nation than because the American peo- ple are being educated in error. I have been assailed both in the press and by those anonymous letter writers whose views are not worth their signatures. For every letter of that sort which I have received, however, I have had ten from intelligent and sympathetic friends of Germany and fair play. ♦Read the following articles printed elsewhere in this book. (The index gives their exact location) : "Bel- gian Neutrality," "Has Germany Vio- lated Belgian Neutrality?," "Bern- hard Shaw Points Out England's Factor of Responsibility for Europe's War," "Belgium's Change of Policy," "More English Faithlessness," and in "Ger- many and the Great War," the para- graph headed "What is the justification for the violation of the Belgian neu- trality to which Germany was a party?"; also "An Authority on Neu- trality," "War or Vandalism," and "An Excuse for a Minister's Mistakes." THE ALLIES. Sir John French: Through my glasses I see distinctly, mon Gfingral, that the retreating columns are French. General Joffre: Take my glasses, sir, and you will see that they are English. DEFENDING THE FATHERLAND GERMAN WAR SUBSCRIPTION. Military -Fund o( $1,125,000,000 Quickly Raised by Public. The Daily News, Chicago. [By The Associated Press.] Berlin, Germany, Sept. 28 (via London, 2:50 p. m.). — The response of the German public to the efforts of the government to raise a war fund of .=^,000,000,000 marks ($1,- 250,000,000) has, it is asserted here, removed all anxiety the nation may have had regarding its ability to meet financial obligations due to the war. Already 4,500,000,000 marks has been subscribed by the public without straining seriously the financial re- sources of the empire. Had $125,000,000 at Start. According to military authorities, the war is costing Germany about 20,000,000 marks ($5,000,000) a day, inclusive of the money spent on behalf of those who have been de- prived of their bread winners. The means of the government at the beginning of the war, not includ- ing the permanent war treasure, but including the reserve funds of the reichsbank, amounted to about 500,000,000 marks ($125,000,000), which, however, has been consider- ably increased through the issue of notes. It is thought, therefore, that the money available for the purposes of the campaign can be increased, if necessary, by several billion marks. Count on $2,000,000,000. The amount which the government could borrow from the reichsbank is unknown, but it is estimated at about 3,000,000,000 marks, making a total of about 8,000,000,000 marks ($2,000,000,000). At the rate of 20,000,000 marks ($5,000,000) a day, this sum would permit Germany to carry on the war for more than a year. It is said here that these esti- mates concerning Germany's finan- cial resources are low rather than high. GERMAN ASSOCIATIONS RE- PORTED FAVORING PEACE. Story of Petition of Economic Bodies Believed to Have Been Censored by Teutonic Authorities. From "Chicago Daily News," Feb., 1915. Berlin, March 13, 3 a. m. — The Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, in an editorial, referring to yesterday's petition by economic organizations, reasserts the inadvisability of discuss- ing peace terms at this juncture. The paper says that such a discus- sion might weaken the impression abroad of complete German unanim- ity in the determination to persevere to the utmost. It would be better, says the edi- torial, to gain a definite victory be- fore talking about the reward for all the sacrifices made and the shape a peace treaty should take. The po- lemical attitude of the associations against the decision of the highest military and civil authorities is in- opportune and will not hasten vic- tory in the field, asserts the paper. Attacking and Defending Germany in the Crisis CONGRESSMAN BARTHOLDT'S PLEA FOR GERMANY. The Fatherland, New York. (On September 27, before a packed house in Terrace Garden, Representa- tive Bartholdt, of St. I/ouis, made one of the strongest addresses yet made on the war here. Because it boldly upheld the Teuton cause the speech was denied that prominence it de- serves. We are glad to publish in substance the entire address.) "Germany wants peace, as her his- tory shows. For forty-three years she has consistently maintained it, in spite of many irritations as well as numerous opportunities to make gains by aggression. The sole pur- pose of the triple alliance was for defense and for the preservation of the peace of Europe. German mili- tarism was purely for defense, and Germany would never disturb the peace if let alone by her neigh- bors. The efficiency, thrift and cul- ture of the German people would easily make them the master nation of Europe if only they were permitted to enjoy permanently the blessings of peace. Calls Press Unfair. "The hostile attitude of a large part of the American press toward Germany is the most bitter disap- pointment of my life. While on Ger- man Day we usually point with justi- fiable satisfaction to the proud his- tory of the American Germans, today we are obliged to ask the humiliating questions whether our diligent co- operation in the upbuilding of this country has ever been noticed by our non-German contemporaries. "If it had, we could at least have cherished the hope that our Anglo- American fellow-citizens might have gained a more favorable conception of the country from which we hail, of its culture and its institutions, than we now find expressed in the newspapers, a conception which we thought might have prevented the American press from printing the many absurd and outrageous stories which emanate from London and Paris to poison public opinion in our neutral country against Germany. We believed that the complete iden- tification of the Germans with Ameri- can institutions, their unswerving loyalty to the stars and stripes and their diligent and intelligent efforts in all fields of American activity had earned for them at least just con- sideration and fair treatment, but we must now reluctantly admit that in this we are sorely disappointed. Germans Entitled to Sympathy. "The German nation, owing to its traditional friendship for the United States, is even entitled to the out- spoken sympathy of the American people. Or have we forgotten that Frederick the Great sent us Baron von Steuben, whose achievements as the drillmaster of the revolutionary army made possible the final triumph of the colonies? Have we forgotten that in the civil war Germany was our only friend, while England, in open sympathy with the South, destroyed our commerce and refused any and all aid to the Union.* "In the hour of his greatest dis- tress Abraham Lincoln sent three em- issaries to Europe to fioat Union bonds. These envoys were shown the door in both London and Paris, and Gladstone declared openly that *Nor is it an accident in Prussian History and Character that Frederick the Great was among the first of the rulers to recognize the independence of the United States of America. — Editor. the English hoped for Confederate success. But when Lincoln's emis- saries came to Germany they were received with open arms, and Bis- marck, then promoter of Prussia, told the Berlin and Frankfort bankers to advance to the Union all the money they could spare. The purchase of these Union bonds by Germany made it possible for President Lincoln to continue the war and carry it to a successful conclusion. "Have we not a right to remind our fellow-citizens of this historical fact just at this time and does this not furnish at least one valid reason why in the present war drama, when Germany's very life is at stake, Amer- ican sympathies should go out to our arch-friend rather than our arch- enemy? Japan to Demand Pay. "England's summons to the black men, the brown men and the yellow men to fight her battles against a white and highly cultured nation will not be the end of it. Japan will de- mand her pound of flesh, which is bound to be cut out of the skin of one Uncle Sam. Even now supremacy in the Pacific may have been promised the yellow man in return for his pres- ent aid and for the protection by Ja- pan of India. Who, I ask you, would be America's natural ally, when that time comes? Under her treaty ob- ligations England will be bound to back up the Mikado, hence Germany again will be our only stand-by, as she was when, some years ago, John Hay looked around for support for his policy of the open door and Chi- nese neutrality. "England and France came in only after Germany had demonstratively joined hands with our great Secretary of State. For this very act, Japan asserts, the Germans are to be pun- THE ALLIANCE AND THEIR ALLIES ished now, because it frustrated some fine Japanese plans. This being so, will not the Mikado have it in for the United States for the same reason? Militarism Protest Insincere. "If the protest against German militarism were sincere, I would re- joice in it, but alas, it is not, for the same papers which are objecting to Germany's militarism are loudest In their support of American militarism. England's navy is the climax of mili- tarism and Prance's army, too, pro- portionately larger than Germany's. "Even the peace advocates, of whom I am one, admit that as long as the world remains an armed camp Germany has more justification in keeping