GERMANY'S POINT OF VIEW 4 'b 1/ 5 Germany's Point of View BY Edmund von Mach A.B., A.M., Ph.D. (Harvard) Author of What Germany Wanfs" CHICAGO A. C. McCLURG & CO. 1915 4= Copyright A. C. McClurg & Co. 1915 Published July, 1915 #<^"* W. F. HALL PRINTING COMPANY, CHICAGO JUL 16 1915 ©GU401830 To MY WIFE Wise Counsellor and Diligent Helper MARY WARE VON MACH Born in a New England Parsonage of Mayflower stock Lover of Truth and therefore convinced of the JUSTICE OF THE GERMAN CAUSE This Book is Dedicated in Love and Gratitude PREFACE THIS book contains a collection of articles, revised, which appeared in the Wednesday editions of the Boston Evening Transcript, October 14, 1914, to May 5, 1915, under the caption "The German Viewpoint," and which, therefore, present a certain record of seven months of the European War. The last two chapters were prepared for The Transcript, but were delivered as an address before the German University League in New York. The purpose of these articles was not to comment on the progress of the war, but to go to the root of things, and to explain, if possible, why those who had not lost faith in Germany differed from many of their fellow citizens in their interpretation of the relative merits of the causes of the several belligerents. These articles, therefore, contain a wealth of economic data, historical documents, and individual interpretations which it is hoped will show that in this war the right is on the side of Germany. It was at first suggested that the publication of these articles in book form demanded the obliteration of all cursory references to the incidents of the war. On second thought, however, this appeared not to be desirable, because the articles as they stand, reflect, to a certain extent, the historical sequence of the pres- entation of the several ideas to the public opinion of the countr}^ Those readers who wish to pursue a given subject irrespective of the time when this or that part of it was offered to the original readers of The Transcript, are enabled to do so by a table of contents which is arranged by subjects. Preface The author had one more object in mind in col- lecting these articles in book form. There has been much bitter feeling against the American press among the pro-Germans in this country, and among the Ger- mans in the Fatherland. Without, unfortunately, being able to affirm that Germany has received fair treatment, the author wishes to bear testimony to the fact that the spirit of fair play has nevertheless been more prevalent here than in some of the other neutral states. When the war is over the knowledge that articles like these appeared week after week, and at times when the passions were highest, in a distinctly .pro-Allies paper of such importance as the Boston Transcript will take some of the sting out of the charge of unfairness made against the American press. The defenders of the good name of Germany, had to contend against great odds, but they were not entirely denied the opportunity of pleading their case, as happened in other countries. In this connection it is only right to state that not once during the thirty weeks that the author was asked by the owner and managing editor of the Boston Transcript to contribute his weekly "View- points," was any request made or any pressure brought to bear upon him to lessen his freedom of expression. On the contrary, the author had an absolutely free hand, and his articles were printed as he had written them. This implies a degree of generosity which it would be difficult to duplicate outside of the United States of America. Edmund von Mach. Cambridge, Mass., May, IQ15. CHAPTER I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII CONTENTS PAGE Did England Want a Neutral Belgium? i The German Constitution 14 Germany's Conduct of the War ... 28 England's Conduct of the War ... 43 Japan and Kiau-Chau— Germany and Belgium 5*^ Germany as a World Power— Alsace- Lorraine 73 Alsace-Lorraine ^7 English ■ and French Voices— German Victories 10^ English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 112 Is the English News of Belgium Reliable ? 126 German Soldiers 140 The Meaning of Tipperary . . . . . 149 Germany Broke No Treaty 162 The Straightforward Conduct of Ger- many ^75 The English Web of Calumny .... 190 "La Grande Pitie des Eglises de France" 203 The French Yellow Book 216 The French Yellow Book (Continued) 242 The French Yellow Book (Concluded) 257 German Scientists on the War ... 269 The German Food Supply 280 The German Food Supply (Concluded) 293 Contents CHAPTER PAGE XXIII Naval War and International Law . . 303 XXIV The Declaration of London 315 XXV Bismarck 328 XXVI Bulgaria 338 XXVII The Exportation of Arms 351 XXVIII The Rights and Duties of Neutrals . . 363 XXIX How England and France Wage War . 378 XXX Sir Edward Grey -390 XXXI Sir Edward's Evidence 401 XXXII Sir Edward's Evidence (Concluded) . 419 Index 439 GERMANY'S POINT OF VIEW GERMANY'S POINT OF VIEW CHAPTER I DID ENGLAND WANT A NEUTRAL BELGIUM? IT IS a great mistake to believe that the German nation is ready to condone a criminal action for the sole reason that it was committed by their own government. On the contrary, no people will be se- verer in their censure of the infringement of Belgian neutrality than the Germans themselves, if it is found that the facts in the case are those presented by the British statesmen and not those given currency in Germany. James Bryce recently introduced his general discus- sion of the subject with these words: Moreover, the facts, at least as we in England see and believe them, and as the documents seem to prove them to be, appear not to be known to the German people, and the motives of the chief actors are not yet fully ascertained. This very fair statement should make one willing, in the interest of truth, to listen to the facts as they appear to the German people. They are here given, not in a controversial spirit, but to complete the record, so to speak, of the case before the court of public opinion. Much uncertainty exists concerning the treaties on which Belgian neutrality rests, and even James Bryce 2 Germany's Point of View apparently neglected to look them up, although he doubtless knows that in such cases one cannot always rely on one's memory. These are the facts : The division between Holland and Belgium, both of which countries had been parts of the old German empire, was established by the treaty of 183 1. In 1839 Great Britain, France, Aus- tria-Hungary, Prussia, and Russia signed a supple- mentary treaty guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium and accepting in toto the articles of the earlier treaty. In 1870 there was considerable uncertainty about the binding force of the treaty of 1839, some holding that the guarantee of Belgian neutrality forced the signatory Powers not only themselves to respect the neutrality but also to compel, by force of arms, all other nations to respect it; others — and among them Mr. Gladstone — declared in the British Parliament that a guarantee made under entirely different con- ditions was not enforceable. Since it was, however, desirable from every point of view that Belgian neu- trality should be respected during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, Great Britain negotiated special treaties with Prussia and France, respectively, on August 9 and II, 1870. The treaties are identical in wording, substituting in the second treaty, of course, France for Prussia wherever this name occurs. After the preamble the treaty reads : Article I. His Majesty the king of Prussia having de- clared that notwithstanding the hostilities in which the North German Confederation is engaged with France, it is his fixed determination to respect the neutrality of Belgium so long as the same shall be respected by France. Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, on her part declares that, if during Did England Want a Neutral Belgium? 3 the said Hostilities the Armies of France should violate that Neutrality, she will be prepared to cooperate with his Prussian Majesty for the defence of the same in a manner as may be mutually agreed upon, employing for that purpose her Naval and Military forces to insure its observance, and to maintain, in conjunction with his Prus- sian Majesty, then and thereafter, the Independence and Neutrality of Belgium. It is clearly understood that Her Majesty of thg United Kingdom of Great Britain and Irelai;id does not engage herself by this treaty to take part in any of the general operations of the war now carried on between the North German Confederation and France, beyond the limits of Belgium and the Netherlands of 19th April, 1839. Article II. His Majesty the King of Prussia agrees on his part, in the event provided for in the foregoing article, to cooperate with Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland employing his naval and military forces for the purpose aforesaid, and- the case arising, to concert with her majesty the measures which shall be taken separately or in common, to secure the neutrality and independence of Belgium. Article III. This treaty shall be binding on the High Contracting Parties during the Continuance of the present war between the North German Confederation and France, and for twelve months after the Ratification of any Treaty of Peace concluded between those parties, and on the expiration of that time the Independence and Neu- trality of Belgium will, so far as the High Contracting Parties are respectively concerned, continue to rest as heretofore on Article i of the Quintuple Treaty of the 19th of April, 1839. '^ If this treaty of 1870 is studied in the light of Mr. Gladstone's remarks in Parliament, the conclusion that the earlier treaty placed no enforceable obligations on Great Britain seems reasonable. For if it did, no valid reason for a new treaty appears, because a mere announcement on the part of Great Britain that it understood her guarantee of 1839 to be enforceable in 1870, would have been sufficient. And more, from Germany's Point of View the wording of Article I it may be possible to deduce that at that time neither France nor Prussia nor Great Britain saw in the treaty of 1839 a moral obligation of the contestants to respect Belgian neutrality. If they had done so, it is probable — some say certain — that the phrase "guaranteed by Prussia [France] in the treaty of 1839" would have been inserted after the phrase " his fixed determination to respect the neu- trality of Belgium." Mr. Lloyd George in an address to his Welsh com- patriots, delivered in October, 19 14, ignored these treaties of 1870, referring merely to a preliminary enquiry whether both France and Prussia intended to respect Belgian neutrality, and continued: That was in 1870. Mark what followed. Three or four days after that document (an address of thanks from Belgium) was received, the French army was wedged up against the Belgian frontier, every means shut out, a ring of flame from Prussian cannon. There was one way of escape. What was that? Violate the neutrality of Belgium. What did they do? The French on that occasion preferred ruin, humiliation, to the breaking of their bond. French emperor, French marshals, a hundred thousand gallant Frenchmen in arms, preferred to be car- ried captive to the strange land of their enemy rather than dishonor the name of their country. It was the last French army in the field. Had they violated Belgian neutrality the whole history of that war would have been changed. Yet when it was for the in- terest of France to break the treaty [of 1839, Lloyd George did not mention the one 1870] she did not do it. It is the interest of Prussia to break the treaty, and she has done it. Mr. Lloyd George is silent on the fact that Great Britain would have automatically taken up arms against France, if she had thus violated Belgian neu- Did England Want a Neutral Belgium f 5 trality. The most charitable view of this omission is that he did not know of the existence of the treaties of 1870. In this case, however, since he is a member of the present British Government the authority of the utterances by this government is somewhat les- sened. A less charitable view, and one which one cannot blame the Germans for taking, is that he wil- fully suppressed the mention of these treaties ; for the question occurs at once to all who have read these treaties, was it not possible to negotiate similar trea- ties in 1914 and keep Great Britain out of the war? To this question the British Government will find it difficult to give an answer, for Germany asked Great Britain before entering Belgium whether she would formulate conditions under which she would remain neutral. Great Britain refused to answer in the affirm- ative. Why? This why has never been explained. Why was she unwilling to do in 19 14 what she did in the treaties of August 9 and 11, 1870?* If Great Britain had guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium by similar treaties as those of 1870, Germany would not have felt that her unprotected flank on the lower Rhine was endangered. One glance at the map shows that a successful French attack here would have threatened the German naval base and the great ports of Hamburg and Bremen. Why did Great Britain refuse to guarantee the neutrality of Belgium? There may be many reasons as yet unknown, but since she has offered none, is it altogether unreasonable for the Germans to believe what they are told by a Government which through more than twenty-five years has won their confidence, namely, that on July 30, which .was several days before the declaration of Germany's Point of View war, Great Britain gave to France definite assurances of support against Germany in the expected war? This is contrary to the official documents issued by the British Government, and the Germans, knowing the difficulty of proving such assertions, were willing to wait for the evidence. In substantiation of their claim the German Government has now published, in the official Gazette of September 12, the following letter and explanation : On July 31, a letter was mailed in Berlin addressed to Madame Costermans, 107 Rue Froissard, Bruxelles, Bel- gique. On the same day military law was declared in Germany, whereupon all foreign mail was stopped and returned to the place of issue. After having been bulle- tined the legal number of days, the letter was sent to the Dead Letter Office and opened to ascertain the sender. In the outer envelope there was another, addressed to Son Excellence Monsieur Davignon, Ministre des Af- faires Etrangeres. This envelope also failed to contain a return address. It was opened and contained this letter signed by B. de I'Escaille, the Belgian minister, and dated : The Belgian legation, St. Petersburg, 795-402. The Po- litical Condition, July 30, 1914. The letter in transla- tion reads: Yesterday and the day before passed In anticipation of the events which must follow the Austria-Hungary declaration of war on Servia. The most contradictory news is being spread and it has been impossible to separate truth from fiction concerning the intentions of the Imperial (Russian) Government. Only one fact is incontestable, namely, that Germany has endeavored here, as well as in Vienna, to find a means by which to avoid a general conflict, but that she has met on the one hand the determination of the Vienna cabinet not to yield one iota, and on the other the suspicion of the Petersburg cabinet as regards the assurances of Vienna that it is contemplating only the punishment, and not the acquisition, of Servia. Mr. Sazonof has declared that it was impossible for Russia not to keep herself in readiness nor to mobilize, Did England Want a Neutral Belgium? 7 but that these measures were not taken against Germany. This morning an official communique to the papers an- nounced that the " reservists in a certain number of gov- ernments had been called to the colors." He who knows the reticence of the official Russian communiques may well assert that the mobilization is general. The German ambassador declared this morning that he had reached the end of his endeavors as mediator, pursued incessantly since Saturday, and that he had practically no hope left. I have just been told that the British ambassador had expressed himself to the same effect. Latterly England proposed arbitration, but Mr. Sazanof replied : " We ourselves proposed this to Aus- tria, who declined." The suggestion of a conference was met by Germany with the suggestion of an agreement between the cabinets. One is tempted to ask if the whole world is not wanting war, trying only to postpone the declarations of war in order to gain time. At first England let it be known that she did not wish to be drawn into a conflict. Sir George Buchanan openly said this. Today, however, St. Petersburg is convinced — nay, more, they have the assurance that England will support France. [Aujourd'hui on est fermement con- vaincu a St. Petersburg, on en a meme I'assurance que I'Angleterre soutiendra la France.^ This assurance carries great weight, and has done not a little to give the upper hand to the war party. The Russian Government has given free rein to all pro-Servian and anti-Austrian manifestations these past days. In the cabinet meeting early yesterday morning differences of opinion still existed, and the announce- ment of the mobilization was postponed. Since then a change has taken place; the war party has gained the upper hand, and today at four o'clock in the morning the mobilization was publicly announced. The army believes itself strong and is full of enthu- siasm. It bases its hopes on the remarkable progress it has made since the Japanese' war. The navy is still so far from the realization of its programme of reconstruc- tion and reorganization that it really cannot be said to count. This was the reason which gave England's assur- ance of support so much weight. As I had the honor of telegraphing (T. 10) you today, every hope of a peaceful solution seems to have van- 8 Germany's Point of View ished. This is the view of the diplomatic corps. For my telegram I chose the way via Stockholm by the Nor- disk cable as safer than the other. This despatch I am entrusting to a private courier, who will mail it in Germany. With the assurance of deepest respect, Mr. Secretary, I am, (Signed) B. de l'Escaille. The genuineness of this letter has apparently not been challenged by any of the Allies ; and the claim that Great Britain promised her support to France on July 30, that is, five days before the German infringe- ment of neutrality, seems to be borne out* by a com- munication in the Nation (New York) of August 2y (republished in the official German Gazette). It was sent by the London correspondent of the Nation, Mr. Towse, under date of August 11, and claims (i), that Lord Kitchener had visited Belgium secretly some time before to make arrangements for an English army in Belgium; (2), that the British troops in large numbers had reached Dover a week before the date of the letter, that is, on August 3 or 4, and, (3), that he had heard that one hundred thousand soldiers had reached Belgium on August 4. It is not claimed here that either the account of the Nation or the information contained in the Belgian diplomatic letter is true; and that the statements to the contrary, supposed to be contained in the official announcements of the British Government, are not true. But it is asserted that the Germans are not without excuse if they believe their government so long as Great Britain's reply is wanting to the ques- * See also discussion of British Blue Book, Nezv York Times, " Current History of the European War," Vol. I, No. 3, p. 438 ft'. Did England Want a Neutral Belgium? 