,5^/ D 515 .S27 ICopy 1 GERMANY and the EUROPEAN WAR By ALBERT SAUVEDR Price, 35 Cents THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THIS PAMPHLET WILL BE DONATED TO THE FUNDS NOW BEING RAISED FOR THE BELGIAN REFUGEES UTS GERMANY AND THE EUROPEAN WAR By ALBERT SAUVEUR ? THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THIS PAMPHLET WILL BE DONATED TO THE FUNDS NOW BEING RAISED FOR THE BELGIAN REFUGEES E=l samuel usher Boston, Massachusetts -^jl GERMANY AND THE EUROPEAN WAR By ALBERT SAUVEUR WE had been told by Professor Kuno Francke* that it was easy to see why American pub- lic opinion should have condemned by an over- whelming majority the diplomats of Austria and Germany, but Professor Hugo Miinsterbergj actually tells us the reason why: It is because Americans are " suggestible " and like uniformity in ideas. Some pro-English paper stated the case in favor of England and her allies, and, like Panurge's sheep, the other papers and the Ameri- can public blindly followed the same course — a poor compliment paid to American intelligence, and not likely to win sympathy for the German cause. There is something pathetic in the efforts of loyal Germans to defend the course pursued by their country, for one cannot help reading between the lines that they themselves realize the hopeless- ness of their task. It has been said that no one yet had been able to present the German side of * Boston Herald, August 24, 1914. f'The War and America," by Hugo Miinsterberg. D. Appleton & Co. New York, 19 14. 3 4 Germany and the European War this momentous question with sufficient ability to carry conviction. The explanation is obvious: Their cause is so bad that neither talent nor patriotism will avail. They are forced to have recourse to historical and other inaccuracies, extravagant statements, unwarranted conclusions, and, above all, to sophistry. The claims that have been made in defense of Germany may be classified and concisely con- sidered as follows. CLAIM I GERMANY WAS NOT THE AGGRESSOR " It is a sin against the spirit of history to de- nounce Germany as the aggressor in this war," writes Professor Miinsterberg, but he is unable to give a single acceptable reason to support his con- tention. The evidences pointing unmistakably to Germany being the aggressor are so numerous and convincing as to leave no room for doubt on this vital point in placing responsibilities where they belong. A careful perusal of both the Eng- lish and German " White Papers " will suffice to decide that question. Both of these official docu- ments afford positive proof that England made every possible effort first to prevent a war between Austria and Servia and later to localize the conflict. Germany, on the contrary, by insisting from the start that there should be no diplomatic interven- tion between Servia and her ally, Austria, and more especially by refusing to join England in a last effort at a peaceful settlement of the controversy, made a European war unavoidable. The irrefut- able facts remain, first, that Austria with the knowledge and consent of Germany presented to Servia an ultimatum so worded that she knew that the conditions imposed could not be complied with 6 Germany and the European War by any nation retaining a spark of self-respect; second, that even after Servia had accepted Aus- tria's ultimatum with the single exception of the most offensive clause, which she proposed to sub- mit to arbitration, Austria, with Germany's con- sent, proclaimed herself unsatisfied and immediately declared war on Servia; third, that Germany and Austria knew that a war with Servia meant a war with Russia, and that a war with Russia meant in turn a general European conflagration; fourth, that Germany declared war on Russia, started the invasion of France before declaring war, and, by refusing to respect the neutrality of Belgium, to which she was solemnly pledged, forced both Belgium and England into the war. In the face of so flagrant a violation of all sentiments making for peace, no sophistry will avail in attempting to protect Germany from the odium of being responsible for the greatest calamity the civilized world has ever seen. Although Professor Miinsterberg asks, " Was ever a war more natural, more unavoidable? " he is forced to admit that at the critical moment it was at least in Germany's power to delay it. He writes, in answer to the question, " Would not this war have been avoided if Germany had forced Austi'ia to give up the punitive expedition against Servia? " : "It would not ha.ve prevented the war, but simply postponed it for possibly a year until Germany and the European War 7 the Russian preparations for the war, with French money, had been completed and the chances against Germany would have been still greater." At the momentous hour preceding the declaration of war by Austria against Servia, the Kaiser un- doubtedly had it in his power to prevent the breaking of European peace, but he deliberately selected war. Obviously, he did not then expect that England would take arms with France and Russia, nor did he anticipate any serious resistance on the part of the Belgians, while he counted on the assistance of his ally, Italy. It is hardly to be doubted that, if he could have foreseen such dif- ficulties, peace and not war would have been his choice. But he thought the moment opportune to carry on a military campaign, for which Ger- many had so long prepared herself with consum- mate skill and extraordinary energy and at tremen- dous national sacrifices. The scheme was a marvelously simple one: she would rush her fight- ing machine into France via Belgium as the most direct and convenient way of travel, and, with the assistance of Italy, quickly crush unprepared France. Meanwhile Austria was to oppose slow- moving Russia until the German machine, having completed its work in France, could come to the rescue and crush the Russians. How very easy it does sound! And after the victory, what glori- ous days for western civilization! Think of the 8 Germany and the European War Teutons as rulers of Europe and, soon, of the world! Of the forcible feeding of German culture to every nation in Christendom! Think of troublesome France and French civilization once for all re- duced to a negligible quantity! Think of her colonies flourishing under German benevolent and beneficent rule! Think of England, now a second- class power, no longer standing in the way of the commercial expansion of the Fatherland! Think of poor democracy in Europe! Think of the glori- ous days for German militarism and the house of Hohenzollern! Think of the swelling bosom and trailing saber of the swaggering German officer! Surely the game was worth the candle ! It must have been a rude awakening to have found at the outset such skillfully pre-arranged plans so completely disarranged by Belgium's " indiscretion " in resisting the passage through her territory of the German war machine; by England's so forgetting her family ties and her debt to German culture as to rise against the in- vader because of a difference of opinion as to the value of a "scrap of paper"; and finally by " traitorous " Italy* failing to live up to her obli- gations ! * Italy did not, as a matter of fact, fail to live up to her obligations, for it was only in case Germany and Austria were attacked that she was bound to come to their assistance. CLAIM II FRENCH AGGRESSION We are told that Germany was forced into the war, partly at least, because of French aggression as expressed by her desire to recover her lost prov- inces of Alsace and Lorraine — a natural enough sentiment which the Germans are in the habit of describing as a " thirst for revenge." It is un- doubtedly true that France has never ceased to mourn the loss of a part of her territory, and to hope for the coming of the day when it might be restored to her. Does not so legitimate a feeling call for the respect rather than the blame of any man, regardless of nationality, who is a lover of his country? In spite of the existence of that most excusable sentiment, it must be obvious to the un- biased observer that France did not want war, that for many years she has done her utmost to preserve the peace of Europe, at times accepting humilia- tion in order to avoid a conflict with Germany. During the eventful days that preceded the present conflict, she heartily cooperated with England in every diplomatic move likely to help the main- tenance of peace. We are told by Professor Munsterberg that 9 lo Germany and the European War Germany declared war on France " because France began mobilizing and refused to promise she would keep neutral during a German-Russian war." But Germany well knew, did she not, that France was