up an efficient army than al- most any other country. When di- vided she was the spittoon of Europe, the battles of all nations having been fought on her soil. It was to protect the Fatherland against being every- body's battle ground that she built up a strong army as soon as her unity had been achieved as a result of the Franco-German war, but it was an army, as her history shows, merely for her defense and not for aggres- sion." The Peace Programme. In conclusion, Mr. Bartholdt ven- tured a prophesy by saying: "A defeat or dismemberment of the German Empire will mean eternal war; because the Teutonic race will never accept such a result. A vic- tory of the two German nations, how- ever, will signify permanent peace. Both Germany and Austria-Hungary cherish peace, and their two rulers wish for their people the blessings of VON HINBENBURG AND HIS STAFF (By Courtesy of the "Chicago Abendpost") fruitful civilization, the growth of industry and trade and the highest development of the arts and sciences, and the condition 'sine quo non' of such progress and the healing of the wounds caused by this horrible war is a secure and permanent peace an- chored upon an international agree- ment providing for disarmament and for a high court of nations which will adjust all the peoples' differences, and whole decisions will be backed by an international police force. "This is the programme to which for many years I have devoted my humble efforts, and the realization of which will, let us hope, be in the near future." BRITONS IN PROTEST. Milwaukee Free Press. F. Hugh O'Donnell, formerly for- eign editor on the "Morning Post," the "Spectator" and other leading London journals, writes as follows to the New York "Evening Post": "Every man who has had a connec- tion with the honorable British jour- nalism of the past ought to thank you for your just and moderate re- buke of the pretended censorship which has passed off such a moun- tain of falsehoods on the public of both hemispheres. I suppose I am the Doyen of the foreign editors of London, and well I know that under Gladstone and Beaconsfield it would h&,ve been impossible to find either writers or censors for the abominable fictions which have been spread in order to infiame the British masses against their German opponents. The tales of German ofiicers filling their pockets with the severed feet and hands of Belgian babies, and German Catholic regiments deliberately de- stroying French Catholic cathedrals, would decidedly not have been ac- cepted by any editors of the "Times" or "Morning Post" in the days of Queen Victoria. "The worst part bf these infamous Inventions has been that they have stirred up the blind fury of the Eng- lish populace against tens of thou- sands of inoffensive and useful for- eigners who have done nothing but good in a hundred honest profes- sions, and who are now, in the midst of savage threats and insults, torn from their industrious homes and thrust into bleak and miserable pris- ons without a single comfort on the brink of the wintry season. The spectacle is a hideous one and the military censorship which has spread the exciting calumnies has gained no enviable place in truthful history." Mr. O'Donnell is certainly a noble exception to the prevailing spirit in England in the crisis. Nor is he without company, as we have become familiar with such names as Treve- lyan, McDonald, Burns, Morley and many others. — Editor. This goes to show that not all Englishmen are by any means in sympathy with the manner in which the British press, aided and abetted by the government censor, is poison- ing and perverting the news; to many indeed it appeals as a sad reflection on the deterioration of British char- acter. DEFENDING THE FATHERLAND When a retired army officer like Major Redway can declare, as he did, in the London "Globe," that "we must learn to look upon the manu- facture of mendacities during the war as a heroic attempt to keep us going in the absence of truth," he makes a serious charge against his countrymen that ill comports with England's ancient reputation for manliness and square dealing. For our part we incline to the opinion that the great majority of the public wants the truth, wants fair play for its opponents. And we fur- ther believe that as this public gradually awakes to the double deal- ing of the government which in- volved Great Britain in this war and to the cowardly and dishonorable character of its censorship, there will come about a revulsion of feeling against the responsible Liberal min- istry that will overthrow it at the first opportunity the war permits. With enlistments lagging, with colonial rebellion spreading and with the voice of criticism becoming more emphatic this event may be much nearer than any one anticipates. ENGLAND'S CASE. By Viscount Bryce in The Times, New York. Commented Upon by Herman Kidder, New Yorker Staats- Zeitung, New York. The consignments of spoon food received from England during the last two months have glutted the market. We are tired and sick of it all. The "sabre-rattling" and "jack-boots" of Sir Arthur have had" their run. We want novelty in this country and nothing could pall more upon us than the repeated dinning into our ears by every English organ from "The Times" up or down, of the few catch phrases, copied by that master of English word-cinematography. I have read Sir Arthur's effusions, along with those of H. G. Wells, Anthony Hope, Rudyard Kipling, Israel Zangwill and the rest of the war-mad English penmen, and for the life of me I am unable to come to any other conclusion than that their readings on Germany have been confined to Bernhadi and Treitschke, those two German writers who were never a part of German intellectual life and were both disowned by the German peo- ple. It would be easy to point out writers in England who have advo- cated theories far more radical than either Treitschke or Bernhardi, who have had their little day and passed into their little grave "unwept, un- honored and unsung." It would serve no useful purpose, however, to do so, for Englishmen are notorious- ly fond of making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Even Lord Roberts was not above ■warning England three years ago that her immediate opponent was Germany, but her eventual enemy was the United States. It is a relief, therefore, to happen upon a writer for England who is above the level, intellectually and as a novelist, of the crowd of literary freebooters who have attempted so zealously to force Bernhardi down our throats. Such a writer is James Bryce, whose contribution to "The Times" of Sunday last will do much to raise England's case from the mire out of which the poets, dra- matists and fiction writers of the country have tried in vain to drag it. It matters little whether it is "Mr." Bryce or "Viscount" Bryce who writes. Whatever the name of James Bryce is subscribed to Amer- icans will always read with pleasure and seldom without conviction. He has been "among us" and we know him, not simply as a profound and elegant scholar, but as a great, gen- erous, lovable soul. The fact that he is the author of "The Holy Roman Empire" and "The American Com- monwealth" is scarcely the basis of our affection for Viscount Bryce. It is rather the fact that as British Am- bassador to Washington he showed himself big enough to serve his own country without losing the good will of ours. I know of no one better qualified to present England's case to the American people than he — surely no one in the motley throng that rushed into the first breach with no other equipment than their quiver- ing goosequills. Their mighty ef- forts are adumbrated by his quiet logic and the faith which we have in his knowledge of his subject. I have no more sympathy for Bernhardi than any other free-born, liberty-loving American has — no more than the quiet, industrious Ger- man has, who looks upon militarism as the Englishman regards navalism, as a national necessity and a nation- al evil — and therefore I can welcome these words of Viscount Bryce: "What are these doctrines? I do not for a moment attribute them to the learned class in Germany, for whom I have profound respect, recog- nizing their immense services to science and learning; nor to the bulk of the civil administration, a body whose capacity and unrightness are known to all the world, and least of all to the German people generally. That the latter holds no such views appears from Bernhardi's own words, for he repeatedly complains of and deplores the pacific tendencies of his fellow-countrymen." As a matter of fact Bernhardi is not even read in Germany. Of his works, published by Cotta, only 800 copies have been given to the pub- lic to date! And that to a public of 65,000,000! The writings of Treitschke, as a historian, are re- garded by Germans as brilliant, but Treitschke is remembered by them as a man of intense party feeling, who labored under the spirit of 1870 and was incapable of true sympathy with their racial aspirations. If Americans are in search for a Ger- man historian whose ideals are one with those of his people and whose work will live when that of Treitsch- ke, Bernhardi and the rest of their ilk has long been forgotten, I would suggest Professor Lamprecht, of Leipsic. So logically