9 tions : Why was she wilHng to protect Belgian neu- trahty against French and Prussian infringement aUke in 1870, and why was she not wilUng to do so in 1914? And further, why do her pubhc men misrep- resent the facts of 1870 as Lloyd George did in the speech quoted above? As regards the German belief that France had planned making her attack through Belgium, it is based on such a long sequence of events, and on so many public expressions of her statesmen and pub- licists from Thiers down, who said that *' the valley of the Meuse is the proper road open for France in an attack against North Germany," that anyone ac- quainted with French political writings will agree that this fear was not without some basis of probability.'^ Belgian hostility, however, is of a more recent day, for in the nineties most Belgians feared France. It was even said that a secret treaty existed between King Leopold 11 and the German Emperor by which Belgium was to open her fortresses to the German troops in the event of a. war with France. All this has been changed in recent years, partly no doubt by the rapid growth of German control over the com- merce of the country, partly possibly also by those traits of the German character which were formed when Germany was a cluster of insignificant inland states and which we have not yet entirely outgrown. But whatever was the cause of this hostility, every visitor to Belgium in recent years has felt it. It showed itself in an unusual way during the last inter- * For French plan of campaign, see North German Gazette, Sept. 30, 1914; and for documents found on the Secretary of the British Legation in Brussels, see New York Times, April 4, 1915. 10 Germany's Point of View national exhibition in Brussels. The German com- missioner, who was well aware of this animosity, worked especially hard, and as a matter of fact was the only one who had his exhibition ready on the opening day of the exposition. With somewhat mixed feelings, therefore, he read the official . account next day in U Independence Beige, which said that the Ger- mans had opened their exhibit avec une precision brutale. There are not a few Germans who, in view of Mr. Gladstone's statements in Parliament and the special treaties of 1870, claim that the treaty of 1839 contains no " enforceable obligations," and who wish that the Chancellor had said so. But since he did not say so, his attitude apparently was that Germany "would gladly have respected the stipulations of the treaty of 1839, although they were, according to Mr. Gladstone himself, of doubtful validity, and en- tered Belgium only in self-defence when the peril of the nation seemed to demand this step. None of these considerations, hov/ever, will carry much weight so long as the now famous "a scrap of paper " quotation seems to characterize the German attitude toward international treaties. Yet strange as it may seem, these words imputed to the Chancellor are as little known in Germany as the Chancellor's speech in the Reichstag discussing the Belgian affair is known here. No greater contrast is possible than exists between the flippancy which compares a treaty to *'a scrap of paper," and the deep seriousness and honest regret at having been forced, in self-defence, to violate a treaty of neutrality, which characterizes the Chancellor's speech. It was this speech which swept away the old class and party distinctions and Did England Want a Neutral Belgium? ii brought about a unanimous vote of the Reichstag. It is on the strength of this speech that Germany has risen like one man in support of the Govern- ment. Let no man think that Germany would, or ever could, follow "a scrap of paper" chancellor. The true history of this phrase may perhaps never be told. Sir Edward Goschen is quoted as having reported it from his interview with the Chancellor. According to this report the Chancellor was then deeply moved, almost unnerved at seeing his British friendly policy wrecked, and Germany menaced by three powerful and several minor foes. It is quite possible that he does not remember exactly what he said. Following a German custom, which in moments of excitement expresses itself in disconnected words, the Chancellor may have dropped a phrase which Sir Edward Goschen thought he was justified in trans- lating as he did. One other fact is also little known. The Chan- cellor had delivered his speech and received an ovation in the Reichstag such as even Bismarck had never received, several hours before his interview with the British ambassador. The British inquiry, in fact, whether Germany would respect Belgian neutrality, which led to the declaration of war on Germany, was presented to the German Government after the Chan- cellor had announced in the Reichstag that Germany had already been obliged to enter Belgium. To a German it appears incredible that the Chancellor with the enthusiastic approval of his fellowmen still ring- ing in his ears at the noble dignity of his address, should have meant to say to Sir Edward Goschen any- thing so flippant as the phrase "a scrap of paper" 12 Germany's Point of View implies. And when the curtain has dropped on the present tragedy, and more people see the German Chancellor, von Bethmann-Hollweg, as the Germans see him, a man of deep and serious thought, it will appear to many that Great Britain made a mistake in publishing this private conversation. Together Sir Edward Goschen and von Bethmann-Hollweg had la- bored to improve the British-German relations. They had failed. The Chancellor saw, open before him, the near future: streams of blood flowing, young men dying, sorrow and want, hatred sown between two nations who should be friends, and both countries tottering on the brink of ruin. Would it not have been charitable to draw the veil of secrecy over the words which at that moment fell from his lips in the presence of none but the one man who had been his friend in a common labor? Is it, moreover, credible that the other was so unmoved by the Chancellor's grief and the rupture of the relations between Great Britain and Germany that he could be sure of the exact words used in this conversation? This explains why Germans would give little cre- dence to the "scrap of paper" quotation, even if they heard it. It is the noble dignity of the speech they remember, and the generous offers Germany made and Great Britain felt obliged to refuse. These offers (British Blue Book, No. 123) are little known in America, and yet their acceptance would have been of untold benefit to the United States and the whole world. Germany offered to respect Belgian neutrality and to guarantee the integrity of France and her colonies. If Sir Edward Grey had placed this offer before the British Cabinet, or had mentioned it Did England Want a Neutral Belgium f 13 to the Prime Minister, or even had reported it to Par- liament, the European war might have been avoided. He did none of these things, but on his own responsi- bihty refused to consider the offer. For a full dis- cussion of this incident see Dr. F. C. Conybeare's letter in the Vital Issue of April 17, 19 15. CHAPTER II THE GERMAN CONSTITUTION THE October number of the National Geographic Magazine closes an illustrated article on Ger- many with a brief reference to the constitution of the country. At least this is the impression which the general reader receives, for he does not distinguish between Germany and Prussia. The electoral system, however, described in the magazine is that of Prus- sia, while Germany, like America, enjoys manhood suffrage. This mistake is often made, and occurred also a few years ago when the Manchu dynasty in China decided to yield to the reform party and to introduce a semi-constitutional system of government. They sent a commission to Europe to study the work- ings of the several constitutions, and after an exhaust- ive investigation recommended that the new Chinese constitution be modeled after that of Germany. What was meant, however, was not the constitution of the German Empire, but that of the kingdom of Prussia, and most especially the Prussian suffrage, with its division of the people into three numerically unequal classes, which nevertheless cast an equal number of votes. The joke was that a reform intended to ad- vance freedom should be based on a constitution which even in Germany is considered reactionary. There can be no doubt that the antiquated constitu- tion of Prussia has done the Germans much harm 14 The German Constitution 15 in the world at large. It has been often quoted in connection with Germany, and people have received from it the idea that the Germans are suffering from the inability of enforcing their will because they are living under an illiberal constitution. Nothing is farther from the truth. The German constitution of 1871 is a liberal document, based on universal suffrage. It lacks the lucidity and beauty of diction and the simplicity of thought of the Constitution of the United States, for it is somewhat in the nature of a com- promise between opposing conceptions of statecraft. Withal it is solidly built on the foundation of every liberal government — universal suffrage. And for this the Germans are indebted to the insistence of Bismarck. The legislative power of Germany, which is a con- federation of twenty-odd states, is vested in the Reichstag and the Bundesrat, that is, the Council of the Confederation. Bills that have received a ma- jority of the votes cast in each house are to be pro- mulgated as law by the Emperor, who has no power of veto. The Reichstag is by all odds the most important factor of the Legislature of the confederation known as the German Empire. It is elected by universal manhood suffrage " in a general election and by direct secret ballot" (Article 20). In it the union of Ger- many has found its most complete expression, and, according to Article 2g>, every member is bound to re- gard himself as the representative of the people as a whole and not only of his immediate constituents. In pursuance of this conception every German is en- 1 6 Germany's Point of View titled to vote at the parliamentary elections in any place in which he happens to reside. A citizen of Saxony, for instance, who is spending the season in Munich, Bavaria, may cast his vote there, and a Bavarian visiting in Berlin is entitled to cast his bal- lot in Berlin. No other provision probably could have brought home to the Germans the idea of national union so forcibly as this obliteration of narrowly defined State lines. In the elections the constitution and the special laws provided by Article 20 recognize only absolute majorities. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast in a district the voters proceed to an- other ballot, which is a continuation of the previous one and therefore necessitates no new election machin- ery. At this supplementary ballot only the two candidates who had previously received the largest number of votes are eligible. If there is a tie, the election is decided by lot, drawn by the chairman of the election commissioners, in the presence of the other members. Finally it is interesting to note that the candidate need not be a resident of the district in which he offers himself for election. If the majority of the voters anywhere believe that there is no specially qualified man in their district they can vote for any German, wherever he may reside, who satisfies their requirements. This provision has done much to raise the general tone of the Reichstag, and has enabled country districts to send strong representatives to Parliament. The powers of the Legislature are determined by Article 4 of the constitution. They are practically the The German Constitution ly same as those granted to Congress by Article i, Sec- tion 8 of the Constitution of the United States. The most important of these powers have to do with the laying of taxes, duties and the Hke, with the legisla- tion concerning their collection and the regulation of commerce (Congress can control interstate com- merce only) ; further, with the coinage and issue of loans on the credit of the country, and with the right of citizenship, naturalization and absolute freedom of action of the individual citizen beyond his obedience owed to existing laws. In several cases the powers of the Reichstag and the Bundesrat are broader than those of Congress, for they have charge not only of the post offices and post roads, but also of telegraph afifairs, railways, and canals, and, in addition, of the " Police Regulations as to Medical and Veterinary Matters " in all the states of the confederation. Instead "of merely having the power of Congress " to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court," the German Reichstag and Bundesrat are charged with passing " uniform legislation as to the whole domain of civil and criminal law, including legal procedure." They have acted according to this paragraph, and today Germany enjoys a uniformity of legal procedure in every one of its twenty-six states which is the surest pledge of justice to all the citizens. Congress has the power " to provide for calling forth the militia," but since this is distinctly an executive function, it has not been granted to the German Leg- islature. For the same reason probably the power to declare war, which the American Congress enjoys, is by the German constitution given to the President of the Confederation, who has " the title of German Em- 1 8 Germany's Point of View peror" (Article 2). It is, however, stipulated that " for a declaration of war in the name of the Empire, the consent of the Federal Council shall be required, except in the case of an attack upon the territory of the Confederation or its coasts." (Article 2.) In the case of the present war, however, the German Emperor did not only ask for the consent of the Fed- eral Council (Bundesrat), but consulted with all the leaders of the Reichstag. This accounts for the una- nimity of the Reichstag in voting for the necessary appropriations. In practice, therefore, the principles of the American Constitution were followed, and this will probably always be the case; for, while the Emperor and the Bundesrat jointly may declare war, they cannot carry it on without the consent of the Reichstag, which holds the purse strings of the empire. When the new German empire was founded in 1871 two somewhat contradictory ideas were guiding the people. The first was the desire for union and democ- racy, and this found its expression in the Reichstag and its very liberal constitution; the second was the fear lest Prussia, which was far more powerful than the other states, gain such strength that the smaller political entities might disappear. The American Con- stitution contains checks and balances lest one depart- ment encroach on the other. Some of the framers of the German constitution wished to avoid an encroach- ment by Prussia, while the latter did not wish to be obliterated as a power in the Confederation. The resulting compromise was made in the Bundesrat. This may be called the upper chamber. Its members are not elected by popular vote, but appointed by the The German Constitution 19 several states. Each state, even the smallest, has at least one vote. There are sixty-one votes altogether (including three of Alsace-Lorraine), and of these Prussia, together with Hanover, the electorate of Hesse, Holstein, Nassau and Frankfort, which it con- trols, has seventeen votes. The appointments are, of course, made by the sev- eral governments, and reflect the advance in liberal ideas or the control of reactionary forces that happen to be at work in different parts of Germany. Three of the states of the German Confederation are repub- lics, the others are monarchies. There is, however, nothing in the German constitution that would prevent any of the states from changing its form of govern- ment to a republic, if it chose to do so. The people, however, appear to be generally satisfied with their present governments. In Mecklenburg, for instance, which is largely an agricultural state, the grand duke has for years been desirous of giving the people a more liberal constitution, but has been unable to overcome the resistance of the Diet as at present constituted. The Bundesrat itself, then, is an absolutely unique institution in that it is composed of representatives of a great variety of governments. Its functions are equally unique, and Bismarck once described them as follows : It. is not Baron von Friesen who is voting in the Bun- desrat, but the kingdom of Saxony. He votes as the kingdom instructs. Saxony's vote, therefore, represents the careful thought of all the forces that enter into the public life of Saxony. In this vote you have the diagonal, so to speak, of all the forces at work in Saxony and in- strumental in the formation of its government. It is the 20 Germany's Point of View vote of the Crown modified by the strong influence of the representatives of the people before whom the Saxon Cabinet of ministers must defend the votes which they instruct their delegates to cast in the Bundesrat. The presidency of the Confederation of German States is intrusted to the king of Prussia, v^ho is given the title of German Emperor, but whose powers are less than the powers, for instance, of the President of the United States, for he has no veto over any