solemnly bound by her treaty with Russia to stand by her in case she was attacked by Germany and Austria? Or did she think that France should have regarded that treaty as another " scrap of paper "? Surely Germany knew that if France had failed her ally it would have resulted in the loss of her national honor and her obliteration as a world's power. It is not thinkable that Germany could have had any doubt that her declaration of war against Russia necessarily meant also war with France. How can Professor Miinsterberg expect his readers to believe that, if the German Emperor had prevented Austria from declaring war on Ser- via, as he himself admits it was in the Emperor's power to do, France and Russia would have attacked Germany in " possibly a year "? Such claim is absolutely opposed to the attitude of the French republic; it is contrary to the conduct of the Triple Entente since its existence. The con- tention is so obviously imaginary, so manifestly needed to defend Germany's course, that it hardly deserves serious consideration. Professor Miinsterberg writes, " Even the techni- cal war-making was begun by Russia and France. The Russian and French troops crossed the fron- Germany and the European War il tiers and made prisoners before Germany took any warlike step." So long as Professor Munsterberg offers no evi- dence to sustain his position, the mere statement of it carries with it little weight. One may well doubt the accuracy of his claim, which is opposed by the fact that France delayed her mobilization as long as safety permitted, and that her army was instructed to remain at a distance of some ten kilometers from the frontiers for the very purpose of avoiding such incidents as these. Indeed, it was essential to the victory of the German arms that Germany should strike first, before France had time to mobilize ; that was obviously her intention ; that is what she did. She never intended to wait until France had technically begun the war-making. Indeed, she invaded France, Belgium, and Luxem- burg before declaring war, not to make a few prison- ers, but to kill and destroy, for, as it is now realized more than ever, it was of supreme importance for her to strike at France quickly, while that country was still unprepared. With these facts before us, how hollow and mean- ingless the unsupported claim that the war was technically started by Russia and France! That assertion may probably be safely tucked away with Germany's contention that she invaded Belgium because she had proofs of the intention of France to violate that country, some French officers 12 Germany and the European War having been seen in an automobile in southern Belgium, and with many other such fantastic claims. We have been told that since the Franco- German War of 1870 the attitude of Germany toward France had been one of friendship and good- will. Professor Francke, for instance, writes, " Germany's policy toward France these forty- three years has been one of utmost restraint and forbearance, and has been dictated by the one desire of making her forget the loss of the two provinces." One is tempted to ask whether he intended to be facetious when he made such state- ment. Every Franco-German incident which has occurred since the war of 1870 is a refutation of Professor Francke's claim of German friendly attitude. That Germany has ever been ready, on the contrary, to stab France whenever possible to do so with reasonable safety and without arousing the indignation of civilized nations must be ob- vious to the student of history. As a matter of fact, has not Germany played toward France the part of a bully? The Franco-German relations since the war of 1870 have been accurately and clearly outlined in the Springfield Republican for August 22. As pointed out in that editorial, Bismarck's first concern after the Franco-Prussian war was to keep France weak and isolated. In 1875 he was plan- Germany and the European War 13 ning to attack her again, on the ground that she had not been sufficiently demoHshed four years be- fore, intending this time to " bleed France white," to use his own brutal words. And it was chiefly through the intervention of Russia that France escaped this appalling calamity. Russia and England were now alarmed, and their fears paved the way first for the Franco-Russian alliance, and later for the Triple Entente, es- sentially defensive agreements intended for mutual protection against the growing and despotic am- bition of Germany. The Morocco incident in 1905, which led to the humiliation of France through her dismissal of Delcass6, at the time her minister of foreign affairs, at the dictation of Ger- many, is an edifying instance of Germany's good- will, and proves France's earnest desire to maintain peace. Again in 191 1, when Germany, taking advantage of an apparent weakness in the Triple Entente, sent a warship to Agadir, war was only avoided through the firmness of England's attitude. Who is there that would doubt that notwithstand- ing the generous feelings of Germany towards France now claimed by Professor Francke to have existed for the last forty-three years, France as a world power would have ceased to exist long ago if Germany could have had her own way? The incontestable truth is that Germany has never been willing to tolerate a powerful France, that the 14 Germany and the European War speedy recovery of that country after the war of 1870 was a source of chagrin and alarm to Germany, that the final and complete destruction of France as a world power has always been one of the pivotal points of Germany's diplomacy. We have also heard that Germany's attitude towards the conquered provinces of Alsace and Lorraine had always been a benevolent one. Professor Francke notably makes that statement. Again it is difficult to believe that he is serious. The Zabern incident to which he refers is a good instance of the benevolence of the German domina- tion in Alsace-Lorraine. We are told that these two French provinces had been German until the seventeenth century, but is not the essential point the fact that when torn away from France they were inhabited by Frenchmen whose patriotism and love for France was not excelled by the feelings of the inhabitants of any other portion of the French republic, and that after forty-three years of Ger- manic rule their supreme desire is to become once more French citizens? Both Professors Miinsterberg and Francke refer to the recent French military law requiring every Frenchman to serve three years instead of two in the active army. " France armed," Professor Miinsterberg tells us, " as no civilized nation ever armed before; even the educated had to serve three years in the army, against the one year's Germany and the European War 15 service in Germany. For decades the French did not allow Germany an hour to rest without armor." According to Professor Francke, this new French military law was equivalent to mobilization, and an evident indication that France was getting ready to strike at Germany. These statements are certainly extraordinary, and afford an illuminat- ing insight of the German attitude towards France. For her to attempt the maintenance of a powerful army was a crime of l^se-Germany. It should be realized that even after this tremendous sacrifice on the part of France her army still remained numerically inferior to that of Germany; that the sacrifice was imposed upon her because of the ever-increasing size of the German army, due primarily to Germany's increasing population, while her own remained nearly stationary. Profes- sor Francke might as well contend that France's maintenance of any army at all was a proof of evil intentions against Germany. CLAIM III ENGLISH AGGRESSION Much indignation is expressed against England for having so forgotten family ties as to take up arms against Germany. " It is the greatest grief of the German people," writes Professor Miinster- berg, " that England, in the moment when the chances for Germany seemed bad, took hold of the convenient chance to strike the commercial rival, destroyed the slowly built-up friendship, and de- clared war against the cousins on the continent." One should not go to war with one's relatives for a " scrap of paper." One should be more considerate and close one's eyes on their escapades. Had not England interfered and Belgium been so indis- crete, Germany believes that she could have easily disposed of France and Russia and she would have emerged from the struggle with greatly increased power. But should not one rejoice at the prosperity of one's cousins, and should not one welcome them as nearer neighbors? We are told that the war was further forced upon Germany because of England's jealousy of