and truly deduced are the conclusions of Viscount Bryce that Bernhardi was in but not of Germany that it is diificult to recon- cile with them his assertion that it was the teachings of Bernhardi that moved Germany to war and controls her present conduct of it. This con- demnation of Germany, however, vis-a-vis of England, cannot be ef- fected by the statement that her pol- icy was dictated by a military caste of which Bernhardi was the spokes- man. England has had her own war party, which for years has urged upon her the crushing of Germany and to which Sir Edward Grey has shown himself to have been no in- significant adherent. In the circum- stance of the actual confiict "the Ger- man people generally," to whom least of all Viscount Bryce would attribute any acceptance of Bern- hardi's principles, have shown them- selves far more in sympathy with the decision of their Government than have the British. It might almost be suspected that Viscount Bryce has said so much of Bernhardi, simply to hang on a text chosen from "Germany and the Next War," a sermon to the German na- tion on the duty of greater to lesser states. If Bernhardi is followed, says Bryce: "They (the smaller and weaker nations) will be absolutely at the mercy of the stronger, even if protected by treaties guaranteeing their neutrality and independence. They will not be safe, for treaty ob- ligations are worthless, 'when they do not correspond to facts,' i. e., when the strong power finds that they stand in its way its interests are par- amount." As the learned writer of these lines has repudiated Bernhardi as a spokesman for Germany, it cannot be assumed that he looks to Germany to work upon any such principles. It may be assumed, however, that they were penned to offset some of the suspicions which the history of the last century 'has cast upon England's attitude toward her smaller and weaker neighbors. "If a state hold valuable min- erals," continued Viscount Bryce, "as Sweden has iron, and Belgium coal, and Roumania oil, or if it has abund- ance of water power, like Norway, Sweden and Switzerland; or if it holds the mouth of a navigable river, the upper course of which belongs to another nation, a great state may conquer and annex that small state as soon as it finds it needs minerals or water power or river mouth." Precisely. The inference, however, which we are asked to make is that Germany will reach out for Belgium, Roumania, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland as soon as it finds it needs minerals or water power or river mouth. I do not wish to question Viscount Bryce on the history of the distant past. The author of "The Holy Ro- man Empire" is a much more learned man in such things than I. I wish only to mention a few facts and to ask a few questions having to do with those years which both he and I can claim as our own. 146 THE ALLIANCE AND THEIR ALLIES When, then, during the last sixty years has Germany shown herself un- generous to her smaller neighbors or covetous of their resources? During what one of those same years has England not been guilty of the very conduct which Viscount Bryce pic- tures as so reprehensible? Was it not England who attempted to break the Union that she might rule all America? Was it not the "aurifer- ous nature" of the soil and the mouth of the Orinoco that led her to expand her Venezuelan claim in two years from 76,000 to 109,000 square miles? Was it not the diamond mines of the Transvaal that led her to wipe out the Boer republic? It is not necessary to point out the mo- tive which has actuated England to the very last to maintain the yoke of Indian opium about the neck of the Chinese people, nor am I going to add to the list of England's crimes against smaller and weaker nations. They are too many and too well known. The British Empire is founded on them. We are asked to deal with theories and possibilities. We should deal rather with facts; not with what Germany might do, but with what England has done and is continuing to do. The whole history of Ger- many's relations with the smaller nations of the world points to her continued generous treatment of them. Will the history of England bear the same test? THE STOCK COMPANY OF KITCH- ENER, ASQUITH, CHURCHILL, AND BALFOUR AT THE GUILDHALL. New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, New York. Herman Ridder. Monday night's Guildhall meeting in London served the two-fold pur- pose of installing a new Lord-Mayor of London, and of furnishing the well-known stock company of Kitch- ener, Asquith, Churchill and Balfour an opportunity for a display of their histrionic abilities. This quartet has been touring the country preach- ing patriotism, lecturing, and when necessary, playing the role of recruit- ing sergeant. Mostly it has been necessary. They have divided their work each according to his temperament and ability. Kitchener, blunt old soldier, representing the martial spirit called the present armageddon "a struggle for the existence of the Empire"; Asquith, fine tempered statesman! representing the British conscience, devoted himself with less flight of Imagination but with subtle British hypocrisy to proving that it was a struggle "to place upon an unassail- able foundation the right of smaller nations"; Balfour, Silver tongued spell-binder, representing the pop- ular voice, appealed to both military and political prejudices and delivered himself of the shop worn phrase that the war was a fight "against reckless and brutal militarism"; and finally Churchill, the Pied piper of London town, representing the English spirit of prophecy, dilated upon the re- markable efficiency and preparedness of the British navy, flatly contradict- ing thereby the previous remarks of Kitchener to the general effect that England did not want war because she was unprepared for it. Nobody apparently noticed the discrepancy as the spirit of patriotism ran high. On the whole Lord Kitchener was nearest to the truth. For England the present war is a life and death struggle, more so than any other war which she has ever been engaged in. Britain has a great stake at issue, the loss of which would mean disaster beyond repair. South Africa, Egypt and India once severed from the Empire would never return. The Food problem in England is a most serious one. Denmark, Hol- land and Belgium, always England's active suppliers of fresh food pro- ducts, have practically ceased to be such. But worse, the modern weapon of mine-laying will soon so endanger the approach to all British harbors, that few merchantmen will be will- ing to take the risk, insurance or no insurance. No fleet, however powerful, will prevent daring German mine-layers from creating more and more danger zones around the British Isles, such' as are said to have kept the giant Olympic from proceeding. Further- more, Kitchener realizes, that mere territorial forces, mere defence with- in the borders of the islands, would be wholly insufficient, and that the enemy rnust be attacked on the Con- tinent, to deliver England from dis- aster. It is a curiously incongruous remark by the straightforward ruth- less soldier Kitchener, that England's military unpreparedness proves her pacific intentions, while the German thoroughness of organization clearly proves the contrary. When Pied piper Churchill paid a glowing tribute to the preparedness of the British Navy, he carefully refrained from drawing any such rash con- clusions about pacific or war-like in- tentions. Churchill, incidentally, tried to gloss over the fact, that the "rats" have succeeded in pretty well "rattling" the British navy. Kitch- ener's speech was hardly one to en- courage the belief in the efficiency of the new English army of 1,250,000 soldiers. He made it very clear, that such preparations were required by modern warfare, that a long time would, of necessity, have to pass, before an efficient army could be created. He might, had his speech been less carefully revised, readily have pointed to the half-baked soldiery which had been sent by order of the autocratic Pied piper Churchill to hapless Antwerp. Mr. Asquith's traditional and cheaply popular manner of cloaking English with moral pretenses was, on this occasion, chiefly applied to the rights of small nations. This sham is thrown into a strong light by the recent organization in England of "The Union of Democratic Control." Its members include such men as Ramsay McDonald and Charles Tre- velyan, who, with Mr. Morley and Mr. Burns, withdrew from the British Cabinet rather than be a party to a plan of allowing England to be forced into this war through secret treaties, negotiated by a few English autocrats like Grey and Churchill. "Democratic Control" is the Society's chief object. Its formation in the midst of a titanic struggle, one which is inspiring in Germany and France the strongest bonds of national unity, is highly significant as showing Eng- land less united, and confirming Kitchener's plaintive remark "With- out a great national impulse we can do but little." The "Democratic Control" Society protested against those English foreign policies of the last decade, which the German people have been complaining about namely, secret treaties, secret alli- ances, and secret "balance of power" arrangements. To cap the climax