laws passed by a majority of both legislative houses. While the President of the United States needs only the consent of the Senate to conclude treaties with foreign Powers, the German Emperor is dependent on the consent of both houses according to Article 2:^, So far as treaties with foreign countries refer to mat- ters which . . . are to be regulated by imperial legisla- tion. The consent of the Bundesrat shall be required for their conclusion, and the approval of the Reichstag shall be necessary to render them valid. The President of the United States is the com- mander-in-chief of the whole army and navy, but the Emperor is commander-in-chief of all the troops only in times of war. In peace, Bavaria, for instance, is entirely independent. The President draws a salary and has an official residence and perquisites. The Emperor, as the President of the Confederated States, receives no salary in whatever shape. He does, how- ever, receive a salary as king of Prussia from that state. In the appointment of officers the Emperor has greater powers than the President, because he is bound by the consent of the Bundesrat in comparatively few instances. The German Constitution 21 His duties are practically the same as those of the President, for both are the executive officers of their respective countries. It will thus be seen that the Emperor is not a monarch so far as Germany is con- cerned, but merely the President of the Confederated German States. " German Emperor " is, as the consti- tution explicitly states, merely a title, but the nice distinction between the title " German Emperor " and the former "' Emperor of Germany," who was the mon- arch of the old empire, is often overlooked. If it had not been for the historical associations it is quite conceivable that the title ** German Emperor " would not have been bestowed in 1871 on the President of the Confederated German States. The new empire was not the result of a revolution or even a general dissatisfaction of the people with their forms of government. On the contrary, they had never been more contented. It was merely the result of their intense desire to forge the outward bond of union within which they would be able to live in peace and to achieve progress. The earlier attempts at founding an empire had failed, notably in 1848, because the leaders of the movement had tried to obliterate state lines, and had offered the crown of an emperor of Germany to the king of Prussia, at the expense of all his fellow German sover- eigns. The predecessor of Emperor William i had it in his power to become the real monarch of Germany, but he spurned it, because it would have meant the annihilation of all the other states, and the Germans as a whole were then as unwilling to see this happen as the Americans today would resent the attempt of doing away with all state governments, and throwing 22 Germany's Point of View the combined powers of these governments into the hands of one man — the President. This unwilling- ness of Frederick William iv to be the gainer at the expense of all the other German kings and princes is a notable instance of unselfishness, characteristic of the HohenzoUern princes, although it is not often remembered. Equally unnoticed today are the sacri- fices which all the princes brought on the altar of national unity in 1871. Take William 1, king of Prus- sia, loved by his people and borne along by a wave of success. In his own state he was almost an absolute monarch, and while there was a Diet his word was very nearly law. All this he renounced, and con- sented, for the sake of national unity, not only to the extensive powers over his country, which passed from him to the Reichstag and Bundesrat, but also to uni- versal suffrage for the Reichstag itself. Bismarck once said that nobody had sacrificed so much for the union of Germany as his royal master. This is abso- lutely true, although all the other German princes fol- lowed his lead and proved, what people who do not know them often doubt, that the welfare of the Fatherland is dearer to them than personal power. Foreigners see only the arrogant side of monarchial institutions, and do not know the confidence which the Germans have in most of their princes. The writer's views may be somewhat influenced by American ideas, but it seems not incredible to him that a German prince should at some future time assist in the formation of a republic, if this form of government should appeal to -him and the people to be in their interest. Today most Germans do not think that it would be. They The German Constitution 23 have studied, often very carefully, the workings of bona fide democracies in other countries, and, consid- ering their own peculiar conditions, do not believe that such a form of government would meet their needs so well as their present federation of states with its liberal constitution, and a Reichstag elected by universal suffrage. Perhaps it is the bitter lesson of centuries of humili- ation which has taught the Germans the lesson that they need a strong state, and has made them willing to subordinate many of their personal wishes to the needs of the state. But this voluntary acceptance of the seeming rigors of public order has quickened rather than blunted their ideals of individual freedom. The state, they agree, must be strong, but nowhere else do they suffer even the semblance of autocratic powers. In their universities and colleges, for in- stance, familiar to large numbers of Americans, there is a spirit of democracy and a system of self-govern- ment such as is found nowhere else. The idea of a small self -perpetuating company of men headed by a president governing the destinies of a university seems very strange to the Germans. The German faculties elect each year, from their own number, an executive officer, the rector, but the faculty itself retains full control of the affairs of the university. If a vacancy occurs, the faculty prepares a brief list of professors, one of whom is then chosen to fill the vacancy. It is the same in every sphere of life ; for the German ideals of personal liberty, on which even Tacitus of old remarked, have remained the lode star of the German people. Just as a young American gladly subordinates his will to that of the captain of 24 Germany's Point of View his football team, without losing his sense of democ- racy, just so also the Germans have been willing to put up with the occasional inconveniences of a strong government without losing in the least their love of personal freedom. This is not the picture generally drawn of the Ger- mans, for although they have been variously described, they are generally pictured as too great admirers of authority. Some people have really misunderstood them ; others, however, have perhaps intentionally sent somewhat colored accounts to America. It should never be forgotten that even in times of peace nine- tenths, or even more, of the German news comes across the ocean via London. And in times of war, of course, when the German cables are cut, no news except an occasional item, via wireless to Sayville, reaches this country. Not everybody realizes what this means. Occasionally, however, even the British censor nods. The following passage is taken from a longer cable in which Sir Stanley Buckmaster, director of the official Press Bureau, announced, under date of October i6, that he would hereafter not add any- thing to the messages of American correspondents — he has apparently been in the habit of doing this — and then the cable ends with this magnanimous statement : "The press bureau is willing," said Sir Stanley, "to permit the readers of American newspapers to have the same basis for opinion as the readers of the Lon- don papers." Americans should ponder this statement. The following literal translation of the official Ger- man announcement of September lo and the English version which was cabled to America may illustrate what is done by Sir Stanley : The German Constitution 25 LITERAL TRANSLATION (September 10.) The army east of Paris pursuing the enemy to and across the Marne was at- tacked by superior numbers in the direction from Paris and between Meaux and Montmirail. It kept its ground in se- vere battles lasting two days, and even made some progress. When the ap- proach of new and numer- ous hostile troops was an- nounced, the wing was or- dered back. The enemy did not follow anywhere. As a booty of victory fifty guns and several thou- sand prisoners have been reported to date. [There follow a few par- agraphs concerning the other theatres of war which are correctly trans- lated.] (Signed) General Quarter- master von Stein. It will be seen that the English version completely changes the wording of the last sentence of the second paragraph, and thereby turns the booty mentioned in the third paragraph over to the Allies, when as a mat- ter of fact it was the Germans who captured the guns and the prisoners. The point here is not that the German and the British version of a battle do not agree, but that the British version claims to be a translation of the German official announcement. The discrepancies in the two translations are probably due ENGLISH VERSION (September 11.) General von Stein an- nounced that the German Army which had advanced across the Marne to the east of Paris was heavily attacked by the enemy be- tween Paris, Meaux and Montmirail. The fighting lasted two days. The Ger- man Army had checked the enemy and had even itself advanced, but stronger hos- tile columns came to the as- sistance of the Allies, and the enemy won the battle, compelling the German troops to retire. Fifty guns were captured by the Allies and some thousands of men made prisoners. 26 Germany's Point of View to Sir Stanley's policy announced in the cable men- tioned above : " Official reports from Germany will be permitted to go through to America unchanged, unless they seem to reflect unfairly and untruthfully on the Allies other than English." All these official German reports are concise state- ments of facts of battles and maneuvers, and Sir Stan- ley apparently considers most references to German victories an unfair and untruthful reflection on the Allies. This accounts for the fact that such meager notices of the two tremendous victories over the Rus- sian troops in East Prussia have reached America, and that therefore the figures sent by wireless from Germany appeared incredible. If the English censor feels at liberty to alter official reports of facts, how much more likely is he to sup- press some news which might speak favorably of the German troops and to permit the manufacture of other items ! In times like these everybody feels more strongly the ties of sympathy which bind him to the homeland across the water, whether his ancestors left there generations ago or whether he came to America but recently, and nothing is more natural than that he should feel strongly with those who are today risking their all and giving their lives for their country. Bitterness, therefore, is apt to steal also into his heart, even if he has not to scan each new casualty list with troubled heart for the name of a relative or a friend, and lays it down with a word of prayer when these dear names are not yet mentioned there. This bitterness will be the stronger the less a man understands the point of view of those whose sym- The German Constitution 27 pathies are with the other side. It is my purpose to present that point of view which has become less well known than the other, but no word will be penned with the thought of altering the sympathies of any- one, for the more deeply a man believes in the justice of a cause the more ready he is to respect the sanctity of the thoughts of others. CHAPTER III Germany's conduct of the war LORD SELBORNE, member of a former British ' Government, has pubHcly made a suggestion which meets with the unconditional approval of all sympathizers of the German cause. He has written to the London Times, under date of September 15, as follows: Sir — At page 6 of your issue of today (September 12), I read in a letter to the son of a London vicar from an officer serving with the army in France [here follows the mention of some unspeakably harrowing atrocities]. Permit me to say that such statements as these cannot possibly be allowed to rest on anonymous authority. The civilized world has the right to demand that names and full particulars shall be given. Either these statements are untrue or they are true. If they are untrue, I am sure that you, sir, would most deeply regret having given publicity to them in any form, and would feel that our righteous cause was grievously in- jured by such a libel on the German army. But if they are true, then God and man will judge. Would it not be possible for trained lawyers or judges belonging to a neutral nation like the Netherlands or the United States to conduct a sworn inquiry into such cases as are already open to investigation ? There must be many such among the Belgian refugees in England and in the parts of Belgium not occupied by the German troops. I am, sir, your obedient servant, Selborne. In an editorial of the same date the Times said that "a question was asked yesterday in Parliament about 28 Germany's Conduct of the War 29 these charges, and the Prime Minister said in reply that the Secretary of State for War had received no official information about them." The Times also joined Lord Selborne in urging a judicial investiga- tion.* At present there can be no doubt that the charges of wholesale atrocities suffered by the Bel- gians are believed by very many people not only among the Allies, but also among the neutral peoples of the world, while similar charges against the Belgians have received currency in Germany. In this con- nection the following letter from the Prior of Aachen, published in the official German Gazette of October 2, is interesting: The editors of the Cologne Gazette sent me this request on September 26. "Wishing to investigate individual cases of atrocities, we take the liberty of asking you for information. Several ladies employed in the main rail- way station of Cologne have been told, with the assurance of accuracy, that there was one big room in a hospital in Aachen filled with wounded soldiers, everyone of whom had been blinded in Belgium. Is your worship in a posi- tion to send accurate information on this score? It is, we suppose, possible that some soldiers may be in Aachen who have suffered such a fate, because Mr. Kiittner, privy counsellor in Breslau, mentions seven wretches thus mal- treated in his pamphlet called 'A photographic document of the bestiality of our enemies." My reply, which I desire to have published, is as fol- lows : " Every lover of truth and every good patriot will welcome the attempts of securing documentary evidence in all cases of cruelty charged to our enemies. Nobody, however, can any longer doubt that a psychic epidemic has developed these last days, and that it may have, and *The official British Commission has since reported that not a single authenticated case of an atrocity committed by the Germans has been discovered. See Nezv York World, Jan. 28, 1915. See also the Labor Leader, March 18, I9i5> and for a refutation of Professor Bedier's book, the Boston Post, April 25, 1915. 30 Germany's Point of View already has had, very regrettable results. Those of us who are living in the immediate neighborhood of the great war events of the west are the best witnesses of the fact that entirely unfounded and most grewsome stories have gone from mouth to mouth — even among our soldiers. It has become common to generalize on the strength of in- dividual cases, and at times an uncouth fancy delights in the wildest vagaries of auto-suggestion. I, for instance, know of a wounded soldier here who told people he had been present at the execution of the monks of Louvain who had murdered in their cellars many German soldiers. When he was told point blank that the whole story of the monks of Louvain was a fib, he grew embarrassed and gave evasive replies. " I was, therefore, not at all astonished to hear your story of the ' room in Aachen ' in which the blinded sol- diers were said to be taken care of. Nothing of this kind astonishes me, however deeply I regret the nonchalance with which people tell and repeat stories which must excite not only all our people but also our soldiers. One man tells a story, because it was told to him as " abso- lutely true," and the next man repeats it as honestly vouched for. ... It is unpardonable for anybody in these excited times to spread rumors without having un- controvertible proofs of their accuracy in his possession. The Government has very properly threatened to prose- cute everybody who spreads a false report of an alarming nature. I wish such prosecutions would begin at once. "As to the rumor concerning which you wrote me, I have communicated with the proper officials. This is the report of the surgeon in charge of one of the hos- pitals. He is an oculist, and that is why I addressed myself to him among others. He writes : *' ' There is no room in any of the hospitals of Aachen filled with wounded soldiers who have been blinded. So far as I know there are no such cases in Aachen.' " (Signed) D. Kaufmann, Prior. It will be seen from this letter that the danger of believing unauthenticated stories of cruelties is not confined to any one country, and that the German Government has decided to take vigorous measures to Germany's Conduct of the War 31 arrest the unpardonable repetition of alarming rumors. Peace will come again some time, and then the peoples of this world will have to live together as the mem- bers of one large family. There will be many unfor- tunate scores to settle; why shouldn't we, therefore, guard against forming additional and erroneous sources of animosity? There are a few apparently authenticated instances of atrocities suffered by the German troops. Some were mentioned by the chancellor in his interview to the Associated Press of September 2, and others have been published from time to time by the general staff, who have in each case given the full names and ranks of the officers making the reports. In addition there is a fairly long list of German residents of Belgium who disappeared in the first days of the war, and who are believed to have been murdered. In view of all this, Lord Selborne's investigation ought to be somewhat broadened, especially if it should be possible to persuade a committee of well- trained lawyers or judges from Holland and the United States to undertake this task in the interest of humanity. This committee should sift all obtainable evidence on these several points : 1. Were German residents in Belgium murdered in the first days of the war? 2. Are the accounts of Belgian and Russian atroci- ties, as officially published in Germany, based on unim- peachable evidence? 