her commercial growth and prosperity. Commercial rivalry between nations is not to be denied, nor is it to be found fault with. That England should like i6 Germany and the European War 17 a larger share of the world's commerce even at the expense of Germany's share can readily be con- ceded. But it does not follow that England was ready to plunge Europe into this terrible war in order to satisfy her commercial cravings. Indeed, her conduct, as well as that of France, since the Triple Entente came into existence, has clearly demonstrated that, like France, she was most anxious to preserve peace. If there was a salient feature during the diploma- tic activity that preceded the outbreak of the war, it was England's earnest desire and earnest efforts to maintain peace. She was forced into the war through the violation by Germany of the neutrality of Belgium. The facts speak for themselves, and they speak so forcibly as to render any defense of England's course absolutely unnecessary. In Professor Miinsterberg's opinion, England made " a great historical blunder," the statement being accompanied by the veiled threat that " if the miraculous occurs, and Germany wins against the world, England's mistake will be evident." Whether England made or not a blunder is to a great extent a matter of point of view and of one's conception of what constitute the obligations of nations. CLAIM IV RUSSIAN AGGRESSION It is said that the war was forced upon Germany by Russian aggression as expressed by the tradi- tional hatred of the Slav for the Teuton, but no evidences whatever are given showing that Russia was desirous of going to war. On the contrary, she unhesitatingly joined England and France in the diplomatic moves that preceded the out- break of hostilities, and gave every evidence of her desire to maintain peace consistent with her pres- tige and national honor. Professor Miinsterberg writes that Russia spent billions " to be ready to push the steam roller of her gigantic population over the German frontier." Is that a proof of Russia's aggression in the present conflict? Is it another offense of lese-Germany? Germany also has spent billions in the building of a steam roller to be pushed over the French or Rus- sian frontier as needed. The argument works both ways, and, so tar as throwing any light on the respective responsibilities of Germany and Russia is concerned, it may, therefore, be dismissed. In the absence of any supporting evidence, Professor Miinsterberg's contention that, if Ger- i8 Germany and the European War 19 many had refrained from going to war at this time, Russia, with France, would sooner or later — " possibly in a year " — have attacked Germany, has no significance. CLAIM V GERMANY IS FIGHTING TO PROTECT EUROPE FROM SLAVIC DOMINATION It has been repeatedly contended by German sympathizers that Germany is fighting to ward off Slavic domination of western Europe. Here is Professor Miinsterberg's presentation of that claim: " The German knows what a German defeat must mean to the ideal civilization of the world. The culture of Germany would be trampled down by the half-cultured Tartars. . . . England and France cannot crush Germany without helping Russia to an irresistible power which ultimately must subjugate the whole western civilization. . , . If Russia wins to-day, and Germany is broken down, Asia must win sooner or later; and if Asia wins, the achievements of the western world will be wiped from the earth more sweepingly than the civiliza- tion of old Assyria." Germany's bid for America's sympathy on the ground that she is conducting a holy war, to pro- tect herself and the rest of Europe from falling under Muscovite domination, will not appeal to the clear-minded American. It would be a calamity indeed for the whole world if Europe were to be ruled by the Slav, but 20 Germany and the European War 21 it would likewise be a calamity should the Teuton become her master. The imminent danger to-day is not the rule of the Romanoffs, but that of the Hohenzollems. The present war is not, as the German Chancel- lor would have it thought, a " life-and-death struggle between Germany and the Muscovite races of Russia," but obviously a life-and-death struggle between Democracy, as represented by England and France, and German Militarism, This is why the sympathy of the majority of the American people must necessarily be with Ger- many's opponents. The present coalition is not directed against the German people and German civilization — no more than the coalition that put an end to the power of Napoleon the First was directed against the French people and French civilization ; it is directed against the rule of might represented by German militarism. The German Chancellor deplores that " highly civilized France " should have made an alliance with " half- Asiatic Russia," an alliance which he characterizes as " unnatural." The world well knows that ever since the Franco- Prussian War in 1870 Germany has held a club over France, ready, while she was still bleeding, to deal the final blow, and later while she was convalescing, to stab her on the slightest provocation. Under these cir- cumstances, was not the alliance with Russia the 22 Germany and the European War most natural of alliances? Had it not been for that alliance, and later for the English entente, France as a world power would long ago have ceased to exist. Who for an instant would doubt that Ger- many would ally herself with Russia without hesita- tion, should she consider it to her advantage? France's alliance with Russia does not imply that she would submit to Russian domination. Should it be forced upon her, who can doubt that she would fight against it as desperately as she is now fighting Teutonic rule? If the Muscovite danger ever looms up as big and ominous as the Teutonic danger does to-day, then the nations of western Europe will rise again to oppose it, and among them will be Germany — Republican Ger- many possibly. And so it will be with the Asiatic danger which in Professor Miinsterberg's opinion is already threatening. One cannot help being struck by the apparent indifference of England, France, and other nations to the Muscovite danger which to Germany is so unmistakable and imminent. One wonders why the former nations' eyesight is so dull, while Ger- many's vision is so clear. A satisfactory explana- tion of that phenomenon has not so far been offered. But such apparently is the blindness of France and England that we are told by Professor Miinster- berg that " Germany is fighting to-day the battle of western civilization, and while the French Germany and the European War 23 bayonets and the English torpedoes are directed against its life, it fights the battle ultimately for France and England too." A truly sublime un- selfishness! Professor Munsterberg clearly foresees the fate of England in case of a German defeat. " Russia will be the great winner, and the new strength of Russia will be the real danger of the British empire, which will be weakened anyhow by the exhaustive war. Russia will at once push forward in Asia; India will be liberated; and, if India secures its independence, Canada and Australia 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." Notwithstanding the claim of Professor Miinster- berg and of other loyal Germans, it is obvious that Germany's supreme desire in the present struggle is not the warding off of Slavic rule — that is only incidental — but the bringing of Europe under her own rule. Hence the present alignment of Powers against her. Her eagerness to crush France is not stimulated by her desire to save the latter country from Muscovite domination, but rather by her wish to increase her own power at the expense of her neighbors. Her evident intention to annex Bel- gium, should she be victorious, is not directed against the Slavs, but aims solely at her own aggrandizement. 