this organization states as its object "to prevent the sudden conclusion of a peace arranged secretly by the diplomatists, who made the war in- evitable." So much for the fine moral pretense of true democracy by Mr. Asquith. It is a pity, that Mr. Balfour's ad- dress about militarism was not fol- lowed by some words from Great Britain's new Sea-Lord, Lord Fisher. As a British delegate to the 1899 Hague Convention he startled every- body by his ruthless views about the conduct of war. No German or Frenchman of either military or naval prominence has, thank good- ness, ever approached the brutality of this "purely English" mind, for let us not forget, that this quality made Fisher the successor of the Prince of Battenberg, who was ac- cused of the lack of such a "purely English" mind. This is what Mr. Fisher had to say when the Hague Conference tried to establish more humane methods of warfare. "War should be made as hellish as pos- sible. When you have to wring a chicken's neck, you don't give the chicken intervals for rest and re- freshment." When the treatment of captured sub-marine crews was being discussed. Lord Fisher, this "pure" Britisher, shocked the assembly by barking "Sub-marines? If I catch any in time of war, I will string their crews up to my yard-arm." This is the "navalism," which placed captured German sailors into the bow of the "Amphion," while she was searching for mines, so that they might surely be killed, should any- thing happen. What a contrast to German navalism, which thinks of the safety of the prisoners first, be- fore putting up a last fight, as, for instance, the auxiliary cruiser "Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse," did in African waters. She first trans- ferred her captured enemies, then she went, fighting, to her certain doom. What a contrast between the brutal words of Lord Fisher and the generous action of the German com- mander of the "Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse." "MADE IN GERMANY." This war was not made in Ger- many, but "Made in Germany" caused the war. — Prom the Charleston "Deutsche Zeitung." DEFENDING THE FATHERLAND 147 "RIDING INFANTRY" Modern "Barbarians" seem to have a wholesome Sense of Humor (By Courtesy of the "Chicago Abendpost") A PASSIONATE DEFENSE OF GERMANY. Editorial, The Chicago Evening Post. The indefatigable, we may even say the inevitable, Hugo Muensterberg has come to the rescue of the fatherland. "The War and America" has reached us from the publishers, D. Appleton & Co., and is announced on the cover jacket as "the first authoritative worli on the great European war," showing "the true inside of the war, its real motives and Issues and their important meaning for our country." The claim is rather too big for the book. Professor Muensterberg's hastily and passionately compiled work will not help much to a real undei'standing or a fair valuation of facts.^ It may be read with interest as a product of pa- triotism, admirable, indeed, in any man, but not conducing to impartial weigh- ing of evidence or calm judgment on is- sues. "Audi alteram partem" is a Latin proverb to be commended to all open- minded people, and for this reason we commend the reading of "The War and America" to those who regard the kaiser and the German military system as the aggressors in the strife that has shaken civilization. Professor Muenster- berg argues earnestly against this view. It is his belief that Germany is the un- happy and unwilling victim of jealous nations whose swords have long been whetted to cut her throat. It is early yet to write history, but Professor Muensterberg might have been more convincing had he made greater use of the official documents now available in the white papers of the governments involved.^ We have much of his opinion, and little of au- thentic material to support it. We are told that Belgrade was will- ing to concede everything to the Aus- trian demand until a cipher telegram arrived from St. Petersburg. "A few hours later a refusal was sent to- Vienna which could mean nothing but war," are the words in which the his- torian describes the Belgrade reply. By such unfairness' Professor Muenster- 'Read Mr. Herman Ridder's comment on this book, reprinted elsewhere in "War Echoes," under the title "The War and America." Then read Professor Muensterberg's book and you will be able to judge for yourself whether or not "The Chicago Evening Post" is cor- rect in stating that his "work, hastily and passionately compiled, will not help much to a real understanding or a fair valuation of facts." — The Editor. 'Our readers will find extracts from "The White Books" of Great Britain and Germany, "The Orange Book" of Russia and "The Grey Book" of Bel- gium, and comments on them reprinted on other pages. The index gives their exact location. The British White Paper and the German White Book have been published by the New York "Times" in one pamphlet for which ten cents is charged. They also have been printed in very convenient form as one of the monthly issues of the Amer- ican Society of International Concilia- tion, 407 West One Hundred and Sev- enteenth Street, New York. Therefore we are not reprinting these documents as it would add unnecessarily to the size of our book. — The Editor. 'After reading the sixth paragraph commencing "The oft-repeated assertion that the Czar did his best to preserve the peace of Europe . . ." in the ar- ticle entitled "The Russian Orange Pa- per," reprinted elsewhere in this book, we leave it to the fair-minded reader to judge for himself as to whether "The Chicago Evening Post" is right or wrong in asserting that "By such un- fairness Professor Muensterberg dis- counts much of his plea." — Editor. 148" THE ALLIANCE AND THEIR ALLIES berg discounts mucli of his plea. We know the answer of Servia was in all but one particular* a concession to Aus- trian demands, and that particular a detail the granting of which meant the utter humbling of national self-respect. Whatever may be said as to the prov- ocation offered by Russia in the persis- tent mobilization of troops after pro- test from the kaiser — and there is room for argument on this point which may turn to the justification of Germany — we think unbiased opinion is pretty well satisfied that Austria's ultimatum was couched with bellicose purpose, and that Servia's answer, had not a desire for war existed on the part of the dual monarchy, would have satisfied Ger- many's ally.' It is a pity that Professor Munster- berg has spoiled' his plea for fair play by this show of bias in his opening chapter. With his assertion that "America ought to be no more anti- German than anti-French or anti-Eng- lish" we heartily concur. We deplore the tendency in some quarters to deride and denounce Germany and German in- stitutions, and to believe every story of barbaric behavior that a hostile cable feeds to American newspapers. We ad- mire the spirit of Lord Roberts of Eng- land, who urges his fellow countrymen to be charitable in their judgment of their foes. Let us all be charitable. Let us reserve the fiinal verdict, not until we have read the professor's book, as his publisher advises, but until peace has afforded us the perspective and mental disposition in which to consider all the facts and reach sound conclusions. VIOIiENX OUTBURSTS OF THE ENGLISH PRESS. *"It is believed by many people in the United States that Servia accept- ed all, or nearly all, of Austria's de- mands. In reality she did not accept the most important one, namely, that of issuing to the officers of the Serv- ian army an official condemnation of Pan-Slavic propaganda and of the as- sassination of the Crown Prince. Now it has been proved that the assassina- tion of the Crown Prince was prepared and arranged by Servian officers. He was shot with a Servian army re- volver." — Count J. H. von Bernstorff, the Imperial German Embassador in "Germany and the Great War" reprint- ed in full on another page. — Editor. 'As to "The Chicago Evening Post's" assertion that "unbiased opinion Is pretty well satisfied that Austria's ulti- matum was couched with bellicose pur- pose, and that Servia's answer would have satisfied her, had not a desire for war existed on the part of the dual monarchy," we believe that REALLY UNBIASED readers, after reading Mr. Herman Ridder's article entitled "The Russian 'Orange Paper,' " and a mass of other authentic evidence re- printed elsewhere in this book, will not agree with "The Chicago Even- ing Post," and that therefore: Pro- fessor Muensterberg has NOT spoiled his plea for fair play. — Editor. This war is one thing that England wishes to see labeled "Made in Ger- many." — Prom "The Daily News, Chicago, August 7, 1914. The Fatherland, New York. According to press reports from England, Lord Roberts has made a dignified attempt, through the me- dium of the "Hibbard Journal," to denounce "the unsportsmanlike prac- tice of abusing one's enemies," re- minding the British public of the "gross charges absolutely untrue, which were brought against our brave soldiers fighting in South Africa." It seems, however, rather doubtful that the veteran ofQcer's voice will be heard in the tumult of violent anti-German outbursts, which has been raging in England for the last two months, with only too ready echoes on this side of the Atlantic. As a specimen of the present jour- nalistic standard of the majority of English newspapers, a leader of the London "Financial News" of Septem- ber 16, deserves to be quoted. It bristles with intemperate language, rarely to be found in an English paper of standing. Under the headline, "No Compunc- tion Now!" the said journal assails "The Economist" for expressing the view that no such harsh peace terms ought to be imposed upon Germany "as no proud nation could possibly accept, except as a last extremity." To this the Financial News replies: "A proud nation which destroys Louvain from sheer lust of destruc- tion, which pitches babies on bay- onet points, cuts off the hands o^ nurses and soldiers, outrages women, . slices old men, gouges out the eyes of the wounded, tears off women's breasts, trains its soldiers in the art of rape, rejoices in a multitude of obscenities too frightful to be re- corded in cold type, and does it all deliberately, exultingly and of set purpose, by order of the Kaiser, is simply a horde of brigands and mur- derers, and deserves precisely the mercy which should be meted out to that class of people. Britain exists to humble such 'pride' as that."