3. Are the stories of atrocities attributed to the Ger- man soldiers and reported all over the world true? 4. Were the reprisals which the German troops 32 Germany's Point of View acknowledge warranted by the laws of warfare on land agreed upon at the second Hague Conference? 5. If these reprisals were warranted, was their execution conducted with the maximum of forbear- ance possible under the conditions, or were the Ger- mans guilty of unnecessary harshness? The writer is well aware of the difficulties in the way of agreeing on the appointment of such a com- mission, but since Great Britain is somewhat com- mitted to it on principle owing to Lord Selborne's letter, and since Germany fully realizes the most unfortunate effect of the further circulation of anony- mous stories, and since America is eager to know the truth, there should be a will ; and where there is a will there is a way. On her part Germany has already begun a judicial investigation of the burning of the hundred and fifty houses of Louvain, for Justice Ivers, of Berlin, has been appointed to secure sworn evidence. However impartial Justice Ivers may wish to be, he cannot help appearing prejudiced in the eyes of the world. This appointment, nevertheless, was the best that could be done under the circumstances, and, being on the spot early, he may at least secure the names of witnesses that another altogether impartial commission may wish to hear. The first results of his investigation were published in the official Gazette of September 26, to the effect that on the evening of August 25 two rockets, first a red and then a green one, were fired from two houses on the Rue de la Station facing the railway station. As soon as the balls of fire from these rockets appeared above the Germany's Conduct of the War 33 station, a hail of bullets from the upper windows of the houses on this street and partly also from the roofs, fell on the German troops. In a later number of the Gazette the story of the burning of the library is given. It seems that dwelling houses had been built close to it on either side, and that, unfortunately, no official of the university was present to warn the soldiers of the treasures hidden in the building, which nobody recognized as the library. Throughout the burned district houses are standing unharmed, still bearing the hastily scrawled' legend : " Spare this house ; it is inhabited by good people." Documents found in the office of the commandant prove, according to the official Gazette of Septem- ber 5, that the franc-tireur attack had been planned systematically. In this connection an interview with the Vice Rector of Louvain University, Monseignor Dr. Coenrads, is interesting : There is no doubt in my mind that the fire on the Ger- man soldiers was terrific. C'etait une fusillade hien nourrie. One can easily distinguish between the shots from German and Belgian guns. What I heard, at least for five minutes, were no German shots. But let me tell you the story so far as I myself lived through it. I was one of the hostages of the place. We changed places several times, and had to be at the City Hall twenty-four hours each, from three in the afternoon to the same hour on the next day. The first turn was that of the mayor and the rector of the university. Tuesday the lot picked me. At three o'clock I cheerfully took my place. Toward evening suddenly the shooting began of which I have already spoken. Those were no regular troops, for there were no Belgian soldiers left in town. We grew stiff with horror. A general told us that there was obviously a conspiracy at work, that he would have to take severe 34 Germany's Point of View counter measures, and would have to levy a punitive con- tribution. The same evening we walked down the Rue de la Sta- tion to advise the people for God's sake to remain calm. Pastor Dillon spoke in Flemish to the people, and Senator Orban de Xivry, the former Belgian minister in Rou- mania, who had joined us, spoke to them in French. Then we returned to the City Hall, and retired for the night. Next morning I accompanied the officer downstairs, where they were drawing up a proclamation which we were to read to the people. It said, in effect : " We are hostages. If another shot is fired we shall be executed, the city will be punished, and a contribution of twenty million marks will be demanded." With this proclamation we went through the streets of the city, reading it at forty or fifty different places. At the corner of the Rue Frederic Lints we are reading it again, I do not know for the how maniest time, when — what do I hear? By God Almighty! the people are shooting again ! In spite of this renewed outbreak, however, no harm was done to Dr. Coenrads. Not all towns made the franc-tireur attacks on the Germans which characterized the inhabitants of Lou- vain, and Florenville even sent the following note of thanks to the commanding officer of the German troops: Florenville, September 12, 1914. Mr. Commandant — Before your departure we desire to express to you, in our own name and in that of the whole populace, our sincere thanks for the protection you have given us in these days which were so hard for us. The geniality of your character and your politeness, which was in evidence in your dealings with every one of us, have almost made us forget that we were living under foreign rule. We hope that your successor will follow in your foot- steps. On our part, Mr. Commandant, we assure you that no unfriendly act against your Government and your troops will be willfully committed. Germany's Conduct of the War 35 The document is signed by the city clerk and the council, in the name of the burgomaster. The names are : Jacob, Simeon, Joannes, A. and Eug. Bradf er. A similar document of thanks from Braine-le-Comte was published in the Gazette of September 13. Very fortunately, these are not the only peaceful spots left in Belgium, which has had to suffer much. The very fact that an army of almost one million men passed through it in constant fights and forced marches, while another numerous army contested, in courageous battles, every inch of ground, tells its story, let alone the occasional reprisals. So many Americans have spent happy weeks in Belgium that they may be glad to hear Dr. Helffrich's official account in the Gazette of the present state of the little country : The devastations of the war, as we see them when we cross the German-Belgian frontier, are heart rending. A few places are completely destroyed, because the battles were raging there, or because murderous assaults were made on our soldiers after the places had been peacefully surrendered. The little town Battice, for instance, was burned because when it had surrendered and the troops had entered and the burgomaster had offered an address of welcome, he suddenly drew a pistol and shot the leader of the troops. This shot was the signal for a furious can- nonade on our troops from all the windows. A very few other small places near the frontier met with the same fate, while the large industrial city, Verviers, by contrast, is absolutely intact. Of all the huge factories there not one has been even damaged. In the immediate neighborhood of Liege the same pic- ture is seen. Wherever the battles raged fiercely, espe- cially near the forts, the houses are shot down or burned. The suburbs also are in part badly scarred, but only where our soldiers were fired on from doors and windows. Liege itself shows but few ruins. A few houses opposite the university are shot down, because our soldiers were shot at from there — it is said bv Russian students — after the 3^ Germany's Point of View surrender of the city. The finest bridge of Liege has been dynamited, but not by us, no, by the Belgians. Two pontoon bridges, which we built soon after taking the town, show how foolish the destruction of the original bridge had been. Unfortunately, the same unnecessary destruc- tion of bridges occurs in several other places. The big factories have remained unharmed also here, notably the huge iron and machine works of Seraing. Between Liege and Tirlemont, where our troops advanced in a broad front, the country offers on the whole a peaceful picture, as if no hostile soldier had ever put foot here. The surroundings of Tirlemont to be sure, where the well-known battle was fought, are dotted with burned-out houses — but on the fields over which our cav- alry made its thundering way, the sheaves of grain have remained to this day. Nowhere one receives the impres- sion as if our troops had wrought needless destruction. Tirlemont itself, a city of 17,000 inhabitants, which sur- rendered peacefully, and where no excesses took place, is absolutely unharmed. Shortly before Louvain the horrors begin. There we enter the country where "the franc-tireurs raged most furiously and drove our soldiers to take severe counter measures. Much has been said about Louvain itself; it is, therefore, sufficient to state that only that part of the town was burned where the most murderous assaults and continued street fights occurred. When the fire threat- ned to spread, our soldiers fought it valiantly and saved much. The country betwen Louvain and Brussels, where the magnificent royal residence, Tervueren, and the Congo Museum are situated, offers an idyllic picture of peace. No house, no tree, no shrub has been touched. Our troops have passed here and have left no trace, not even such as are to be expected after a peaceful maneuver. Brussels surrendered peacefully, and to date (Septem- ber 20) no revolt against the army of occupation has taken place there. In consequence no harm has come to anyone. Private property has been scrupulously respected ; and all requisitions and individual purchases by the soldiers are paid for in cash. On the road from Brussels to Namur the aspect of the country is again thoroughly peaceful. In Woevre, to be sure, a few houses near the market place have been Germany's Conduct of the War 2>7 levelled, because also from them treacherous attack had been made on our soldiers. In the fields the farmers are at work finishing gathering the harvest. The cattle are placidly grazing on the endless green meadows. The surroundings of Namur offer the same picture we saw between the forts of Liege. The villages between the forts have been largely destroyed, and this was done, as one can see from the course taken by the cannon balls, largely by the Belgian troops themselves shooting from the forts. The fields for some distance are trampled down or torn up by bullets. . . . Namur itself has suf- fered little, except that here as in so many places a few houses near the market place are destroyed as having been the starting point of sudden and vicious franc-tireur attacks. Between Namur and Charleroi some villages have suf- fered a good deal, for here the Belgians and French de- fended themselves against the German advance. The great industrial valley of Charleroi is practically intact. From Charleroi-Sambre onward there are but few traces of the war. In the immediate neighborhood of Maubeuge, however, within the range of the big guns there are more ruins to be seen. But the large towns of this region have remained practically intact. In the valley of the Meuse, Dinant is completely de- stroyed. The cause was that after the town had been peacefully surrendered, and our troops had been there several days, they were suddenly, most treacherously, at- tacked from everywhere. Further down the Meuse the many bridges dynamited by the French and Belgians are the only evidences of war. Between Namur and Liege only the city of Ardenne has suffered. Our troops had been here several days. As they were leaving and the last columns were passing the bridge over the Meuse they were most murderouslv fired at from the houses on either side of the river. The whole division faced about and a fierce fight ensued in the streets, during which many houses were ruined. Most of the other cities and towns in the thickly popu- lated valley of the Meuse give no evidence of war. Even Huy, a fortified place, which offered some resistance, is completely preserved. The large road from Liege across the Ardennes to Arlon offers the same picture but for the devastation wrought by the Belgians themselves, who 38 Germany's Point of View cut very many of the beautiful old trees and placed them across the road in their attempt at retarding the Ger- man advance. The whole impression is that our troops have ruined nothing except where the stern necessity of fighting re- quired it, or where the conduct of the inhabitants forced stern measures upon them. In many places it is evident that our troops distinctly tried to restrict the damage to as narrow a field as possible, and saved what could be saved. The result of this behavior is that the productive powers of the country have suffered not nearly so severely as one might have expected. A ruined factory is an excep- tion. There are no burnt fields. Where the battles have been raging, sheaves can still be seen. The hedges which separate the several fields have been only cut where it was absolutely necessary. Cattle, pigs and horses are largely preserved, for they were neither scattered nor killed by our troops. The factories it is true stand idle today, with few exceptions, while the workingmen with their wives and children are sitting in front of their houses, resignedly folding their hands in their laps. One of the chief tasks of the newly appointed governor general will be to infuse life again in the industrial activ- ities of the country. In this he will be assisted by the discipline of our troops, who were tempted neither by the exultation of victory nor by any thirst for vengeance to destroy for the love of destruction, and who showed great moderation even in their defense against most treacherous attacks. Although this picture reveals less gloom than most Americans have been led to expect, it is exceedingly sad. The Emperor has said his heart was bleeding for Louvain, and he has been caricatured as an arch- hypocrite. For this reason, perhaps, fewer sympa- thizers of the German cause have publicly expressed their great sorrow at the fate of Belgium than would have liked to do so. They are exceedingly sorry for the innocent sufferers, while they have no sympathy Germany's Conduct of the War 39 with the treacherous and brutal attacks on the German soldiers ; but knowing the Germans well, as outsiders cannot know them, they are confident that an impartial commission will be able to prove to the world that the Germans, as Dr. Helffrich states, really showed great moderation. This will, to some extent, lessen the Ger- man grief at the suffering of her neighbor. It will, however, quicken the world's resentment at the unwise action of the Belgian ministry who refused the request of their only Socialist member, that the Government should warn the people, in a proclamation, against murder and treachery and franc-tireur attacks. If it should be proved, as every German prays it may be proved, that the Germans as such are not the beasts they have been portrayed to be in their dealings with Belgium, then the question arises again: Who was to blame for Germany's invasion into Belgium? More and more evidence is becoming available, and soon it will be possible to place beside Sir Edward Gray's well arranged White Paper such an array of facts that Germany will appear in a better light. Already it has become apparent that the English White Paper does not contain all the important papers in the case. Facts alone, however, leave the heart empty and can really convince no one. The judgment of those, however, in whom we have confidence often carries great weight ! Houston Chamberlain, the great author, son of an English admiral, and graduate of a French college, is such a man in the eyes of many people. His estimate of the German people and of the Emperor is, therefore, pertinent. He says : I have had intercourse largely with Germans for forty- five years, and have lived in German lands these past 40 Germany's Point of View thirty years. My love of the German way of thinking, of German science, and German art, has quickened my vision, but has not made me bHnd. My judgment has remained objective, and I have never become reconciled to many things which did not suit me when I first came to Germany. Since I was intimately connected with France from childhood, and bound to England with ties of blood, I was saved a blind partisanship. It is true that I have lived a retired life, refusing to acquire my knowledge of the people and their country by going about gaping at them. One sees things clearer at a distance than close at hand, and our ears are more receptive when it is still about us than when we are in the midst of a great hubbub. This is my testimony: During the past forty-three years not one man has lived in Germany who has wished war, not one ! Whoever says the opposite, lies — knowingly or unintentionally. I was fortunate in making the intimate acquaintance of German people in all parts of the country and of all walks of life, from the Emperor to the sturdy working- men with whom I had to do, day in and day out. I have known intimately teachers, scholars, merchants, bankers, officers, diplomats, engineers, poets, journalists, officials, and artists, but I have never found one eager for war, or, more correctly, anxious to have war. In England, on the other hand, where I visited last in 1907-8, I met everywhere a truly frightful and blind hatred of Ger- many, and the impatient anticipation of a war of annihila- tion. The absence of any animosity against other people is a remarkable characteristic of the Germans — and of none but the Germans. They rather err in the direction of too greatly admiring the virtues of other people. Every German, moreover, knows that the geographical position of his country is such that in a war he stands to lose everything and to gain nothing. How could a people whose industry, commerce, and science are flourishing more wonderfully every year — as has been the case with the Germans these forty-three years — conspire to bring about a war which could destroy all three? I am transgressing