24 Germany and the European War The world also realizes that Germany has played the part of a bully among European nations — a part which is never popular, and not without danger, for the hour of reckoning generally comes, and, when it does come, the bully is likely to find himself without friends. A German victory in the present struggle would mean primarily a tremendous setback to demo- cratic principles and the triumph of militarism: it would imply the crushing of France and of French civilization and the weakening of the power of England, if not the reduction of that country to the rank of a second-rate nation. The victory of the Allies, on the contrary, would probably be a death-blow to militarism and all the evils it im- plies, and might mark the dawn of the era of peace and good-will among nations, for which the world has so long waited and towards which bleeding humanity is stretching imploring arms. CLAIM VI GERMANY IS FIGHTING FOR CIVILIZATION Germany, it is claimed, is fighting for civiliza- tion, of which she apparently considers herself to be the highest exponent; and to promote the cause of civilization she is making desperate efforts to crush England and France, the standard-bearers of democracy in Europe. But then, we are told, she is doing this for their own good and with a heavy heart, like a loving father chastising his children. In her war for civilization she is em- ploying barbaric methods of warfare. It is hardly conceivable that Russia, which the German Chancellor characterizes as a semi-Asiatic, slightly cultured nation, could have committed in Belgium the atrocities imputed to the Germans, had she con- quered that country under similar circumstances. German culture and German civilization are expressions which, to the Germans, appear to stand for culture and civilization of a higher order than those possessed by other nations. They believe themselves to have been intrusted with the keeping of the sacred fire. A little modesty, however, would become them better and would be more likely to win sympathizers. They should remem- ber that when England and France and Italy had 25 26 Germany and the European War centuries of a highly developed civilization behind them, what constitutes the German empire of to-day was still an agglomeration of small, semi- barbaric states. And how shall we reconcile culture and civilization with the barbaric methods employed by the Germans in conducting the present war? How can we reconcile with culture brutality of thought and conduct? Is not gentle- ness and due consideration of the moral and physi- cal rights of others the very essence of a refined civilization? Is not the German officer as an ex- pression of civilization an anachronism? Is cul- ture mere erudition? Is a profound scientist or philosopher with the instincts of a barbarian in his attitude towards other nations a more civilized being than the man with little book knowledge but actuated by humane feeling in his dealing with others? Some of Germany's great- est men of letters and science, occupying exalted positions in the intellectual world of their country, have publicly defended German militarism and all that it implies, not excluding even the acts of vandalism of the German army. Where, then, shall we look for culture in its noblest expression? Culture which does not humanize the soul is cer- tainly not worth striving for — and this war has already shown that in Germany one may be a renowned scholar while at heart a barbarian. But let those who are inclined to be suspicious Germany and the European War 27 of the genuineness of German culture behold the product of forty years of German civilization. A fighting machine of iron and flesh, a little iron here and a little flesh there — the one lending strength, the other flexibility — a machine perfectly unthink- ing and assumedly unfeeling, but so skillfully con- structed that it responds like clock-work to the guiding hand of its operator, and capable of killing in a given time, irrespective of age and sex, more unbelievers in German civilization and of destroy- ing more of their cities and works of art than any war machine ever dreamed of ! Is Germany merely culture-plated? Has the world been the victim of a gigantic fraud? If those who would defend Germany's course are to have a hearing, they should abandon their untenable contention that Germany is fighting for civilization and to ward off Muscovite domina- tion, lest further attempt on their part to maintain that position be resented by their hearers as a reflection on their intelligence and predispose them against listening to saner arguments. The issues of the present struggle are too momen- tous, of too great concern to the civilization of the world and to humanity in general, to permit its merits to be obscured by sophistry or otherwise. Let those who desire to form an intelligent and unbiased opinion as to the responsibilities of the various nations put aside their own personal likes 28 Germany and the European War and dislikes and study the " White Papers " issued by the English and German governments. The official information they contain is quite sufficient for the purpose. CLAIM VII THE INVASION OF BELGIUM BY GERMANY WAS JUSTIFIED It has been claimed that the invasion of Belgium was a military necessity and therefore justifiable. Professor Miinsterberg refers to it as a mere use of the Belgian railways, and what he has to offer in defense of it is worth quoting: " Everybody knows that etiquette stops when the house is on fire, and that good manners must be forgotten, even by the best mannered, when life and death are involved." It is not clear whether Professor Miinsterberg meant to imply that the Germans are the " best mannered," but it is evident that he would like his readers to believe that the violation of a neutral country is merely a breach of etiquette, and that it was absurd of England to go to war for so trifling a cause. Professor Miinsterberg further attempts to justify this criminal action of Germany on the ground of precedent, citing England's conduct in Egypt, in Thibet, and in South Africa. It is of little avail. The fact remains that Germany's violation of Belgium's neutrality constitutes the most flagrant and brutal international crime ever witnessed by the civilized world. It constitutes a brutal manifestation of 29 30 Germany and the European War Germany's belief that might makes right. And, when thus breaking her pledge guaranteeing the neutrahty of Belgium, Germany, the perjurer, in the act of perjuring, asked England to take her word that after the war she would restore the neutrality of that country. It is little wonder that the statement created derision in the English Parliament. According to Sir William Goschen, English am- bassador at Berlin, the imperial chancellor of Germany referred to the solemn engagement of his country to protect the neutrality of Belgium as a " mere scrap of paper," and invited England to take the same view of it. Only by degrading herself to that extent could England have remained out of the conflict. Who will blame her for having refused to buy peace and tranquillity at the expense of her national honor? Germany's act of brigandage in invading Bel- gium has been greatly aggravated by the brutality with which she has treated that country. She must have lost many sympathizers when she invaded Belgium, and the few that remained must have left her when she entered into a campaign of atrocity for the evident purpose of terrorizing the inhabi- tants of that unfortunate country. CLAIM VIII THE METHODS USED BY THE GERMANS IN CONDUCTING THE WAR ARE JUSTIFIABLE Allowing for exaggeration and discounting parti- sanship feelings, it is hardly to be doubted, in view of the official sources of information, that the German army has committed in Belgium acts of injustice and cruelty that have rightly aroused the indignation of the civilized world. These outrages become all the more abhorrent when it is consid- ered that they were perpetrated in a country having in no way offended Germany, a country whose only desire was to be left unmolested, whose only crime had been her unwillingness to permit the violation of her territory, the neutrality of which her in- vader herself had sworn to defend. In demanding the payment of a war levy of over $100,000,000 from Belgium, the Germans may have acted legally, and even in accordance with the letter, if not with the spirit of the Hague rulings, but considering the part played by Belgium in this war, the world will condemn that action as un- justifiable and savoring of highway robbery. Tortured flesh will be buried, and it will be denied that it ever existed. Non-combatants will be buried, and it will be claimed that they were 31 32 Germany and the European War " snipers." Women and children will be buried, and it will be insisted that they placed themselves in the way of bullets and bombs. And courts of inquiry will sustain some of the atrocity claims and dismiss others for lack of evidence. But the ruins of villages and cities and of works of art cannot be buried nor their existence denied. They speak for themselves, and the world is not prepared to excuse these acts on the ground that they were necessary war measures. Germany's rueful violations of sacred inter- national pledges and of the rights of men are blots in her history which cannot be erased by sophistry or by any other means. History will condemn those deeds, and their horror will increase with time — the more so because they were committed by a nation pretending