* What mercy, the "Financial News" asks, sliouM he shown such "barbari- ans" and lohat could prove to us-\ that the German people are not in sym- pathy with the royal ruffian, who has so recently scuttled out of France just on the eve of what he hoped would be his triumphal entry into the cap- ital of the Republic which he so wantonly attacked. They just love his cowardly deviltries. There has been no foul act during this cam- paign, no shooting of a helpless mother. No dismembering of a ter- rified child, that has not received the whole-hearted Indorsement of the German nation, from the blood- thirsty Professor Harnack down to the humblest Dienstmann at the rail- way station. It follows that the Ger- man nation, having made their bed, must lie on it. Our mission is to see that the last pfennig of the allied doctor's bill has been well and truly paid. Devils need expensive medi- cine, and they must pay for it." As a matter of fact, the "Financial News" lays down already — a trifle early^what it calls "the elementary principles of the post-bellum settle- ment." Here they follow: "The HohenzoUerns must go, bag and baggage. If the Kaiser should survive defeat, nothing but banish- ment to a lonely island will be a safe finish to his career. St. Helena is not the place for him, with his mem- ories of who, with all his faults, was a man and not a ghoul. Tristan I'Acuncha would be more suitable. Next, there must be the largest war indemnity that Germany can pay without absolute bankruptcy. A ten- tative figure of 1,000,000,000 pounds sterling will serve for present con- templation. In the third place, the present German Empire must be broken up into its constituent parts, and to some extent redistributed, as has meted out to Germany can be guessed from the following passage: "Let us steel ourselves in advance to crush the last drop of lifeblood out of German militarism ; and all this Mr. Churchill has already suggested, in accordance with racial consider- ations. The Krupp works must be leveled to the ground, so that not one stone is left upon another, the German fleet must be handed over to its conquerors and all the fortifica- tions of the Heligoland Bight utterly dismantled. The Kiel Canal must be internationalized. Finally, all these terms must be imposed by the allied armies encamped at Berlin." The best augury for the carrying out of this programme, however, the paper sees in "the quiet, restraint temper of the whole nation." Evidently, the "Financial News," with the proverbial lack of humor of the English, does not realize what an exquisite exposition of "quiet, re- strained temper" it has furnished to the reading public by its intemper- ate language. *Emphasized in bold type by the Editor. fltalicised word^ are my own. — Editor. APPEAL TO THE CIVILIZED WORLD. By Many Noted German Representa- tive Men. As representatives of German Science and Art, we hereby protest to the civilized world, against the lies and calumnies with which our enemies are endeavoring to stain the honor of Germany in her hard strug- gle for existence — in a struggle which has been forced upon her. The iron mouth of events has proved the untruth of the fictitious German defeats, consequently mis- representation and calumny are all the more eagerly at work. As her- alds of truth we raise our voices against these. It is not true that Germany is guilty of having caused this war. Neither the people, the government, nor the "Kaiser" wanted war. Ger- many did her utmost to prevent it; for this assertion the world has documental proof. Often enough during the 26 years of his reign has Wilhelm II shown himself to be the upholder of peace, and often enough has this fact been acknowledged by our opponents. Nay, even the DEFENDING THE FATHERLAND "Kaiser," they now dare to call an Attila, has been ridiculed by them for years, because of his steadfast endeavors to maintain universal peace. Not till a numerical su- periority which had been lying in wait on the frontiers, assailed us, did the whole nation rise to a man. It is not true that we trespassed in neutral Belgium. It has been proved that France and England had resolved on such a trespass, and it has likewise been proved that Bel- gium had agreed upon their doing so. It would have been suicide on our part not to have headed them off at their own game if possible. It is not true that the life and property of a single Belgian citizen was injured by our soldiers without the ' bitterest self-defense having made it necessary; for again and again, notwithstanding repeated threats, the citizens lay in ambush, shooting at the troops out of the houses, mutilating the wounded, and murdering in cold blood the medical men while they were doing their Samaritan work. There can be no baser abuse than the suppression of the report of these crimes with the view of letting the Germans appear to be criminals, only for having justly punished these assassins for their wicked deeds. It is not true that our troops treated Louvain brutally. Furious inhabitants having treacherously fallen upon them in their quarters, our troops with aching hearts, were obliged to fire a part of the town, as a punishment. The greatest part of Louvian has been preserved. The famous Town Hall stands quite in- tact; for at great self-sacrifice our soldiers saved it from destruction by the flames. Every German would, of course, greatly regret, if in the course of this terrible war any works of art should already have been de- stroyed or be destroyed at some future time, but inasmuch as in our love for art we cannot be surpassed by any other nation, in the same de- gree we must decidedly refuse to buy a German defeat at the cost of saving a work of art. It is not true that our warfare pays no respect to international laws. It knows no undisciplined cruelty. But in the east, the earth is saturated with the blood of women and children unmercifully butchered by the wild Russian troops; and in the west, Dum-Dum Bullets mutilate the breasts of our soldiers. Those who have allied themselves with Russian and Serv- ians, and present such a shameful scene to the world as that of incit- ing Mongolians and Negroes against the white race, have no right what- ever to call themselves upholders of civilization. It is not true that the combat against our so-called militarism is not a combat against our civiliza- tion, as our enemies hypocritically pretend it is. Were it not for Ger- man militarism, German civilization would long since have been extir- pated. For its protection it arose In a land which for centuries had been plagued by bands of robbers, as no other land had been. The German army and the German people are one, and today, this consciousness fraternizes 70 millions of Germans, all ranks, positions and parties being one. We cannot wrest the poisonous weapon — the lie — out of the hands of our enemies. All we can do is to proclaim to all the world, that our enemies are giving false witness against us. You, who know us, who with us have protected the most holy possessions of man, we call to you: Have faith in us! Believe, that we shall carry on this war to the end as a civilized nation, to whom the legacy of a Goethe, a Beethoven and a Kant, is just as sacred as its own hearths and homes. For this we pledge you our names and our honor: Adolf von Baeyer, Prof, of Chem- istry, Munich. Wilhelm von Bode, General Di- rector of the Royal Museums, Berlin. Alois Brandl, Professor, President of the Shakespeare Society, Berlin. Prof. J. Brinkmann, Museum Di- rector, Hamburg. Prof. Peter Behrens, Berlin. Emil von Behring, Professor of Medicine, Marburg. Luju Brentano, Professor of Na- tional Economy, Munich. Johannes Conrad, Professor of National Economy, Halle. Franz von Defregger, Munich. Adolf Deissmann, Professor of Theology, Berlin. Priedrich von Duhn, Professor of Archseology, Heidelburg. Albert Ehrhard, Professor of R. Catholic Theology, Strassburg. Gerhard Esser, Professor of R. Catholic Theology, Bonn. Herbert Eulenberg, Kaiserswerth. Emil Fischer, Professor of Chem- istry, Berlin. J. J. de