the space allotted me, and in conse- quence shall pass many things and confine myself today to this one point: Emperor William. He alone could have exerted an individual influence. I have not often met the Emperor, but always under most favorable circumstances, Germany's Conduct of the War 41 when there was no ceremony, and we could exchange opinions within the earshot of none. I have never re- peated any of the monarch's words, not because he con- fided his secrets to me, but because we common people cannot foresee the possible effect of a word on a man in the Emperor's exposed position. I shall not deviate from my rule even today. I am, however, surely committing no indiscretion, when I say that two traits in this powerful personality have appeared to me to be notable and to be the dominant forces of his whole feeling, thinking, and doing : his deep, unswerving sense of responsibility toward God, and — closely connected, even demanded by it — his energetic, masterful, and, although it may sound para- doxical, impetuous will to preserve the peace of Germany. Germany's strength, which owes much to him, should not occasion war, but — on the contrary — force peace on those who wished Germany ill. His actions all prove this; for whenever the situation grew almost unbearable for Ger- many during the past ten years — and England saw to it that it happened often — he, the Emperor, was the man who forced the continuation of peace. This does not mean that there was a war party in Germany, for that is a lie of the Times, but there were responsible statesmen and soldiers who truly said: If England and her associates wish to have war, then let us have it rather now than later. The Emperor, however, could not argue thus before his God, and pushed his sword back into its scabbard. No wish — I am convinced in my soul — was stronger with William 11 than this one, that on his deathbed he could say to himself: I have been able to keep an un- broken peace for my country; history will know me as the " Emperor of Peace." If God should give victory to the German- Austrian arms, complete and all pervading victory, as we all pray he may, even those of us who are not German, provided we care more for the culture of civilized humanity than for national vanity — then, and only then, Europe will enjoy a hundred years of peace, and the wish of the great and good prince, who has been so shamefully betrayed by his fellow-princes, will yet 42 Germany's Point of View be fulfilled, more gloriously even, and in a manner which will exonerate Germany in the face of many slanderous falsehoods. And he will be called the " Emperor of Peace " even more appropriately, for with the help of God he will have achieved this state of peace as his very own handiwork. CHAPTER IV England's conduct of the war AN article in the London Times (November i, 1914) said: "These Germans of the past were always spoken of as the good Germans ; and the world admired their innocence and imposed upon it." The main reason why Germany's neighbors have latterly found her inconvenient is that Germany can no longer be imposed upon. England's offer a few years ago to limit naval armaments was a sample of the kind of proposal Germany used to take at its face value. She now has learned to investigate and to look a gift horse in the mouth, even if it comes from England. This is what she found : While England was proposing to Germany a " naval holiday," she was at the same time negotiating with Russia for a closer connection of her own navy with that of Russia, and undoubtedly assisted Russia in placing her enormous war and navy loans in France. Several super-dreadnoughts laid down in 191 1 are now being rushed toward completion in Russia. Since England for some years had been contemplating, as Germany feared, a future war in which she would join France and Russia against Germany, it could be imma- terial to her, so Germany reasoned, where some of the new ships were built, so long as Germany did not build any. The old "good Germans" of whom the Times speaks might have been deceived; the wicked people 43 44 Germany's Point of View now living on the other side of the Channel looked into the matter with that precision which makes them trou- blesome to their English cousins, and said, very politely : " No, thank you ! '* Before the world, however, England had scored again. She was seen to be in favor of smaller arma- ments, while Germany was not. So long as she kept her alliances secret, it was not possible to prove her agreement with Russia. Through the latter's careless- ness, however, the substance of this agreement in force between England and Russia has at last been pub- lished. It appeared in a Russian newspaper, the Nowoe Zvene, on July ii, 1914, in an article signed by M. Brgancaninow, who is a near relative of M. de Giers, the Russian ambassador in Constantinople. The article, re-translated from the official German Gazette of October 11, reads in part as follows: With a keen sense of pleasure we are enabled to bring a news which possesses so great an international impor- tance that no comments are needed. We have been told on unimpeachable authority that the English-Russian navy and military convention has been signed by the authorized English official and Count Benckendorff. Contre Admiral Bitty carried the text and submitted it. This is why he received the great honor of being chosen to accompany the sovereign in person, when a solemn church service was held in Cherbourg in memory of the murdered Arch- duke Franz Ferdinand. We are told that the convention is not only defensive, but actually contemplates the land- ing of English troops in Holland. By the stipulation of this convention the Russian-Baltic fleet is placed, in case of war, under the command of the admiral of the English fleet whose station will be, according to present plans, Norway. The purpose of this is that this fleet, thanks to the friendly neutrality of Denmark, may appear in the Baltic waters immediately after, or more correctly, imme- diately before the opening of hostilities, and protect to- gether with the Russian fleet our shores, which as yet England's Conduct of the War 45 are absolutely defenseless. We have not often been in the position of congratulating the Russian Government on a success. But now we are happy at being able to do so. The great and primary credit belongs to our ambassador, Cotmt Benckendorff, whose authority and popularity in England as well as in Russia has scored this tremendous success for the entente. Now at last, sup- ported by the English fleet and our army, which is today absolutely ready, we can demand that our policy of de- pendence on Berlin cease, this policy which is contrary not only to our dignity but also to our international importance. Unless Sir Edward Grey issues a categorical denial of the truth of this publication, or himself publishes the full text of the English-Russian navy and military convention here referred to — neither of which he has apparently done as yet, for his explanations in Parlia- ment were unsatisfactory to the papers even of his own party — Germany would seem justified in believ- ing that the English-Russian negotiations which were said to be in progress when Mr. Churchill offered a '* naval holiday" to Germany, have borne fruit in the definite treaty signed by both Powers in June or early July, 1914. One may well ask whether it was not the hold secured on England by this treaty which made Russia decide on war as early as July 25 of that year, unless by diplomatic threats she could keep Austria from reestablishing her prestige. This is proved by the despatch to Sir Edward Grey of July 25 (English Blue Book No 17), in which it is stated that "Russia could not allow" — notice the word — "Austria to crush Servia and become the predominant power in the Balkans, and if she feels secure of the support of France she will face all the risks of war." Am.ericans who are friendly to the Allies may reason 46 Germany's Point of View that the substance of the English-Russian treaty here quoted from the Russian paper carries its own proof of the non-existence of such a treaty, for since Eng- land, as they believe, has entered the war against Ger- many because Germany had violated the neutrality of Belgium, it is not likely that England herself only a few weeks earlier should have signed a convention which contemplated the violation of the neutrality of Holland and Norway, and the connivance in Den- mark's violation of her own neutrality. The reply to those who reason thus is twofold: First, won't you please join us in demanding either the publication of the full text of the English-Russian agreement referred to, or the official denial of the existence of any treaty or agreement? Secondly, won't you please explain why Great Britain alone of all the great Powers refused to ratify the Hague Convention of 1907, establishing the rights and duties of neutral Powers in case of war on land, containing the following articles: "The terri- tory of neutral Powers is inviolable," and "bellig- erents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the terri- tory of a neutral Power;" since Great Britain did not ratify these sections she was not bound by them. There was then in her case no reason why she should not do just what the Russian publication of the treaty asserts, namely, agree under certain conditions to land her troops in Holland. But if she should infringe the neutrality of Holland without breaking a law, because she had not ratified it, nobody can see a valid excuse for her going to war with Germany because the latter had broken this law. The writer has discussed this aspect of the case in England's Conduct of the War 47 his reply to ex-Attorney General Beck's article in the New York Times of Sunday, November i, at such length that it is not necessary to repeat here the argu- ments and references. Advocates of Germany have asserted that Germany had asked Great Britain before entering Belgium whether she would guarantee the neutrality of Belgium throughout the present war. There is at present no official authority for the literal truth of this statement. The argument, however, re- mains unaffected, for from Sir Edward Grey's own White Paper it appears that he did not offer thus to guarantee Belgian neutrality. He was officially in- formed (Number 157 of the British Blue Book) that Germany had *' absolutely unimpeachable informa- tion " that France was planning an attack on Germany through Belgium. That was before any fighting had taken place, and Sir Edward Grey could still have said that Great Britain stood ready to enforce Belgian neu- trality impartially by concluding treaties with France and Germany similar to those of 1870. He did not do this, nor could he have done this, for it might — and Germany says it would — have brought Great Britajn into conflict with France. This, however, would have laid Great Britain open to the charge of treachery against one with whose plans of war she had become acquainted through negotiations lasting through years, as can be seen from Sir Edward Grey's letter to the French ambassador of November 22, 1912 (British Blue Book, 105, Annex I). It may not be superfluous to reassert here that no doubt whatsoever exists concerning the sincerity of the vast majority of British subjects who believe that they are at war with Germany because the latter 48 Germany's Point of View infringed Belgian neutrality. Nor should the sincerity of the British ministry be impugned, who believed that the safety of the empire forced them to espouse the cause of Russia and France. It is, however, confi- dently asserted that the German troops marching through Belgium were not the cause of Great Britain's entry into the war, but largely only an excuse. In reality Germany did not infringe Belgian neutrality, for The Hague Conference had explicitly stated that no neutral " can avail himself of his neutrality r (a), if he commits hostile acts against a belligerent; (b), if he commits acts in favor of a belligerent. And Bel- gium has committed acts in favor of France. (See article in the Times, November i, quoted above.) When this is understood the stigma on the good name of Germany, which has made many people so very bitter against her, will be removed, and the suf- fering of Belgium be seen to be one of the most ter- rible tragedies, such as unhappily will not be avoided so long as the peoples of this world do not strive more successfully to understand each other's point of view. This necessitates the willingness of going below the surface. A thing may be absolutely true, and yet in its implication glaringly false. The alleged use of dum-dum bullets by the British troops is a case in point. Below are given the affidavits of two British officers to the effect that their Government had supplied them and others with dum-dum bullets. American corre- spondents have been shown such bullets, and to make the case against Great Britain absolutely sure, it can be truthfully stated that she was the only one at The Hague Conference who spoke in favor of dum-dum England's Conduct of the War 49 bullets in the sub-commission, and that in the confer- ence of all the delegates, in 1899, twenty ayes were cast in favor of forbidding the use of dum-dum bullets, while only Great Britain and America — for Captain Crozier, of the United States, had come to the defense of the British delegate. General Ardagh — voted in favor of the continued use of dum-dum bullets. At the next conference, in 1907, America endeavored to reopen the case in the interest of her British cousins, but General Davis was voted down. This is an absolutely truthful account, which can be verified from the records of The Hague Conference. Since most people connect dum-dum bullets with an inhuman mode of warfare, they would, therefore, seem justified in believing that Great Britain was aggres- sively in favor of such a warfare, and certainly in favor of the use of unnecessarily brutal bullets. Noth- ing, however, is further from the truth, as appears from the speeches by Generals Ardagh and Davis. The following extracts are quoted from The Two Hague Conferences^ by William I. Hull (the World's Peace Foundation, Boston). Said General Sir John Ardagh : In the session of May 31, an article was accepted by a large majority against the use of bullets with a hard jacket, whose jacket does not entirely cover the core or has incisions in it. It seems to me that the use of these words describing technical details of construction will result in making the prohibition a little too general and absolute. It would not seemi to admit of the exception which I would desire to provide for, that is, the present or future construction of some projectile with shock sufficient to stop the stricken soldier and put him immediately hors de combat, thus fulfilling the indispensable conditions of warfare without, on the. other hand, causing useless suffering. 50 Germany's Point of View The completely jacketed bullet of our Lee-Metford rifle is defective in this respect. It has been proven in one 'of our petty wars in India that a man perforated five times by these bullets was still able to walk a considerable distance to an English hospital to have his wounds dressed. It was proven just recently, after the battle of Om-Dur- man, that the large majority of the Dervishes who were able to save themselves by flight had been wounded by small English bullets, whereas the Remington and Martini of the Egyptian army sufficed to disable. It was neces- sary to find some more efficient means, and to meet this necessity in India the projectile known under the name of dum-dum was made in the arsenal of that name near Calcutta. . . . It scarcely seems necessary for me to assert that public opinion in England would never sanction the use of a projectile which would cause useless suffering, and that every class of projectile of the nature is condemned in advance, but we claim the right and we recognize the duty of furnishing our soldiers with a projectile on whose re- sult they may rely — a projectile which will arrest, by its shock, the charge of an enemy and put him hors de com- bat immediately. . . . General Davis spoke, in part, as follows : I address myself especially to the delegates who bear officers' commissions in the armies of the nations repre- sented here. You are familiar with the whistling of bul- lets, you are accustomed to the sight of the dead and wounded. We have regulated the operations of warfare, we have improved the condition of neutrals; these are acts of high justice, but we should not forget the com- batant officers and simple soldiers who bear the burdens of warfare. I hope that this conference, convoked in the name of humanity, will not forget the lot of those who bear the inevitable losses and the cruelties of battles. These are not the words of men who do not believe in humane warfare; on the contrary, they are the words of men who have the courage of speaking -in favor of an unpopular cause. They may be in error. England's Conduct of the War 51 and most people believe they are, but nothing would be less fair than to draw harsh conclusions as to these two delegates or the nations they represented from their opposition to a clause forbidding the use of dum-dum bullets. In so far as the present charge is concerned, that the British troops have been using such bullets in the European War, two things should be remembered : First, it may be considered a general rule of The Hague conference that its declarations " shall cease to be binding from the time when in a war between the contracting Powers one of the belligerents is joined by a non-contracting Power," although this special clause is not added to all the declarations of the conference. If it were not so the declarations would result in unfairness, for a belligerent who had not ratified the convention might do with impunity what another was forbidden to do. Secondly, in her wars in India and Egypt Great Britain had to do with non-contracting nations, and was, therefore, bound, not by The Hague conventions, but by her conscience. After reading the whole speech of General Ardagh (it was too long to be quoted here in its entirety) nobody can doubt that her conscience bade her, in the interest of her soldiers, to use dum-dum bullets. Her arsenals were thus filled with this kind of ammunition, and it would have been a marvel if none of them had been issued to the troops going to France. In America, where the handy publi- cation of the texts of the peace