to be highly civilized and cultured. Germany and the European War 33 Germany has been indicted by the grand jury of civilized nations, and her indictment is plainly written on the wall of history. She is accused of having deliberately precipitated a European war for the purpose of increasing her power and of securing territorial and commercial expansion. She is accused of having violated sacred inter- national pledges by her invasion of Belgium. She is accused of using barbaric methods of warfare, such as the killing and torturing of non-combatants, — men, women, and children, — and of wanton destruction of villages, cities, and works of art. She is accused of sowing mines in the path of un- armed ships and of vessels from neutral nations. She is accused of levying enormous war taxes on a country the integrity of which she had sworn to protect. Whether this indictment should be drawn against the German Emperor alone, or against the Ger- man military party including or not the Emperor, or against the whole German nation, remains to be determined. POSTSCRIPT As these pages are passing through the press, there are many signs that Germany is beginning to reaUze that her dreams of conquest may, after all, fail to come true; that her war machine, that wonderful product of her love for peace, may not succeed in killing enough of those objecting to German " culture " for her to fasten her rule on Europe. Her spokesmen are beginning to tell us that Germany never dreamt of empire ; that her modest claim was for a breathing place under the sun; that her military preparedness was never intended for ofifensive warfare but solely to avert war. When such claims are made, it is well to remember the words of her Emperor in sending his soldiers to the front, as they undoubtedly depict accurately his feelings and those of the military party, if not of the whole nation. Here is the Kaiser's conception of Germany's mission of peace and destiny. " Remember that the German people are the chosen of God. On me, on me as German Emperor, the spirit of God has descended. I am His weapon. His sword, and His vizard. Woe to the disobedient! Death to cowards and unbe- lievers! " No sophistry can possibly so pervert the mind 34 Germany and the European War 35 as to make it appear that Germany's preparedness for war, which includes the building, in time of peace, on the territories of her neighbors, of founda- tions upon which to place her huge guns, was in- tended for the maintenance of peace. On the contrary, this military preparedness, at which the world has marveled, clearly reveals the wicked- ness of the odious designs nourished by the Ger- mans for so many years. Had we no other proofs of Germany's guilt, that alone would sufiice to condemn her. These spokesmen have discovered a real love on the part of Germany for the Monroe Doctrine. Should she be victorious, the United States need have no fear. She will respect the doctrine; she will even give her word to that effect. Can they really believe that any reliance whatsoever can be placed on the promise of a perjurer? Germany has shocked the world by the most cold-blooded violation of sacred pledges ever committed by a nation pretending to be highly civilized, and she would now ask the United States that she be trusted. Her affection for the Monroe Doctrine is probably on a par with her love for Belgium, — to be discarded and trampled upon at the op- portune moment when she feels again strong enough to defy the world. How can Germany expect that any document bearing her signature will be re- garded otherwise than as a mere scrap of paper? 36 Germany and the European War Germany, regenerated by long years of atone- ment, may again be admitted to the company of civilized peoples, but the branded Germany of the Kaisers and of the Krupps, as long as it exists, will remain an outlaw among nations. APPENDIX The exceptionally able editorials published by the New York Times have attracted much atten- tion, not only in the United States, but also in Europe. Nowhere has the momentous question with which we are concerned been treated with greater courage, intelligence, lucidity, logic, and fairmindedness. These writings are also unexcelled for breadth of view and high and virile conception of the right and duties of men and nations. Through the courtesy of the New York Times, some of these editorials are here reproduced. An editorial from the New York World, and one from the Providence Journal, are also given. THE HOLY WAR (New York Time;, August 14, 1914) As we understand the theory of the holy war, the Kaiser had a divine mission to rescue England, France, and Belgium from the impending menace of Slav domination. They were pig-headed about it and refused to be rescued. So, with a heavy heart, the Kaiser was compelled to thrash them in order to save them. In the course of his benevo- lent militancy he was pained to discover that 37 38 Germany and the European War Portugal also did not want to be rescued from Slav domination, and that Italy was indifferent whether she was rescued or not, while the other nations of Europe seem to be more worried about something else than about the danger of becoming Slav, serious as that danger would be if it existed. It is a dreadful thing to be so clear-sighted that nobody can see what you see except Franz Josef. However, this explanation of the war, put for- ward with so much confidence by Professor Miin- sterberg and others, may not be true. Let us hope, for Germany's sake, that it is not. For those who may persuade themselves that the danger is real, however, we offer a few con- soling reflections. If at the conclusion of the war Germany finds itself upon the losing side, the rug- ged Russian bear can extend his huge and shaggy bulk over western Europe only if the Powers con- tinue to be bound by their present alliances and understandings. Now, there is nothing in the world of politics more naturally subject to sudden changes than European alliances for the support of particular interests or the maintenance of the balance of power. Take Germany, or rather Prussia, as an example. Bismarck formed an alliance with Austria in order to filch the provinces of Schleswig and Holstein from Denmark. Then he faced about and went to war with Austria in order to make perfectly secure the dominance of Germany and the European War 39 Prussia in United Germany, which was the object of his poHcy. In that war he had a good under- standing with Napoleon III and an alHance with Italy. Later he consented to discuss with France a plan for the annexation of Luxemburg and Bel- gium by that power. It is to be noted that France, which was then willing to gobble up Belgium, is now mighty thankful for the Belgian resistance to the German advance. Within two years after he had talked over these plans for extending the French frontier, Bismarck was ready to go to war with France. The war came in 1870. Bismarck was on the best of terms with Russia so long as it was to the advantage of Prussia. For that reason he did not join France and England in the Crimean War. But in 1878 he joined Eng- land in forcing Russia to accept the Treaty of Berlin as a substitute for her own Treaty of San Stefano, made with Turkey at the conclusion of her victorious war with that power. A hundred years ago France and England were at war. Half a century later they joined Turkey in fighting Russia in the Crimea. Italy, now the ally of Austria, a passive ally in the present war, is the ancient enemy of the Austrians, and fought them less than half a century ago. The present good understanding and alliance between England, France, and Russia is for a definite purpose — common defense against the 40 Germany and the European War danger to each and all through the rise of Germany to a position of supreme power, where she could impose her will upon all other European Powers. Its purpose accomplished, the understanding would be instantly abandoned if the rise of new interests demanded other coalitions. England and France, now at war with Germany, would join Germany to resist any Slav encroachment that threatened western Europe. In the long run their interests will be with Germany and against Russia so long as any Russian ambition threatens the Western Powers. As against the bogy of Slav domination there may be set up the vastly greater probability that the defeat of Germany and Austria in this war would be followed by a pretty firm alliance be- tween Austria, Germany, and Russia. When it was said that the signers of the Declaration of Independence must hang together, Benjamin Frank- lin observed that if they did not they would hang separately. The greatest blessing the war could bring would be, as we have before