Groot, Professor of Ethnography, Berlin. Ernst Haeckel, Professor of Zool- ogy, Jena. Prof. A. von Harnack, General Director of the Royal Library, Ber- lin. Karl Hauptmann, Schreiberhau. Wilhelm Herrmann, Professor of Protestant Theology, Marburg. Richard Dehmel, Hamburg. Prof. William Dorpfeld, Berlin. Prof. Paul Ehrlich, Frankfort on the Main. Karl Bngler, Professor of Chem- istry, Karlsruhe. Rudolf Eucken, Professor of Phil- osophy, Jena. Heinrich Finke, Professor of His- tory, Freiburg. Wilhelm Foerster, Professor of Astronomy, Berlin. Eduard von Gebhardt, Dusseldorf. Fritz Haber, Professor of Chem- istry, Berlin. Max Halbe, Munich. Gerhart Haupmann, Agnetendorf. Gustav Hellmann, Professor of Meterology, Berlin. Andreas Heusler, Professor of Northern Philology, Berlin. Ludwig Hoffmann, City Architect, Berlin. Leopold Graf Kalckreuth, Presi- dent of the German Confederation of Artists, Eddelsen. Arthur Kamnf, Berlin. Theodor Kinn. Professor of Juris- prudence, Berlin. Anton Koch, Professor of R. Cath- olic Theology, Munster. Karl Lamprecht, Professor of His- tory, Leipsic. Maximilian Lenz, Professor of History, Hamburg. Franz von Liszt, Professor of Jur- isprudence, Berlin. Josef Mausbach, Professor of R. Catholic Theology, Munster. Fritz Schaper, Berlin. August Schmidlin, Professor of Sacred History, Munster. Reinhold Seeberg, Professor of Protestant Theology, Berlin. Franz von Stuck, Munich. Hans Thoma, Karlsruhe. Karl Volmoller, Stuttgart. Karl Vossler, Professor of Roman Philology, Munich. Wilhelm Waldeyer, Professor of Anatomy, Berlin. Felix von Weingartner. Wilhelm Wien, Professor of Physics, Wurzburg. Richard Willstatter, Professor of Chemistry, Berlin. Max Rubner, Professor of Medi- cine, Berlin. Adolf von Schlatter, Professor of Protestant Theology, Tuebingen. Gustav von Schmoller, Professor of National Economy, Berlin. Martin Spain, Professor of His- tory, Strassburg. Hermann Sudermann, Berlin. August von Wassermann, Profes- sor of Medicine, Berlin. Theodore Wiegard, Museum Di- rector, Berlin. Ulrich von Wilamowitzmoellen- dorff. Professor of Philology, Berlin. Wilhelm Windelband, Professor of Philosophy, Heidelberg. Wilhelm Wundt, Professor of Philosophy, Leipsic. Sebastian Merkle, Professor of R. Catholic Theology, Wurzburg. Heinrich Morf, Professor of Ro- man Philology, Berlin. Albert Neisser, Professor of Medi- cine, Breslau. Wilhelm Ostwald, Professor of Chemistry, Leipsic. Max Planck, Professor of Physics, Berlin. Georg Reicke, Berlin. Alois Riehl, Professor of Philos- ophy, Berlin. Fritz Ang. von Kaulbach, Munich. Felix Klein, Professor of Mathe- matics, Goettingen. Alois Knoepfler, Professor of His- tory of Art, Munich. Paul Laband, Professor of Juris- prudence, Strassburg. Philipp Lenard, Professor of Physics, Heidelberg. Max Liebermann, Berlin. Ludwig Manzel, President of the Academy of Arts, Berlin. Eduard Meyer, Professor of His- tory, Berlin. Priedrich Naumann, Berlin. Walter Nernst, Professor of Physics, Berlin. Bruno Paul, Professor of School for Applied Arts, Berlin. Albert Plehn, Professor of Medi- cine, Berlin. Prof. Max Reinhardt, Director of German Theater, Berlin. Karl Robert, Professor of Arch- Eeology, Halle. Wilhelm Rontgen, Professor of Physics, Munich. 150 THE ALLIANCE AND THEIR ALLIES German Character and the German Cause in the War Daterlanl)! WITH GOD FOR OUR FATHERLAND Six Emperor's Sons now take the Field as brilliant examples to the World; God grant that our Emperor's Sons Crown a noble, manly Victory ! THINKS GERMANY WAS FORCED INTO THE WAR. Special Correspondent Analyses Mi- nutely Causes of Conflict. Peace Sought by Kaiser. Attitude of Both Russia and London De- clared to Have been Favor- able to Outbreak. The Chicago Daily News. Raymond E. Swing. Berlin, Germany, Aug. 13. — The fabric of life is today torn to shreds. Coherence, cool thinking, objectivity. Beam Impossible. The great Euro- pean war is well under way. The terrors, the m.iseries, the horrors which men have always known to attend war are again present. Hatred and lying are rampant. But in spite of it all it is of great impor- tance that clear statements of the events of the last few weeks be made, and that thinking men and women read such statements, digest them, and prepare for the moment when they can decide deliberately what the great forces were which precipitated this Immeasurable chaos. It Is not my intention to attempt even the beginning of a history of the last few weeks. That can be done only after time has revealed more sources of information than are now available. It is not my intention to pass final judgment on any nation or race. Such an attempt would show colossal stupid- ity in view of my ignorance of many of the essential facts. But I shall try to put down what facts I have learned, and through them make it possible for any reader of these lines to reconstruct with some degree of accuracy the spirit — the very thrilling spirit — which we of Berlin have known In these extraordinary times. Must Go Back to Murder. To understand this war it is neces- sary to go back to the murder of the Austrian crown prince and his wife. Every American knows that these two were victims of bombs thrown by Ser- vians on June 28, 1914. Immediately following this murder, there was con- siderable talk from Austrians of com- plicity with the assassins of Servian patriotic societies with the membership embracing the highest oflBcialdom in Belgrade. No definite charges were made publicly to my knowledge, but the understanding was that men very high in the goverment of Servia knew of the assassination plot and at least did not prevent it. Proofs In such matters, I should say, are difficult to obtain. I know that it was the conviction of Austrian oflicial- dom and of the official circles of Berlin that the Austrian assassinations were even more than the outgrowth of societies and that the men in some way responsible for the assassination were to be found in the very palace of Bel- grade, if not in official circles of St. Petersburg. That is a strong convic- tion and I give it not as a fact, but as a conviction, and before this war can be understood this conviction must be appreciated. Reason for the Tntimatnm. It was the consequence of this con- viction which led Austria to deliver her ultimatum to Servia. There has been considerable speculation as to whether Germany knew of this ultimatum be- fore it was delivered. Every twist of diplomatic language has been employed to make it appear as if Austria took her step without the knowledge of her allies, Italy and Germany. But such an effort, while it might have served an immediate purpose, is in the end use- less, and It Is as well to realize now that Germany did know of this ulti- matum, approved of it and joined in the profound wish that assassinations, particularly as the means of furthering tremendous political movements, should be punished severely. And Italy, I have reason to believe, after having dis- cussed with Austria certain Balkan differences, also gave her approval and her pledge to remain true to her alli- ance in event of war. These facts, I feel sure, will eventually be established. The text of Austria's ultimatum is already known In America. It might have seemed at the time as if some of Austria's demands were exagger- ated and that no nation could have submitted to them vrithout resigning her national sovereignty. Two clauses were particularly strong, the one de- manding that Austrian officials be al- lowed to participate in the investiga- tions of the assassinations, the other that Servia's submission to the ulti- matum be published in the official Ser- vian war bulletin. These two clauses Servia declined and Austria thereupon broke off diplomatic relations. Where the Kernel Lies. At the very beginning of the trouble we come to the kernel of the situation. Was Austria justified in making these two demands? The publication in the army bulletin seems a trivial matter, and one might easily believe that Aus- tria would have stricken this from the ultimatum if the other clause had been accepted. The first question to be an- swered, then, in understanding the causes of this war is : Did Austria have the right to demand the participa- tion of Austrian officials in the in- vestigation of the assassinations? The question at once oversteps the bounds of pure legality. If Austria had the conviction and a reasonable amount of proof that the Servian bomb throw- ers were not only assisted by high officers of the Servian goverment, but even personally encouraged by a resi- dent of the Belgrade palace with the support of certain official elements in Russia — and this certainly is the direc- tion of Austrian discoveries — then it would have seemed absurd to leave the punishment and the really responsible men to the Servians themselves. Such a resignation on the part of Austria would have meant her own downfall. The affair already in June took on the appearance of a grave international plot. And Austria surely believed that she not only had the right to make this demand, but that this demand above all others must be acceded to if war was to be avoided. And this belief I am sure, was shared in Berlin and Rome. All Hinges on One Point. About this one point hinges every- thing which later grew into the pres- ent war, and