conferences of The Hague by the World's Peace Foundation in Boston has given everybody an easy means of becoming ac- quainted with The Hague conventions, very few people are familiar with them, and abroad, where no such 52 Germany's Point of View convenient compilations are said to exist, even fewer people know exactly what is permitted and what is forbidden. It is, therefore, natural to assume that a great quantity of these forbidden bullets may have been issued to the troops in good faith. It is more difficult to believe that the denial by the Government was equally in good faith. But perhaps the denials were not official, but were made to appear so in the press. Germany, however, cannot be blamed for tak- ing a less charitable view of this affair, and for seeing in these dum-dum bullets another instance of "per- fidy," for w^hen one is fighting for one's existence one is not in the mood for making allowances for the mistakes of one's opponents. The affidavits of the two British officers were pub- lished in the official Gasette of September 29. They are here translated from the German text : I received my pistol-ammunition in Plymouth. The bullets were flattened in front. Since I had my doubts whether this ammunition was irreproachable from the point of view of international law, and since I was unable to obtain definite information on this point from my su- periors, I buried this ammunition. Four days before the battle of Mons, where I had my first encounter with the Germans, I packed my revolver in my heavy baggage, and have not carried it since. The ammunition was the same as had been given to me and the other officers of the Gordon Highlanders last June for the annual revolver shooting tests. W. E. Gordon, Colonel Gordon Highlanders, A. D. C. to the King. September 19, 1914. Signed in presence of Baron von Lersner, lieutenant of Reserve Regiment of Hussars No. 7 ; Baron von Berck- heim, lieutenant of Reserve Second Regiment of Guard Dragoons. England's Conduct of the War 53 The second affidavit reads: - As regards the revolver ammunition, the bullets sup- plied v^ere flattened in front. I first saw this bullet at the annual maneuvers this summer. I am making this summary reply in v^riting at the request of Baron von Lersner, and in answer to questions he put to me orally. F. H. Neish, Lieutenant-colonel, i, Gordon Highlanders. Torgau, September 19, 1914. The witnesses were the same as to the affidavit of Colonel Gordon. On the same day and before the same witnesses, Lieutenant-Colonel Neish made an- other affidavit, as . follows : When I was captured on August 27 at three o'clock in the morning, I had only three pointed revolver bullets in my possession. I had borrowed them from another officer. I had had no other cartridges flattened in front than those which had been supplied and which I had buried. I cannot remember where I buried them, but it was surely several days before the battle of Mons began on August 23. The official Gazette comments on these affidavits as follows : ''Such cartridges can have no other purpose than to occasion very cruel wounds. These officers confess that they themselves doubted whether these bullets were permissible, according to international law, and that they buried them for that reason. Other members of the English army, however, have used these cartridges in battle, as is proved by the ammuni- tion which has been found loaded in captured British revolvers." Two days earlier, on September 2y, the Gazette pub- lished the official French explanation of the French dum-dum bullets, which had been found in Longwy 54 Germany's Point of View in original packages, in large quantities, and of which photographs had been supplied to the press of Ger- many and other countries, and been freely printed. The French explanation was to the effect that the car- tridges had been intended for the target practice of the " societies for military preparation." Since most of these societies had inadequate stands, they had to be supplied with bullets whose jackets had been per- forated. This lessened the initial speed of the bullets and prevented them from passing through the thin protection behind the target. The use of these bullets in war had never been thought of. The comment of the Gazette on this explanation is as follows : It is unnecessary to inquire whether these explanations are true, for even if they are true they cannot mitigate the severe reproaches which must be made against the French army. The question whether the dum-dum bullets of our enemies were originally meant for a harmless pur- pose is of no consequence, considering the definitely proven fact that they have been found in thousands on the battlefields. This is the only fact which counts. And everyone will have to take it into consideration, if he wishes to form an unprejudiced judgment on the point whether our enemies are carrying on this war in a way which corresponds to the dictates of humanity. These are temperate words, and it would seem that the burden of the proof that bullets of the Longwy kind were not used by the French army had been shifted to the French Government. The mere state- ment that they had not been intended for the purposes of war is insufficient in view of the German claim that many have been found on the battlefields. The most charitable view is that in France, as in England, large quantities of dum-dum bullets had been on hand, in the one case for target practice, in the other for England's Conduct of the War 55 warfare against natives in India or Egypt, and that in the confusion of mobilization these bullets had been issued to the troops before the respective Governments had become aware of their illegal character. This whole question, however, raises an interesting point which may well concern the next Hague Confer- ence. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that it is a fact that in the battle of Mons the Allies used dum-dum bullets, while the Germans did not. The result would have been that in an attack every German soldier who was hit was put hors de combat, if he was not killed outright, while a soldier of the Allies might have continued on his way, even if he was hit once or oftener. This would have given a very unfair advantage to the Allies. Would the Germans there- upon have been justified in perforating or flattening their bullets in preparation for the next battle ? Fair- ness would seem tO' say, yes. This, however, would only have induced the Allies to continue the use of their illegal bullets, and would have led — and, so far as this war is concerned, may lead, for all we know — to a complete breakdown of The Hague declarations, with the consequent disregard of its provisions also by that contestant who had meant to observe them. But if there were a permanent court in session, the inno- cent party could then present its proof at once, and if the other party continued its offenses, be specifically authorized to take recriminatory measures without losing its standing as a faithful observer of The Hague declarations. This, of course, implies that men of such bigness of character can be found to sit on this court that the various contestants will confide in their sense of jus- 5^ Germany's Point of View tice. But when this day arrives there may be little work to do for such a court, for when the big men of the nations can be trusted to judge all the nations fairly, the nations themselves will have begun to under- stand one another, and the causes for war will have been lessened, if not completely removed. A Latin proverb says : " In peace prepare for war." An excellent adaptation of this proverb for modern times would be: "In peace prepare to avoid war." If we are intemperate in thought and speech in times of peace, and ready vehemently to condemn that one of the contestants with whom we do not sympathize, and to do so largely on the evidence of his opponents, or the equally intemperate claims of those who defend him, how can we hope to acquire a judicious temper? But unless we form the habit of just thinking, we shall become the playball of passion when we ourselves are , placed before a momentous decision. There can be no doubt that the habit of heated speech is one of the causes of the present world-war, for it has kept the people of Europe from understanding each other. General von Bernhardi is often quoted as charac- teristic of such intemperate speakers in Germany, and because of his book Germany is condemned, in spite of the fact that his writings were practically unknown there, that he was an officer on the retired list when he wrote them, and that he had never held an office in which he had any determining influence on the policy of the German army. It has been forgotten that the preservation of peace has been the text on which the leaders of Germany have talked to the people for more years than comprise a generation. It has also been forgotten that this was not so in England's Conduct of the War 57 England, and that some of the most intemperate speak- ers of recent years are today in the most important positions. The present First Sea Lord of the Ad- miralty, Baron Fisher, is quoted by Mr. Ralph Lane, writing under the pseudonym of Norman Angell {The Great Illusion, page 350), as having said: If you rub it in, both at home and abroad, that you are ready for instant war, with every unit of your strength in the first line and waiting to be first in, and hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil your prisoners in oil (if you take any) and torture his women and children, then people will keep clear of you. A worthy companion piece to these words of Ad- miral Fisher is found in an article in the Saturday Review of September, 1897, where we read: If Germany were extinguished tomorrow, 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? These are not solitary remarks. There are many more like them, uttered by men in high position and printed in papers of note. This is why Germany does not believe that England went to war for Belgium and why she wonders that not all the world has seen this. CHAPTER V JAPAN AND KIAU-CHAU GERMANY AND BELGIUM AKINETOSCOPE picture in a local playhouse recently showed a review of British recruits by Lord Roberts, fine young fellows, joyfully anticipating the opportunity of fighting for their country — ;and the right, they were told, was on their side. Suddenly there came into their bright faces a look almost of exultation, as a magnificent figure, a man not overtall, every inch a gentleman, moved down the line. Quietly he raised his silk hat, uncovering a beautifully shaped head. His snowy white hair shone like a halo. Here was a type of man suggesting the perfection of which the civilization of the white race is capable. The recruits broke out into shouts of welcome, but Lord Roberts hardly seemed to hear them. It was Britannia who was whispering to him her message of bravely won and stoutly kept supremacy. A gentle, absent- minded smile flitted across his serious face, and every- one who saw it knew that Lord Roberts was renewing in his heart, and before his young and eager country- men, his vow of allegiance to the noblest ideas of the race of which he is a splendid specimen. Oh, the pity of it, that the English and the Germans could not have understood each other before it was too late, before they had to meet on the battlefield of blood and hatred ! This picture of Lord Roberts passing in review the English recruits has haunted all who saw it, and has 58 Japan-Kiau-Chau; Germany-Belgium 59 taken the sting out of many an unfriendly thought. It will never fade, but by its side there will stand, here- after, another picture. It is 9 :30 in the morning of Saturday, November 7, 19 14, when a kindly faced little brown man, General Yoshimi Yamada, is advancing toward the smoulder- ing ruins of Tsingtau to receive from the German governor, Meyer- Waldeck, the surrender of the place. By his side and in respectful pose is seen his subordi- nate, the leader of the British forces. Lieutenant Colonel Barnadiston. The habitual gentleness of the Japanese makes Meyer- Waldeck's task less terrible, but the tragedy of having been obliged to surrender to an alien race an outpost of the civilization of the white man has cut its traces deep into his features. He addresses himself exclusively to the Japanese general, but when his words are spoken, he gives one look at Barnardiston ! And Barnardiston drops his eyes, those proud British eyes, which have been wont to survey the world with well deserved serenity. One look! — Will Barnardiston ever forget it? Will any Britisher ever forget it? When he rises in Parliament to call his people to a noble deed in the service of the civiliza- tion of his race, this look will strike him dumb. When in his club he speaks of British honor, this look will mock him. And when at home he tries to warm his heart with his pride in his race, this look will tell him that it was his people who, humbly taking their orders from the yellow race, delivered to the latter what was left of the paradise which Germany had created on the shores of the Bay of Kiau-chau. On these shores there stood, in 1898, a Chinese fish- ing village of a few hundred inhabitants. In August, 6o Germany's Point of View 1914, a thriving city had grown up here, nestled on the slopes of the rugged mountain chains of Lao-chau and Hung-liu-chui. Sixteen years ago these hills were largely bare, as they had been for generations, while last spring they were green with the verdure of mil- lions of little trees, planted and sown there by German hands. No nation loves and nurtures trees as the Germans do, for they are never so happy as when they live where wooded slopes meet broad expanses of clear water. A school of forestry had been established in Tsingtau, and from all China and from Japan people had come to learn how to grow new forests, and how to preserve and improve what the mismanagement of their ancestors had left to them. An i^lpine club encouraged mountain climbing and the preservation of the Chinese antiquities, often built on almost inacces- sible peaks, for the mountains rise to a height of several thousand feet directly from the sea. Four successful missions were carrying on their helpful work, unhampered by the local government. There were three German mission schools — one Cath- olic and two Protestant, and also an American mission. There was the large technical high school, numbering several hundred Chinese and European students. Also, one special school for Chinese was preparing the natives for the positions in the civil service not only of the protectorate, but also of the large railway leading into the interior of the country, which had been built by a syndicate of Chinese and German bankers. A wonderful water supply, brought from a distance, and a perfect sewerage system had made Tsingtau an ideal residence city. Open to the sea, it caught the welcome ocean breaths in the hot summer months, Japan-Kiau-Chau; Germany-Belgium 6i while it was wisely built where in winter the mountains cut off the icy northwest winds. Large modern hotels and beautifully cleaned bathing beaches invited sum- mer visitors, and year by year more Europeans from Hongkong and other places, and also Chinese gentle- men, sent their families here and spent their own vacations in this German town. The harbor, however, was the greatest work, achieved with the technical perfection of which only a great nation is capable. Professor Westengard, the American legal adviser to the Emperor of Siam, told friends only a few months ago, before he left for Siam, that Tsingtau had the most superb quays and docks anywhere in the world. The harbor and its approaches were deep enough for the biggest ships, and in addition there was a hugh floating dry dock. A little harbor somewhat farther south was gay, espe- cially in the summer months, with the smaller craft. Innumerable sailing vessels and launches rode here at anchor, and proved that also the sports were not for- gotten in this place. The streets were clean and well laid out. Many trees and lovely parks gave promise of the future almost fairy-like beauty of the city. All the modern inventions and the comforts they provide were to be found in Tsingtau. Everywhere German foresight and tlioroughness, German love of nature and dili- gence, were in evidence. And, best of all, in the man- agement of the public affairs there appeared the desire of administering this protectorate as a trust for humanity. Here, at last, the Germans felt, they had the opportunity of making peaceful and moral con- quests, China was awakening to the call of a new 62 Germany's Point of View day. This China, so long asleep, so big, so thickly populated that of every four people in the world one is a Chinaman, had long bought its guns from the Western world, but now had begun to look also to the civilization of the white people. Here was Germany's chance to do its part, to transmit some of the values inherited from a glorious past to that brother of the human family who, while in some respects the oldest, was yet in others the very youngest. Germany undertook this task in Tsingtau with joy- ful eagerness. She knew that you cannot make an- other the sharer of your best possessions without yourself being the gainer in strength and inner worth. She saw with pride the city grow and the number of inhabitants pass the ten-thousand mark. She saw ever more ships dock in her new harbor, new indus- tries begun, more mountains opened, more iron ore brought to the smelters, more Chinese business houses settled here, more prosperity, more contentment, more happiness pervade the fifty square miles of her new protectorate. She welcomed every year more visitors and saw them leave again with sincere admiration for the great civilizing work done by a nation who had had little chance heretofore of proving itself an active humanizing force in the world. Today the young trees are no more. British and Japanese guns have bared the hills. The city is de- stroyed. The pupils are scattered, and the Oriental world, just ready to learn the lesson of civilization of the white man, has had an object lesson of his destructiveness. All this and much, much more the British com- mander read in that one look of Governor Meyer- Japan-Kiau-Chau; Germany-Belgium 63 Waldeck. He could not stand it. But as he looked away, his eyes fell on the road across the bay over which the Japanese and his own troops had come. It was on neutral land, inviolate by international law. The Chinese