said, the over- throw of the Romanoff, Hapsburg, and Hohen- zollern dynasties, and the sweeping away of the last European remains of divine right rubbish. Failing that, it will very plainly be for the interest of the three emperors to stand by each other in a new Holy Alliance to protect their thrones, their dynasties, and the moldering theories of govern- Germany and the European War 41 ment which they represent. Professor Bonn re- grets that " France has annihilated herself as a power for the moral improvement of the uni- verse by making herself a tool for the Russian jug- gernaut." The fortunes of the Russian juggernaut as an institution are linked with those of the German and the Austrian juggernauts. The great- est moral and political improvement that could be brought about in Europe would be the destruction of these ancient vehicles. When the time comes, the axe of France will be lifted impartially against all three. But primarily it is a moral improve- ment to be effected by the peoples of the three realms in which " the right divine of kings to govern wrong " is still tolerated and respected. THE PERIL OF GERMAN MILITARISM (New York Times, September 6, 1914) A great part of the people of the world are at war with Germany — her arms may triumph over them; but in the judgment of substantially the whole civilized world Germany stands condemned, and triumph of her arms will not reverse that judgment. She can take her appeal only by re- generation and through new ideals. The Germans say they are surprised at the attitude of the Ameri- can people; they had expected sympathy and ap- proval. If that be their feeling, they need set no 42 Germany and the European War bounds to their disappointment, for the American people, some of German birth and descent alone excepted, are unanimous in condemning Germany's action. And the belief that she is responsible for the war is scarcely less firm and universal. That belief is based upon solid grounds of evidence. Why do the American people condemn Germany? Because they condemn and abhor militarism, because they have an inborn and invincible aver- sion to that form of government in which one man sets his will above the will of the people. For the German people they have only friendship, mingled with a feeling of wonder that a people so enlight- ened have so long consented to the anachronism of imperial rule by " divine right." There is some- thing more, however. The American people in- stinctively feel and know that the complete triumph of Germany in this great conflict involves a not distant peril to themselves. President Eliot, in his letter to the Times, published on Friday, set forth with perfect clearness a truth that has found firm lodgment in the minds of Americans: " Should Germany and Austria-Hungary suc- ceed in their present undertakings, the whole civilized world would be obliged to bear con- tinuously, and to an ever-increasing amount, the burdens of great armaments, and would live in constant fear of sudden invasion, now here, now there — a terrible fear, against which neither Germany and the European War 43 treaties nor professions of peaceable intentions would offer the least security." The supremacy of German militarism would turn back the hands of the clock. The civilized world would thereafter be less civilized, and we could not shut our eyes to the danger that we, even though we be across the seas, should sooner or later be threatened, that we almost certainly would be threatened, by this great and dominant military power. To meet that danger we should be com- pelled to make our preparations. The feeling of the American people is again expressed with great point and force in the letter from Sir Edward Grey addressed to his constituents at Berwick: " The progress of the war has revealed what a terrible, immoral thing German militarism is. It is against German militarism that we must fight. The whole of western Europe would fall under it if Germany should be successful in this way. But if, as a result of the war, the independence and integrity of the smaller European States can be secured and western Europe liberated from the menace of German militarism, and the German people itself freed from that militarism — for it is not the German people, but Prussian militarism, which has driven Germany and Europe into war — if that militarism can be overcome, then indeed there will be a brighter, freer day for Europe which 44 Germany and the European War will compensate us for the awful sacrifices which war entails." The German Foreign Office declared in the Memorandum which the Times published the other day that " we took the stand emphatically that no civilized nation had the right in this struggle against lack of culture {Unkultur) and criminal political morality to prevent Austria from acting to take away the just punishment from Servia." The reference is plain. The Foreign Office meant that England as a civilized nation had no right to take part against Germany in her struggle with " Unkultur," which means Russia. Yet in this great European war Russia is in the very forefront of the struggle against the great enemy of modern civilization and progress, German militarism. That is a truth that will be most distasteful to Germany. It will increase Germany's surprise and chagrin to know that the American people regard in that light the r61e of Russia in the con- flict. But Germany has herself to blame if in the opinion of civilized neutral nations Russia's course is approved and her own course condemned. It is not a moral judgment alone; it is a judgment forced upon the people of the United States by considerations of their interest and safety. German militarism dominant in Europe, its power increased by the addition of the territory of Belgium, prob- ably that of Holland, and become demonstrably Germany and the European War 45 irresistible by the humbling of France and England, would be, we feel, a menace to our own peace and safety. "THE TRUTH ABOUT GERMANY" (New York Times, September 7. 1914) Some of the chief men of the empire have put forth a book that is professedly written as the appeal of Germany for the sympathy and support of the people of the United States. Among the authors of the volume are a former chancellor, a field marshal, a president of the Reichstag, several university professsors, prominent men of business and finance, and some are of princely title. A case that enlists pleaders of this high distinction must in truth need buttressing, and it is an occasion for regret that they have not been able to make a better defense. The blame does not rest with them. No voice or pen, however eloquent or gifted, can convince an impartial world of the justice of Germany's cause or change the rooted belief of right-thinking men that she is battling for ends that, attained, would retard the advance of civiliza- tion and make the peace, the prosperity, and the happiness of the nations less secure. These men of Germany ask us to give no heed to the lies of their enemies. In this land of enlighten- ment public opinion does not take form on any- 46 Germany and the European War body's lies. We keep no mind of perversions sent out from London or Paris. We have sought truth in its undefiled sources, in the British White Paper and in the Memorandum of the German Foreign Office, in the observed and acknowledged policies of the combatant nations, and in the utterances of their men of authority. The princes and profes- sors who pay us the compliment of this appeal to our candid judgment will not impeach the testi- mony of their Foreign Office, we suppose, yet if there was suspension of judgment in the first weeks of the war, doubt vanished and full conviction came when the Times published the official docu- ments and records. The American people there read of the untiring efforts of Sir Edward Grey to reach a peaceful adjustment through a con- ference of the Powers, of his appeals to which France, Russia, and Italy gave immediate assent- ing response, which Germany alone met with evasion, excuse, disfavor, and refusal. From Germany's Memorandum they learn that the Kaiser's Government had from the first sustained and encouraged Austria in a policy of war, and had denied the rights of any other Power to stand be- tween her and the Servian objects of her wrath. It is wholly futile, it is an affront to our intelligence, for these German suppliants for our favor to tell us now that Russia and England brought on the war, that Germany did not choose the path of Germany and the European War 47 blood, that the sword was forced into the hands of the German Emperor. Nor can our favor or sympathy be won by mis- representing the motives of England, France, and Russia. In