it is to be hoped that the Austrian government will soon make public the evidence in its pos- session at the time of the ultimatum. This point is vital, too, because upon It hinges the moral right of Germany to stand by her ally in the face of Europe. And about this point must play every argument which tries to lay upon the Germanic people or the Slavs DEFENDING THE FATHERLAND 151 the blame for having precipitated this war. Conceding for the time being that Austria, and conseciuently the triple alliance, was right, we shall proceed with a statement of subsequent events, with the hope of understanding what happened in Berlin. The most striking event on the day of Servia's reply to the Austrian ultimatum is the follow- ing: Russia took the initial steps for mobilization against Austria on that very day. My authority for the ex- traordinary and significant statement is a telegram of the czar of Russia to the German kaiser, as follows : "Peterhof, July 30, 1914, 1:20 p. m. —I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your speedy reply. I am sending TatishefC this evening with in- structions. The military preparations now in realization were decided upon five days ago, and as defense against the preparations of Austria. I hope from the bottom of my heart that these preparations will in no way influence your position as mediator, which I -'alue very highly. We need your strong pressure upon Austria to bring her to an understanding with us. "NICOLAUS." Was the Day of Servia's Answer. "Five days ago," said the czar, and five days before was the day of Servia's answer. And five days before Austria had not commenced mobilization, not even against Servia. And when Aus- tria did commence mobilization not one extra soldier was sent toward the _ Russian frontier and only a small army " was sent out to fight Servia. This telegram of the czar throws illuminating light on the situation, be- cause it shows with startling clarity that some one at the very start wanted war. I am inclined to believe that the czar himself may "nave been un- aware of what was happening around him, but it is certain that men in charge of the Russian army were not unconscious and at the very beginning, before the rest of Europe even dared whisper the word of general war, openly had taken the action most sure to precipitate it. Remembering that this step of Rus- sia's was taken on the day of Servia's answer, let us refer again to a state document. Sends Message July 29. Four days later, on July 29, the Ger- man military attache in St. Petersburg sent a message to his government, of which I quote the following: "The chief of the general staff has Just sent for me and informed me that he has just come from his majesty. He was emx>owered by the war min- ister to tell me that everything stands just as the war minister declared things to stand two days ago. He gave me a written statement and also his word of honor for it that no mobiliza- tion, i. e., the calling out of one reserve or one horse, had begun up to that very moment, 3 p. m. There are, how- ever, numerous dispatches reporting the calling in of reserves in various parts of the empire, including Warsaw and Wilna. I was forced, therefore, to tell the general that I could not look upon his statement as being less than a rid- dle. Hereupon he gave me his word of honor as an officer that my dispatches were untrue and were probably trace- able to false alarms. I must regard his statements as deliberate attempts to de- lude us about the steps already being taken, which are so amply proved through my sources of information." On July 29, in the very midst of the kaiser's efforts at mediation, a sig- nificant dispatch was published from Paris which quoted on excellent author- ity a conversation said to have been held between the Russian War Minister Suchomlinow with the German am- bassador at St. Petersburg, in which the German was at last told that Russia was taking precautionary steps against Austria, i. e., was mobilizing on the Austrian frontier, and adding that similar action would be taken against Germany as "a precaution, be- cause Russian mobilization lasts longer than in other countries." Why Take Precaution? But why this precaution? Had Ger- many once used the word war? Had Austria threatened the Russian em- pire? Was there any step being taken except by Austria to punish what she had reason to believe was an interna- tional plot to destroy her empire? With these facts before any intelligent man, it is hard for him to come to any con- clusion other than that infiuential Rus- sians wanted war, not only against Austria, but against Germany as well. In the meantime, in the midst of these military preparations in St. Petersburg, the kaiser was proceeding with his mediation efforts. What Is most astonishing, in the face of the information which he must have had, is that he could consent to undertake mediation at all. But It is an estab- lished fact that he did attempt to bring pressure to bear In Vienna. But in the midst of Russia's mili- tary preparations St. Petersburg be- gan to send out more peaceful state- ments. The hope that the general war might be averted grew brighter in Berlin. Dramatic Scene Played. And here at this time was played a dramatic scene of the most significant sort. Gen. Von Moltke, chief of the general staff, appeared at the palace of the German chancellor and laid be- fore Herr von 'Bethmann-Hollweg private dispatches which established beyond the shadow of a doubt that Russia was making every effort to mo- bilize her forces for war. We may never know what these two leaders said to each other in this in- terview, but I have been told that Von Moltke demanded German mobil- ization at once. In the face of his information he must have felt that he could submit to no other course. And the chancellor, I am told, opposed this radical step with all the vigor in his possession, and he begged that this fateful step be postponed, even at con- siderable cost to the German nation. Germany could not go to war until every means to bring peace had been exhausted. And Von Moltke, surely knowing that the kaiser stood with his chancellor, submitted. England Has Own Problem. In the meantime, England was ob- sessed with the Ulster problem. The government, the entire British press and the English public were unaware of the gravity of the situation on the continent. When it was already felt in Berlin that general war might be unavoidable, London editors, in some cases, were still cabling their Berlin correspondents to send the Servian situation only briefly. It might be in- terpolated that American editors in some cases were guilty of the same error in judgment. When England fin- ally did wake up. Sir Edward Grey, without sending out, as Is usually done, a "feeler" to the other powers, sug- gested his conference of diplomats. This conference was immediately re- fused by the kaiser, because Austria already had formally declared war against Servia, and, therefore, it was too late. This action by Germany and Aus- tria has, undoubtedly, been construed In many quarters as proving an avid desire for war. Certain it is that the French nationalist press placed this construction upon It, and the Matin went so far as to address a peace appeal to the kaiser, which left the general impression that the kaiser was in a position to prevent the Austrian war upon Servia. Motives Not Considered. This construction upon the action of Germany and Austria does not take into consideration the motives behind Austria's ultimatum. A conference of ambassadors would have meant giving Russia time, and Russia wanted only time to be ready to strike quickly. In fact, every diplomatic move of Russia's throughout the early period of the crisis was a play for time, and Ger- many knew how this time was being utilized. A conference of ambassadors also, could hardly be considered the proper court for trying a memher of the Servian royal house for complicity in assassination, nor for tracing his connection with Russian official circles. The action of Sir Edward Grey was regarded in Berlin as precipitate and unfortunate, showing, at least, a lack of understanding of what the forces at play had already grown to be. But the mediation was still not out of the question. Austria had re- peatedly given her pledge that Servia's territorial integrity should be main- tained, and the German emperor had vouched for the fulfillment of this pledge. The second proposal of Sir Edward Grey to the effect that Austria should dictate her terms after the in- vasion of Servia, with the intimation that Russia would be allowed to stand by and see that Servia's sovereign and territorial integrity was finally to be respected, was handed by Ber- lin to Vienna with the strong recom- mendation that It should be accepted. Austria was ready. There was every reason to hope that Russia would accept this solution. Her answer was general mobilization. Thinks Mediation Was Offered. I feel confident that a final revela- tion of all the facts will show that the form of mediation above outlined was offered, and that Germany felt that this gave Russia every opportunity honorably to avoid war if she really wished to avoid war. In the midst of an exchange of tele- grams between the kaiser and the czar. 152 THE ALLIANCE AND THEIR ALLIES and in the midst of the mediation efforts being made by the kaiser on the direct appeal of the czar, the lightning struck. Russia announced the order for full naval and military mobilization. There could then be no doubt in any German mind that Russia wished war. At this point it is well to call at- tention to the one hopeful symptom in this otherwise hopeless situation. It must stand to the undying credit of the German kaiser that one radiant beacon of idealism shines through the darkness of these times of national selfishness and misery, and that this beacon is the kaiser's resolve to maintain peace at any honorable price so long as he could humanely do so.