Government had protested, but neither his superior officer, General Yoshimi Yamada, nor he himself had heeded it. They had set out, in strange companionship, these two, to destroy a paradise, be- cause it was German, and had violated Chinese neu- trality and broken The Hague Convention. Did the irony of it flash across the British mind, at that mo- ment, that his own Government had claimed to be at war with Germany because Germany had done, in dire need, what England and Japan together had wilfully done here? Nobody can ever know the thoughts of Lieutenant Colonel Barnardiston under the lash of that one look. At his feet he saw the ruins of Tsingtau, but ere he could study them well, his superior, the kindly little brown man, called to him, and with a " Very well, sir ; at your command, sir," the British soldier fell into step with General Yoshima Yamada and walked back with him to their common camp. In London another day will dawn, when another company of recruits will be waiting for the field marshal. Again he will walk down the ranks, again the shouts from many British throats will greet him, again he will lift his head. But will he again hear the voice of Britannia? Or will it be the voice of an- other race, to which he will not answer this time with a smile, but with a respectful, " Very well, sir ; at your command, sir" ? In view of this remarkable subordination of a high 64 Germany's Point of View British officer to the command of the Japanese in Tsingtau, one may well ask whether the flippant way in which many Englishmen have spoken of the war will not soon be changed. In Boston an Englishman said to a German acquaintance last September : That is a glorious scrap we are having in Europe at present. You know we had to see who was the biggest fellow in the old world. And didn't we steal a march on you in the very beginning ? We made the world believe that you had broken a treaty and international law by going into Belgium? Thanks to Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Robert Bacon, both of whom would remove this question from the uncertainty of poplar disapproval by having the United States enter an official protest against what seems to them an infraction of international law on the part of Germany, the true state of affairs may ere long become public knowledge. In so far as these gentlemen are endeavoring to bring this about, they deserve the thanks of all fair- minded people. It is, however, very regrettable that they have singled out for their disapproval only Ger- many. Did Japan not violate the same articles of The Hague Convention when she infringed the neutrality of China in order to attack Tsingtau? Why should the United States not protest against Japan's offense against international law? In so far as Great Britain is concerned, both gentlemen are justified in not de- manding a protest, because Great Britain was the only one of the great Powers that did not ratify the articles referring to the rights and duties of neutrals in the warfare on land. Great Britain, therefore, was at liberty to enter neutral territory without breaking any Japan-Kiau-Chau; Germany-Belgium 65 law that was binding on her. She did, however, ratify the articles referring to neutrals in naval warfare, and these she has repeatedly broken. The most glaring case was when the British cruiser Highflyer sank the German auxiliary cruiser Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse in neutral territorial waters.* Why do neither Mr. Roosevelt nor Mr. Bacon deem this infringement of international law worthy of a protest ? As regards the case of Germany, so long as no official protest gives her the opportunity of an official reply, her defense must rest with those who believe in her. Fortunately, new material is coming to light every week, and, sooner or later, its cumulative weight may be so strong that Germany's case will appear established. Germany claims that she did not break articles one and two of the chapter of The Hague Convention on which Messrs. Roosevelt and Bacon would base the United States protest, because article seven of the same chapter states that no neutral can claim the privileges guaranteed to him in the earlier articles, if he com^mits, (a), hostile acts against a belligerent, (b), acts friendly to a belligerent. Article seven has special reference to individuals, but if an individual can thus lose his neutrality, how much more a state? The chief question then is : Did Belgium lose her neutrality through any acts of her Government? One answer to this is found when one compares two state- ments recently issued by British sources. On Octo- ber 12 the London Times endeavored to defend the *The attack on the German cruiser Dresden in Chilean waters on March 15, 1915, for which Great Britain has been obliged to apologize to Chile, is another of the worst instances of international bad faith. 66 Germany's Point of View British Government against the charge of negUgence because it had given insufficient help to Belgium, and especially to Antwerp. The Times says : The last and greatest difficulty was the neutrality which had been imposed upon Belgium against her will. [The reader will please note these words.] A more fatal gift was never presented to any State. It prevented her from combining with the Netherlands for the defence of their common and inseparable interests, and, worse than that, it made it impracticable for Belgium to enter into any conversation or arrangement, military or other, which would insure to her the rapid and effective support of her English friends. All such ideas if they were enter- tained — and England's weakness on land threw them somewhat into the shade — had to be postponed until Bel- gian territory was violated by an aggressor, when in all human probability the aid desired would come too late. If this means anything, it means that, according to the Times, Belgium could not enter into any " conver- sation or arrangement, military or other," without breaking her neutrality. Strangely enough, the Ger- man Government announced at about the same time that the documents found in Brussels, but, unfortu- nately for Germany, not dating later than 1906 and 19 12, contained ample evidence of the fact that defi- nite arrangements had been made between Belgium and Great Britain. This news was given to the American press on October 14 and 15 and elicited from the British ambassador the following reply : No such agreement has ever existed, as the Germans well know. General Grierson is dead, and Colonel, now General Barnardiston [in the Japanese reports he is called lieutenant colonel] is commanding the British forces be- fore Tsingtau. In 1900 General Grierson was on the gen- eral staff at the War Office, and Colonel Barnardiston was military attache in Brussels. In view of the solemn guarantee given by Great Britain to protect the neutrality Japan-Kiau-Chau; Germany-Belgium 6y of Belgium against violation from any side, some academic discussions may, through the instrumentality of Colonel Barnardiston have taken place between General Grierson and the Belgian military authorities as to what assistance the British army might be able to afford to bombard- ment should one of her neighbors violate that neutrality. Some notes with reference to the subject may exist in the archives at Brussels. Is this not a practical admission by Great Britain that she and Belgium had entered into a "conversa- tion or arrangement, military or other " ? By so doing, however, Belgium had broken her own neutrality, and Great Britain had helped her do it, according to the British view of the case as expressed in the London Times on October 12. That this is no mere sophistry appears from the observation that Great Britain had become familiar with the military secrets of France through a series of military arrangements worked out by the French and British general staffs. How could Great Britain ever have given her help to Belgium against France without laying herself open to the charge of treachery? And more, Great Britain wishes to rest the inviola- bility of the neutrality of Belgium on the treaty of 1839 instead of on the articles of The Hague conven- tions. There were five signatories to that treaty, Great Britain, France, Prussia, Russia, and Austria. The relations of these five Powers towards Belgium were to be identical. Did not Great Britain break the spirit of this treaty by entering into military conversa- tions with Belgium, and thus acquainting herself with the Belgian military secrets? Suppose some future British Government had Invaded Belgium, how could any of the other signatory Powers have given success- 68 Germany's Point of View ful help to Belgium against an enemy who was in possession of her secrets of defense? Belgian relations with France are said to have been even closer. Compelled by treaty to maintain an army and several fortresses, Belgium readily turned to one of the great military Powers for her instruction in the enormously complicated scientific subject of modern ordnance. She happened to turn to France, and French officers, it is said, had ready access to Belgian fortresses. Human nature would not be what it is if this had not led to an intimacy between the French and Belgians such as is incompatible with honest neu- trality. Sir Edward Grey was informed {Blue Book No. 157) that Germany had "absolutely unimpeach- able information " that France was planning an attack through Belgium. He did not challenge this evidence, but went before Parliament with his claim that Great Britain should join in the war against Germany, be- cause the latter had violated Belgian neutrality. People in search of the truth should read again the speeches of Sir Edv/ard Grey and Mr. Asquith in Parliament on August 3, 4, and 5, and remember these several things, which both * men knew but did not mention when they hurled at Germany the charge of being a faithless breaker of treaties and a violator of international law. I. The Hague convention of 1907 had regulated the rights and duties of neutrals in war on land. This con- vention had been ratified by all the great Powers, except Great Britain. * Further investigations have made it very doubtful whether Mr. Asquith was informed by Sir Edward Grey of the latter's relations with foreign states. Mr. Asquith, therefore, may have to be acquitted of the charge of intellectual dishonesty. Japan-Kiau-Chau; Germany-Belgium 69 2. There was in this convention an article, No. 7, which stated under what conditions a neutral loses his rights as such. 5. Belgium had entered, to say the least, " conversa- tions " with Great Britain, and had such close relations with France that her neutrality was compromised, if not, as Germany claims, violated. 4. The treaty of 1839 had been declared of doubtful validity in 1870, and by some speakers in Parliament had been declared voided by the treaties of 1870 (quoted in the Transcript, October 14, 1914). 5. The official British opinion as regards the very simi- lar treaty guaranteeing the neutrality of Luxemburg was on record as contrary to the interpretation which Sir Ed- ward Grey and Mr. Asquith wished to give the treaty of 1839. In substantiation of the last two points the follow- ing quotations may be given : From the discussion on the treaties of 1870 in the House of Commons, August II, 1870. Mr. Osborne: This treaty is entirely superfluous, if the treaty of 1839 is worth anything at all. In the eyes of Austria and Russia that treaty of 1839 is entirely superseded by this. You have struck a blow at that treaty, which you can never put in the same position again. The next quotation is from the London Times of December 17, 1870. The Times then was the official organ of the Government. Bismarck, exasperated by the continuous acts of Luxemburg, amounting to an abuse of her neutrality in favor of France, had given notice to the signatory Powers who in 1867 had guar- anteed the perpetual neutrality of Luxemburg — just as in 1839 ^hey had guaranteed the neutrality of Bel- gium — that the North German Federation was no longer bound to respect the neutrality of Luxemburg. As a matter of fact, no infringement of her neutrality 70 Germany's Point of View took place, although it was momentarily expected. The Times said: A very just distinction was drawn by one of our cor- respondents yesterday between the military right to ignore the neutrality of Luxemburg — if that neutrality has been abused — and the right to demand its eventual annexation to Germany. The neutrality of Luxemburg is one thing, the independence of Luxemburg is another, and the for- mer might be violated by a temporary occupation without permanently compromising the latter. It is just possible, indeed, that exigencies may have been created by the par- tisanship of the Luxemburg authorities which could not await the decision of a conference. Those who read this should remember that Germany promised to respect the independence and integrity of Belgium after the war and to pay for any damage done by the passage of the German troops. It is im- possible to state it too emphatically and too frequently that independence and integrity were the only things which also Sir Edward Grey promised Belgium for the future (Blue Book No. 155), and that he dropped neutrality from the British guarantee. This is very important, if one remembers that Great Britain has not ratified The Hague Convention guaranteeing the inviolability of neutral countries. Great Britain, then, in urging Belgium to go to war, promised her — integ- rity and independence and War. Nor did she come successfully to the support of Belgium, so that Sir Edward Gray has to defend himself at present both at home and in Belgium against the charge of having forsaken a brave ally. Germany promised Belgium the same — independence and integrity and Peace ! There were, however, people in 1870 just as there are today, who said : Japan-Kiau-Chau; Germany-Belgium yi Even if Belgium (then Luxemburg) had forfeited her rights of neutrality, no one of the signatory Powers had the right to enter her territory before a Conference had authorized such an invasion. Germany should have taken counsel with the other Powers first. The Times of December i6, 1870, ho v^ ever, spoke as follows: A correspondent suggests that " the danger arising from breaches of neutrality may under given circumstances be far too serious and too immediate to await the slow result of diplomatic action," but Count Bismarck has deprived himself of the benefit of this plea (by not entering Luxem- burg at once). Had there been imminent danger he would not have reserved the question of further action, but have at once occupied the duchy and have appealed to the other Powers to approve the step. The analogies of common life illustrate the situation. A man may not take the law into his own hands at his pleasure, but if he is attacked on the highways he closes with his assailant, and should an accident follow, a jury will return a verdict of " justi- fiable homicide." This is the reasoning practically adopted by the ministry. It will be noted that Germany did in 19 14 exactly what the British ministry of 1870 said should be done in such cases ; act first and explain afterwards ; for the British ministry reasoned that if there is time for an explanation beforehand, the action itself becomes impermissible. Most interesting Expressions of the official British opinion are found also in the Times of December 9 and 17, 1870. On the latter day we also read: In measuring the responsibility which rests upon our- selves and others, under the Luxemburg convention, it is essential to emancipate ourselves from purely legal con- ceptions. The assumed right of five great Powers to exercise a kind of superintendence over the minor States of Europe is, in itself, a result of political necessity. . . . 72 Germany's Point of View It would be absurd to suppose that we, or the other con- tracting States, pledged ourselves in perpetuum never to reconsider those reasons, however circumstances might be changed. Lest this opinion appear antiquated and invalid to the modern searcher after truth, the recent view of the Supreme Court of the United States may be quoted in substantiation. Page 600 of Vol. cxxx of United States Reports: But that circumstances may arise which would not only justify the Government in disregarding their stipulations (i. e., of treaties), but demand in the interest of the coun- try that it should do so, there can be no question. Unex- pected events may call for a change in the policy of the country. And again (page 602) the Supreme Court held: That whilst it would always be a matter of the utmost gravity 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. It was just because of the uncertainty of treaties like that of 1839 that The Hague Conference of 1907 formulated the articles on neutrality, which all the Great Powers, except Great Britain, have ratified. These are all matters which Sir Edward Grey knew, which Mr. Asquith knew ; and soon the public at large will also know them. With them clearly in mind, let a man read over again the speeches by the two emi- nent British statesmen which swept their country, and little Belgium, too, into the war, and let him ask him- self whether the English gentleman is right who said, " We stole a march on Germany by making the world believe that we entered the war because she tried to go through Belgium." CHAPTER VI , GERMANY AS A WORLD POWER ALSACE-LORRAINE PROFESSOR A. C. COOLIDGE wrote a book in 1910, entitled, America as a World Power, which has been translated both into French and German. Its German title is Die Vereinigten Staaten als Weltmacht. "Twenty years ago," Professor Coolidge says, "the expression ' World Power ' was unknown in most lan- guages ; today it is a political commonplace, bandied about in wide discussion." Many English translators, however, of German books are not yet familiar with this term, rendering the German Weltmacht with " world dominion," or even " domination of the world." As a result, the legitimate aims of Germany of being a world Power are presented to American readers as wild aspirations on her part to gain domin- ion of the world. There is a wider gulf to mutual understanding between the English-speaking and the German-speaking world in their different languages than many people have realized. At the present time, when most of them are searching for accurate infor- mation, such linguistic errors become apparent, and most regrettable, because they tend to convey very erroneous impressions. Professor Coolidge defines his book as " a study of the part which the United States plays in the great drama of world politics," and asserts that " complete equality, has never existed, and can never exist, be-, 73 74 Germany's Point of View tween States of greatly unequal strength. In practice the larger must tend to arrange many matters without consulting every wish of their numerous smaller breth- ren." There are, according to him, five world Powers, taking rank in the following order : 1. The British Empire, " exceeding any two of its rivals," and extending over nearly eleven and one-half million square miles, with 400 million inhabitants, of whom sixty million are whites. 