the face of Sir Edward Grey's labors for peace, why tell us that England " encouraged this war " because she was determined to check the commercial growth of Germany? Why tell us that the war was " provoked by Russia because of an outrageous desire for revenge "? We have knowledge of the fact, the proofs are before us, yet these German advocates talk to us as though we had just arrived from the moon. We are un- moved by their picture of the Slav peril. Why is it that Germany fears the Slav? England is not afraid; France has no fear; Italy, Belgium, Holland are all undisturbed. We should like to see a satis- factory answer to the question why, when all the rest of Europe is calm, Germany stands in terror of the Slav. The authors of this book make a wretched defense of Germany's crime against international morality and her invasion of neutral Belgium. " In our place the government of the United States would not have acted differently." Speak for yourselves, gentlemen. Our recent repeal of a statute that was by a great part of our people deemed to be in conflict with one of our treaties speaks for us. But it is not upon these present things that our 48 Germany and the European War minds chiefly dwell; we are taking thought of the future. We are a great nation. We do not be- come less great through overslaughing or diminish- ment at the hands of a European military power that for years has menaced the peace of the nations by her schemes of aggrandizement. We have pos- sessions in many quarters of the globe, and com- mercial interests in all. This appeal for our sympathy and moral support comes with ill-grace from the subjects of an imperial ruler whose ambi- tion it is to lift Germany to the position of world supremacy. We cannot look with complacent approval upon the effort of this great military chieftain to crush the peaceably inclined nations that refuse to bow to his will. The German ambition becomes a matter of serious concern to us; it is alarming, for it is certain as fate that with Russia beaten back, England and France crushed, and Belgium and Holland seized, the coming of some cause of conflict with ourselves would not be long delayed. We cannot be expected to welcome the compulsion to spend our substance in a race with Germany for military supremacy. Besides, by inheritance and training we give our sympathy to those who are fighting in the cause of human liberty; we withhold it from those who bear the symbols and standards we shed our blood to cast out from this land. Our forefathers prostrated themselves in the dust before their Germany and the European War 49 Maker, but they set their foot upon the neck of the king. We have no liking for power that asks no sanction of the people. Almost a century and a half ago we made an end here of that abomination before the Lord — at least we felt it to be an abomi- nation — and we are not agreeably impressed by blasphemous imperial invocations of divine favor upon bloody enterprises. These gentlemen of Germany plead in vain. We can give them no help. To quote their own words in a truer sense than their own, " the country of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln places itself upon the side of a just cause and one worthy of humanity's blessing." OUR ANSWER TO GERMANY (New York Times, September 8, 1914) In our Declaration of Independence we said that " a decent respect to the opinions of man- kind " required us to declare the causes which impelled us to dissolve the political bands that united us with the mother country. To prove the justice of our cause the Declaration said, " Let facts be submitted to a candid world." Germany through her mea of " light and leading " has appealed for the sympathy and the moral support of the people of the United States. We have given our answer. It responds to their wish, for 5© Germany and the European War they asked our opinion ; it does not respond to their hope, since we are unable to give them our sym- pathy or accord to them our moral support. The answer has been given through the in- numerable voices of public opinion. We have told the Germans that in our judgment Austria was unreasonably harsh and provocative in her demands upon Servia; that we have a profound conviction that their great Emperor was guilty of a wrong against civilization in supporting the Austrian demands and the Austrian course of action; that he was wrong again in withholding assent from the peaceful proposals of Sir Edward Grey, in which France, Italy, and Russia joined; that it was a monstrous wrong to send the German troops across the Belgian frontier; and that inas- much as Great Britain, France, and Russia have taken up arms in defense of political ideals which have our approval against autocratic and mili- tarist theories and designs which we hold in ab- horrence, the sympathy and moral support we deny to Germany and to Austria are freely given to the Allies. This is the answer we make to Ger- many. It expresses the beliefs and the feelings of the whole American people, save only some of those whose judgment is subject to the natural influence of the ties of kindred. Since the Germans have asked for our opinion, we must suppose that they value it. It is a rea- Germany and the European War 51 soned opinion, altogether without prejudice, be- cause for the German people we have the highest esteem and respect. Is it too much to hope that the judgment of this great people may have some weight in Germany? The full efifect of what we say and feel cannot be expected — it is too late. The clash of arms, of course, drowns the voice of friendly counsel. But may we not hope that some at least of the great minds of Germany, the minds of men who are not wholly subdued to the terrible ideals of militarism, may be persuaded to re- examine the German course of action and to in- quire afresh into the justice of the causes for which she is at war? That the progress of a war in which so many millions are engaged will be influenced by American public opinion is quite too much to hope for. But as the warring forces approach the end of the bloody arbitrament, and when the varying fortunes of war have brought the probable decision clearly into view, we may reasonably hope that the opinions we hold and have given will exert an influence that will hasten the advent of peace, — peace without harsh conditions, peace that will be just and lasting. 52 Germany and the European War DR. DERNBURG'S ARGUMENT (New York Times, September 14, 1914) 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 marshaling his argument to produce just that impression. His method is so exceedingly adroit that if he be not read with con- stant wariness of mind the reader may find himself granting one assumption after another until he is swept helplessly along to a conclusion that Ger- many 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 contentions in Dr. Dernburg's argument. The first is that the Ger- man Emperor is no more a man ot war than our President, and has less power to make war; the second is that Sir Edward Grey, adopting the reasoning of Mr. Gladstone, made small account of the treaty guaranteeing the neutrality of Bel- gium, and really went to war in furtherance of quite other English interests; the third that the Germany and the European War 53 real cause of the war is to be sought in Russia's devotion to her ideal of Pan-Slavism. These positions invite analytic examination and the application of the acid test of reality. Dr. Dernburg points out that except when Ger- man territory is attacked the Emperor may not declare war without the consent of the Bundesrat, 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 asserts that the Emperor " must have, and in fact had, the consent of his allies represented by the Federal Council," and that the consent 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 Imperial Chancellor to the ambassador in St. Petersburg, declaring that " his Majesty the Emperor, my August Sovereign, in the name of the Empire, takes up the defiance and considers himself in a state of war against Russia." Dr. Dernburg insists that Wilhelm II has been a man of peace. In his aversion to war he is put on a level with President Wilson. If the comparison is just, then we must assume that in the Emperor's place Woodrow Wilson would have given Austria a " free hand," would have warned all civilized nations that they 54 Germany and the European War must not interfere between Austria and Servia, and would in the crisis of the affair have gone to war with Russia, France, and England. 