* It was four days before German mobilization that Von Moltke had gone to the chancellor with his demand for the fateful order. Von Moltke had been right, and the wait- ing had cost Germany much, for it must be remembered that Germany's whole military action centers around the one plan and the one plan alone, and that is to strike quickly. Four Days Had Been Iiost, Four days of striking had been lost, and, as every German knows, the loss of four days can mean decades of sor- row for the German nation. And this is the price that the kaiser paid for the cause of peace. This is the meas- ure of the progress of the last century. The pessimist may feel that this is small progress indeed, but the world is a very old world, and a hundred years is a very short time, indeed, to bring any great change in human nature. The spectacle of the kaiser holding off his forces at a national sacrifice until the last hope for peace had been dissipated is one which must win him a resplendent place in the an- nals of modem times.* The war between Germany and Austria on the one hand, against Rus- sian and Servia on the other having become unavoidable, the center of in- terest in Germany shifted to the atti- tude of France and England. It was, of course, to the interest of Germany that these two countries remain neu- tral, and one may rest assured that every fair means was employed to bring them to such a decision. No doubt great conferences on this point were held, and one is tempted to spec- ulate about the prices and the prop- ositions oflEered. Surely the map of the world could have been remade in these few days. France Sees Interest. But France saw it to her interest to make war, and I can hardly believe that any intelligent German foresaw any other decision. The French have not whetted their appetites for revenge these forty years not to be hungry for it today. France faced overwhelming financial losses in a defeated Russia, and her own financial system was already in ruins. To wait until later meant only to pay again this terrific price. And the day of reckoning had evidently come. I repeat that I can- not conceive of German intelligence expecting France to remain neutral under the circumstances of the moment and with 1870 still within memory. ♦Emphasized by the Editor. The great question then became the attitude of England. On this point there Is much hard feeling in Germany, and from what we are allowed to know these hard feelings are to a great extent justified. It Is said In the best Informed circles in Berlin that not very long ago England's king solemnly pledged that England should remain neutral in event of a continental war. How much weight can be given to the promise of an English king? The Ger- man fleet and German business effi- ciency have for long ranked In the Eng- lish mind. The time to strike, from the standpoint of pure selfish interests, had come, and strike England did. England's Excuse Given. It was the violation of Belgian neutrality which England gave as her reason for breaking off diplo- matic relations. Shortly after the chancellor's speech in the reichstag, admitting the imminence of Ger- many's Invasion of Belgium, the British ambassador called at the for- eign office and asked for a pledge that Belgium neutrality would not be violated. He was informed that such a pledge could not be given. A few moments later he called again and demanded his passes. England had entered the fight. England may be able to Induce part of the world to believe that the violation of Belgian neutrality forced her into the war. Let us examine this position from the German standpoint. In violating Belgian neutrality Ger- many admittedly committed a breach of right. The chancellor in his speech in the reichstag expressed this opinion, but linked it with a solemn pledge before the world that Belgium should be repaid for dam- age inflicted upon her in any case, and, in event of English neutrality, should maintain her territorial integ- rity. Why was Germany willing to make this pledge and at the same moment enter Belgium? The reason is not far to seek. French troops already lined the Franco-Belgian frontier. W^ere these troops to be used against Belgium? The question is absurd. Germany was convinced, and reasonably so, that these troops were eventually to be used against Germany. France Had Made Pledge. France, to be sure, had pledged herself In Brussels to observe Bel- gian neutrality as long as Germany did so. But France could wait; in fact, every day of French waiting was a day gained. If Germany, how- ever, waited until French troops vio- lated Belgian neutrality, as French aeroplanes already had done, she would be at an immense disadvan- tage. With the war already begun, It at once became a war for national preservation and the matter of Bel- gium's lesser rights must, from the German standpoint, remain to receive justice later on rather than that Ger- many should risk her own defeat and annihilation. Belgium, It seems, is fated to be the world's battlefield, and the German army could hardly be asked to hold off while the foe en- tered first and Intrenched itself in the advantageous position. Germany cannot credit any state- ment that England was forced into this conflict. Certainly the presence of French troops In Belgium would not have forced England to intervene on behalf of Germany any more than the violation of Belgian and Dutch neutrality by French aeroplanes and French reconnoissance parties forced England to Intervene. Could Have Believed Kaiser. England could easily have taken Germany's solemnly pledged word, assured herself of Germany's sin- cerity in desiring to repay Belgium for whatever damage was inflicted upon her and then have stood ready with all the moral force of the world behind her to punish Germany if the promises were not carried out to the letter. But England did not show the shadow of a willingness to take this attitude, and consequently the German believes that England, too, wanted war. And so Germany found herself faced by a tremendous foe. In the twinkling of an eye the land of the deepest political hatred became one united people. There were many ironhearted men who wept like chil- dren in the imperial castle, where the Kaiser had called together his first united reichstag and shook by the hand every party leader. There were many who wept, too, in the later session when the social demo- crats declared their patriotism and for the first time In history cheered a chancellor's speech. Spirit of Women Noble. Nor were these sights more mov- ing than the spirit of the women and the children who tramped loyally to the vacated harvest fields to take up the work of the men, nor more than that of the men who bade their fami- lies farewell and went to the wars. Germany became one land, with one heart, one mind and one enthusiasm! And what a wonderful enthusiasm! There is only the one belief in Germany today. The nation is be- leaguered from all sides. She is at war for her existence and is fighting after making every honorable effort to keep the peace. This peace has been denied her by three great Eu- ropean powers, two of which cer- tainly will with difficulty escape the charge of duplicity. In Germany there is no division of opinion as to where the right lies. And her men are fighting the fight most dear to the human heart in all these cen- turies of war, the fight for justice and the fathe-land. i ROOSE- A QIIESTION FOR MR. VELT. Why does Mr. Roosevelt perpetu- ally cite the alleged violation of the neutrality of Belgium and Luxem- berg? What of the violation of the neutrality of China by Japan and the violation of the neutrality of Egypt by Great Britain and the violation of the neutrality of Morocco by France? Coming even nearer home, we might add, as a chapter of spe- cial interest to Mr. Roosevelt, the violation, justified, no doubt, but nevertheless glaring, of the small State of Colombia "WHEN I TOOK PANAMA." — Reprinted from "The Fatherland," DEFENDING THE FATHERLAND 153 THE GERMAN CAUSE AND THE WAR. This is the fourth article of a series on THE EUROPEAN WAR, tohich ap- peared in the October 'Number of THE OPEN COURT, under the title "The German Cause," written by the Editor, Dr. Paul Cams. Consult the INDEX fnr the complete series, end, in order to see where, in the various Chapters of the hook, the different articles of this treatise may be found, look for EUROPEAN WAR (THE). In this way the reader may read the entire series of articles in their original order, if he chooses to do so, while the present arrangement still gives him the advantage of bringing the various