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 Aus- tria'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 Bernhardi, one of the chiefs of the war party, in which war is lauded as " the greatest factor in the furtherance of culture and power." Dr. Dernburg cites that passage of Gladstone's speech of August 3, 1870, quoted in Sir Edward Grey's House of Commons speech, as proof that England held in light regard her treaty obligation to defend Belgium's neutrality. In truth, Mr. Gladstone did make one of those characteristic speeches which always left his audience in doubt about his position. Our courts disregard legisla- tive debates and seek the intent of the lawmakers in the language of the statute. We must remind Dr. Dernburg that in 1870 England made one treaty with Germany to join her in a war against France if France invaded Belgium, and a similar treaty with France to join her against Germany if Germany and the European War 55 that Power invaded Belgium. Last month Eng- land went to war with Germany because she had trampled on Belgium. We may disregard all other pretended evidence of England's view of the ob- ligation of that treaty. Dr. Dernburg's skill as an advocate is nowhere more clearly exhibited than in his adaptation of his argument to his audience. It would be futile to say to us, what so many Germans have said, that England brought on this war. We have the White Paper for sure disproof. But when he tells us that the Pan-Slavic agitation and the need the Czar had to uphold Russia's prestige forced him to take issue with Austria and so made war in- evitable, we are confronted by the necessity of some inquiry into Russia's responsibility. It is easily made. Austria had acted, and " it was the bounden duty " of Germany to come to her aid, to protect her from destruction and dismember- ment. How did Austria fix upon Servia the guilt of that attempted dismemberment? By a secret ex-parte process, wholly unknown to Anglo- Saxon jurisprudence and unworthy of faith and credit under any jurisprudence. A judge who should attempt to fix guilt after such a trial would here be flung from the bench in disgrace. But the Kaiser's Government gave Austria " the free hand " and full support, and when Russia, having her own ideas of the actual Austrian intent, made 56 Germany and the European War her protest, Germany declared that she would brook no interference with her ally's plans. It was on July 30 that the Czar telegraphed to Emperor William: " We need your strong pressure on Austria in order that an understanding may be brought about with us." It was on August i that the Emperor directed his chancellor to inform the ambassador at St. Petersburg that he con- sidered himself in a state of war with Russia. If Dr. Dernburg's argument had ten times the force it has, it would never convince the American people that Woodrow Wilson would have directed the sending of that message. A FUTILE APPEAL (The World, August i6, 1914) The German Imperial Chancellor pays no high compliment to the intelligence of the American people when he asks them to believe that " the war is a life-and-death struggle between Ger- many and the Muscovite races of Russia and was due to the royal murders at Serajev^o." To say that all Europe had to be plunged into the most devastating war of human history be- cause an Austrian subject murdered the heir to the Austrian throne on Austrian soil in a con- spiracy in which Servians were implicated is too absurd to be treated seriously. Great wars do Germany and the European War 57 not follow from such causes, although any pre- text, however trivial, may be regarded as suffi- cient when war is deliberately sought. The record in this case shows that every de- mand which Austria made on Servia was granted except one, which was only conditionally refused, and although this demand involved the very sov- ereignty of Servia, the government offered to sub- mit the case to mediation. Diplomacy that sought peace and could not obtain peace out of such a situation would have to be in the last stages of imbecility. In such circumstances the responsi- bility for war rests upon the nation that begins it. Nor is the Imperial Chancellor's declaration that " the war is a life-and-death struggle between Germany and the Muscovite races of Russia "con- vincing in the slightest degree. So far as the Russian menace to Germany is concerned, our friend the Staats-Zeitung is much nearer the truth when its editor, Mr. Ridder, boasts that " no Russian army ever waged a successful war against a first-class power." The life-and-death struggle between Germany and the Muscovite races of Russia is a diplo- matic fiction invented after German autocracy, taking advantage of the Servian incident, set forth to destroy France. It was through no fear of Russia that Germany had massed most of her army near the frontiers of France, leaving only 58 Germany and the European War six army corps to hold Russia in check. It was through no fear of Russia that Germany violated her solemn treaty obligations by invading the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg. Ger- many's policy as it stands revealed by her mili- tary operations was to crush France and then make terms with Russia. The policy has failed because of the unexpected resistance of the Bel- gians and the refusal of Great Britain to buy peace at the expense of her honor. The " German culture and civilization " for which the Imperial Chancellor pleads are held in the highest respect everywhere; but French culture and civilization are quite as important to the world as German culture and civilization. France has contributed more to humanity than Germany, and in a contest between German autocracy and French republicanism it is futile for the Imperial Chancellor to appeal to the American people for sympathy on the ground that German culture and civilization are fighting for their life " against a half-Asiatic and slightly cultured barbarism." CONVICTED [Providence Journal, October 14, 1914] The Miinsterbergs, the Bernstorffs, the Ridders and all the subsidized agents of the German Gov- ernment are persisting in their frantic appeals to Germany and the European War 59 the Journal and many other newspapers in the attempt to curb the honest and heartfelt indigna- tion of the American people. These representa- tives of German " culture," together with the Kuhn-Loebs of the commercial world, in their fatuous " patriotism," or blindness, believe that the newspapers are responsible for the most spontaneous and universal protest that the Ameri- can people has ever made in its history. If German money, or the specious arguments of German professors, could change the course of every newspaper in the United States to-morrow, the sentiment of the country would still remain the same. For the German Kaiser and his gov- ernment have been convicted, not by the false reasoning of the American press, not by lies or special pleading, but out of their own mouths. America needs only a single justification for her attitude. She finds it in the one word — BELGIUM. William of Germany and his people have an account to square with God that no sophistry can wipe out. For they have wilfully, and in their mad passion for conquest, turned a fair land into a shambles, taken a peaceable little nation by the throat, torn it into bleeding fragments and crushed its very heart beneath their iron tread. The stories of individual German atrocities may not all be true, though there is proof that many of 6o Germany and the European War them are. But whatever is true and whatever is false, this one thing stands out, so overshadowing in its monstrous cruelty and barbarism that it forces the hoarse cry of " GUILTY " from every man and woman in the world whose being throbs with a spark of human love or the spirit of justice. The preservation of Germany's national power, her boasted military machine, her position in art, and the sciences, and commerce, are no longer dependent for preservation on her victories in the field. They are destroyed already, and she will toil on towards the light through many generations of bitter years before she rises from her knees again. Not because great armaments will have beaten her down — not because she has been hurled back in her crusade of butchery and invasion. No. But because, purporting to be a great civilized race, worthy of " a place in the sun," she has pro- claimed to the world that a treaty is only a scrap of paper, and, by the hand of a paranoiac who poses as the chosen of God himself, has deluged with the blood of murdered thousands a land whose peace she had sworn to protect and hold inviolate. All the tramping of Germany's legions, all the thunder of her bombs and batteries, cannot drown out the cry of one little Belgian child. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 021 546 362 fi HoUinger Corp. pH 8.5