2. Russia, extending over eight and one-hali million square miles, with 150 million inhabitants, of whom 125 million are whites. J. France, extending over four and one-half million square miles, with ninety-five million inhabitants, of whom forty million are whites. 4. The United States, extending over almost three and three-fourths million square miles, with ninety-three mil- lion inhabitants, of whom seventy-five million are whites. 5. Germany, extending only over one million square miles, with seventy-five million inhabitants, of whom sixty million are whites. In these figures Mr. Coolidge includes the colonial possessions of the several nations, and remarks that all the colonial possessions of Germany, except South- west Africa, are in the tropics. Germany has suspected for several years, rightly or wrongly, that her three great neighbors, with a total extent of twenty-four and a half million square miles and with 620 million inhabitants, were combining against her. She felt justified in resenting this attempt of depriving her of the right to "play a part in the great drama of world politics." When German writers spoke of Weltmacht they were not thinking of a dominion of the world. On the contrary, they wished to rouse their fellow-countrymen to the danger that threatened them, if a powerful combination of strong Germany as a World Power 75 nations should regard them as too insignificant to be reckoned among the world Powers, and should proceed to arrange, in the words of Mr. Coolidge, "many- matters without consulting Germany." Germany has been so successful since 187 1 that the very idea of relegating her to a second-rank Power may come as a surprise, especially to those who have only recently become interested in world affairs. Mr. Coolidge's figures, however, speak for themselves. Germany, it will be noticed, stands in the last place, and Austria has been dropped from the list. These figures are eloquent also in another direction. If we pair off Austria and Turkey against Japan, Bel- gium, and Servia, it is seen that Germany, with less than 100 million inhabitants, and drawing on the resources of only one million square miles, is drying to hold her own against more than 600 million people, drawing their resources from twenty-four and one-half million square miles. If one remembers that Germany is shut off from her colonies, the odds against her are even greater. And yet there are those who would add the three and three-quarter million square miles and almost 100 million inhabitants of the United States to those who are trying to crush Germany ! No estimate of the present European crisis which does not take these facts into consideration can be en- tirely true. Germany may have given offense to her powerful neighbors and have driven them to an alli- ance against her. She may have done so wilfully or she may have done so unwittingly. It may have been she, or it may have been they, who were more to blame for the mutual misunderstanding and intemperate speech which has kept the several nations of Europe ']6 Germany's Point of View apart. But is this a sufficient reason for transferring the bitterness of thought and intemperance of speech to another country, happily at peace with all the contestants ? It is the one great aim of the United States to bring about, by the weight of her own morality, conditions of justice among the nations of the world under which another such war becomes impossible. If the United Spates, however, enters the contest either by force of arms or as an ardent partisan, and thus proves that she, too, is subject to the call to passion, she loses her right of leading the way into new and higher paths of international righteousness. Early last year civil war in Ireland seemed immi- nent. Since then a bigger thought has taken hold of the people and reconciled their differences. Why should not a similar miracle sweep away the hatred and misunderstandings now rending the whole of Europe? And is there any nation left but the United States where such a bigger and nobler thought 'can take root and grow until it spreads over the whole world ? Says Professor Henri Lichtenberger in his splendid book, Germany and Its Evolution in Modern Times (1913, translated from the French by A. M. Ludo- vici) : Perhaps it is not altogether chimerical to think that the twentieth century will see the growth and spirit of the modern religion of unity, and that we shall gradually ap- proach the ideal of the "good European " which, during the height of the nationalistic enthusiasm, Nietzsche had the courage to preach to his countrymen. This estimate of Nietzsche by a Frenchman, who is Germany as a World Power yy at present the French exchange professor in Harvard, shatters a stock argument of the anti-Germans. Nietzsche was a great man but had not much influence in Germany. He wielded the German language in a way which defies translation, and cannot be under- stood by fragmentary sentences. It is true that he preached the gospel of strength. But if one really wishes to know what he meant one should either read Professor Lichtenberger's book, or, better still, have attended his Harvard lectures. While it is obviously impossible to comment on all the errors due to the differences of language in Amer- ica and in Germany, and to the broken cables and the interruption of other direct means of communication, a few more very characteristic errors deserve attention. There is a story current, and vouched for by many people, to the effect that it has been the custom of the German army and navy officers for many years to toast at their official dinners *' The Day " on which the invasion of France and England would take place. This toast has been variously called Am Tag, Dem Tag, and Der Tag. From a linguistic point of view the first two forms are impossible. If the toast were drunk, it would be Der Tag. A close investi- gation has proved that there is no substantiation what- soever of the report of such a toast having been drunk in the army. All those who have claimed to speak with authority have had reference to a habit in the navy. Very fortunately for those who wish to deny the truth of this report, the German discipline is so strict that it even regulates, in the navy manual, the toasts to be drunk at official dinners on shipboard. 78 Germany's Point of View The regulation reads that there shall be only one toast — Se. Majestdt der Kaiser, hurrah! And it adds that no other toast shall be drunk.* Another canard which has already been officially denied had reference to an army order by the German Emperor expressing his disregard for '* Sir John French's contemptible little army." So-called fac- simile reproductions of the order were posted all over England and the body of the text was cabled to Amer- ica. If the censor had not refused to pass also the heading, it would have been seen at once that the whole thing was a clumsy forgery. In the first place, it began: "His Royal and Imperial Majesty.'* This is the English way of referring to the monarch, while the German way is "His Imperial and Royal Maj- esty." Secondly, the order was dated not only " Head- quarters," as all genuine orders are, but contained the name of the place where the headquarters were sup- posed to be. This, too, was contrary to the German custom, because the name of the place where the Emperor is staying during the war is always kept a secret. The greatest story, however, has grown up in the minds of many people in connection with Alsace- Lorraine. This province is not only cited as an in- stance of German mismanagement, but has been repre- sented as French at heart, and anxious to return to a political union with France. One often hears remarks about German greed and lack of political wisdom in forcing France to surrender these beautiful provinces to Germany in 1871. * For an authoritative denial of this story, see Collier's Weekly, March 27, 1915, p. 6. Germany as a World Power 79 It may be readily conceded that there are, espe- cially in the northwest, numerous French sympathizers, and that there are in addition many men of education who, like Professor Lichtenberger, himself the son of an Alsatian family, wish to see Alsace-Lorraine develop into a country of " double culture." This does not mean with them half German and half French, but fully German and fully French. It may be doubted whether any people are capable of thus carry- ing the civilization of two distinct races. There are some exceptional men who can do this, but so far as the masses are concerned it is impossible. Politically speaking, therefore, " double culture '' amounts to a French propaganda, and is generally classed with the aims of the more outspoken French sympathizers. When Alsace-Lorraine was taken over from France in 1 87 1, it had approximately 1,500,000 inhabitants. Before introducing the new form of government, the people were given permission to decide whether they wished to retain French citizenship or become Ger- mans. One hundred and sixty thousand people, most of them in Lorraine, chose French citizenship, while only about 50,000 decided to emigrate to France. The official figures of emigration in 191 1 were only 472, of whom 451 came to America. These figures are negli- gible, considering the fact that the number of the inhabitants has grown to almost two millions. Beginning with 1875, Alsace-Lorraine was per- mitted to send fifteen representatives to the Reichstag, the full quota to which her numbers entitled her, but she was not given the full rights of a confederated state. Her local Diet had limited powers, and the country's discontent with these regulations showed in 8o Germany's Point of View the solid anti-Government front of her representatives. From 1875 to 1887 only "Alsatians" were returned to the Reichstag. In 1890, that is, twenty years after the war, this number dropped from fifteen to ten ; in 1893 to eight; it rose again to ten in 1898, but then dropped to nine in 1903, to seven in 1907 and to two in 1912. The remaining thirteen representatives were divided among the several parties, showing that Alsace-Lorraine had begun to identify her interests with those of the empire at large. These figures do not speak so loud as the enthusi- astic proclamations of the few French nationalists, translated and quoted in America, but they carry greater weight, and reveal more clearly the true state of the 1912 Reichstag delegation which was due to the new constitution granted in 191 1. Even yet the country is not a full-fledged state of the Confederation of German States called the Ger- man Empire. It has its representatives in the Reichs- tag like the others, but its three delegates in the Bundesrat are bound by a peculiar restriction. If they should vote with Prussia, and by so doing secure a majority for the side on which Prussia is voting, they shall not be counted. This is a check placed on Alsace- Lorraine, and especially on Prussia, by the other Ger- man states, and shows how erroneous the idea is that Prussia could do, and actually did, in the empire what- ever she chose. The inhabitants of Alsace are thoroughly German,* many of them being unable to speak or understand French. Some of the educated classes know both languages, but even in such homes German is spoken * See Why Europe Is at War, ch. 3. Germany as a World Pozver 8i almost exclusively. Nor need this surprise one; for Alsace is an old German country, " fraudulently snatched from the German Empire by Louis xiv/' as Professor Lichtenberger says.* The Germans, he sug- gests, should not have waited until 1871, but should have taken Alsace in 18 15, but the diplomatists had failed to bring the work to a satis- factory conclusion. They had left Alsace in the hands of France, who in the past had torn it away from the German Empire, to whose security it was indispensable. Germany has always claimed this while Bismarck elucidated it in his famous speech,f where he pointed out that the South German States refused to join the empire unless the danger of a French ever ready sally port, which existed in Strassburg, was removed. But the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine in 1871 was more than an allowance to military necessity; it was an act of justice. These lands had been loyal German states until the Thirty Years' War, when parts were ceded to France. Toul and Verdun changed hands first, then followed Metz and the surrounding coun- try, and finally, in 1681, in time of absolute peace, Louis XIV seized Strassburg. Of all the German princes only Frederic William, the Great Elector, saw his duty and answered the Alsatian cry for help. The emperor sent him some troops, but their support was lukewarm, and the expedition failed. An old account of the final battle contains these words : " When the great Turenne saw that fortune was favoring the Ger- man side, he advanced the French guards and some English battalions." These English soldiers were prob- * Germany and Its Evolution in Modern Times, p. 134. t See The German Classics, Vol. x. 82 Germany's Point of View ably mercenaries, but it is a noteworthy fact that the English should have fought side by side with the French on December 26, 1674, when the latter set out to capture the German city of Strassburg, to which they had not a vestige of right; and that 240 years later they should again be fighting together, the French and the English, in order to deprive Germ.any once more, and, if possible, forever, of Alsace-Lorraine. France acquired these lands in the seventeenth cen- tury, and as late as toward the end of the eighteenth century she had made practically no progress in her attempts at turning the people into Frenchmen. As late as 1782 a History and Description of Alsace and Its Inhabitants was published at Decker's in Basel, written in German. The author says : The Alsatians have been long wishing for a historical- geographical handbook, in which their fatherland and its true appearance is depicted. The works of Father Laguille and the immortal Councillor Schopflin are not only written in languages which are practically unknown to ordinary men, but they also contain too much material. This clearly shows that the Alsatians had tena- ciously clung to their German mother tongue through the almost two centuries of French occupation. Learned Latin books were, of course, unintelligible to them, but even the French books they could not read. A handy geography had to be written for them in German as late as in 1782. Formerly this might have seemed surprising, but since Dr. Heinrich Rocholl discovered the old Alsa- tian records and published many of them in 1888 (Gotha, F. A. Perthes), it has become known how tenaciously these people fought against tremendous Germany as a World Power 83 odds to preserve their German identity, their German allegiance, their old rights and privileges, and above all their mother tongue. The vain calls for help addressed to the empire, and the duplicity of King Louis XIV, are vividly portrayed. There is the letter in Louis's own hand guaranteeing the people their former privileges and their communal freedom, and there are the records of the year of terror, 1673, when the people of most of the cities had to do hard labor and destroy their own fortresses at the peril of their lives. There are the documents of French con- spiracies to overthrow what the king had promised them, and in between there is this noble sounding speech by the French ambassador: The king does not at all care to possess these cities of yours. They are far too insignificant that he should, for their sake, sully his glory, or be willing to have people say that he had wished to take them off their guard. . . . On the contrary, I can definitely assure you that if your cities were to surrender to the king of their own accord, and if you came to tell me so, he would not accept them; for the king has only three ends in view in his reign; glory, justice, and the interests of his kingdom ! la gloire, la justice, et rinterest de son royaume. This message was given to the people in 1672, and in the next year the cities were unmercifully re- duced, and a few years later even Strassburg was stolen and added to the "glorious, justice-loving" kingdom of France ! One may well ask how many of the Frenchmen who during these past forty-three years have grieved at the loss of Strassburg and draped its statue in mourning every year on July 14, have known how this city hap- pened to belong to France in the first place. Prob- ably not one in ten thousand, possibly even less. 84 Germany's Point of View The whole of Alsace was German, spoke German, and wanted to return to Germany through almost 200 years. But when the French Revolution swept the country ; when the oppressors were turned out ; when the long-thwarted German love of personal and com- munal freedom was fanned into wild fires of enthusi- asm ; when, after that, Napoleon came along, appealing to the imagination of the people ; when, for the first time in centuries, Alsatian men reached the pin- nacles of national reputation ; when France seemed to be leading the world into a brighter and happier future, while Germany remained weak and seemingly unmoved by the dawn of a new era, then the people of Alsace-Lorraine became partly French. They were proud of being a part of that nation which meant light and progress in the world. It would be idle to deny that from Napoleon i to 187 1 the Alsatians began to feel more and more French. Changing thus their ideas of centuries, they yet clung with unswerving faith to one thing — their German speech. In 1838 the following words were publicly spoken in Strassburg and reprinted by Johann Wilhelm Baum: We speak German ! This does not only mean that we refuse to abjure our mother tongue, but that we wish to preserve German ways and customs, German seriousness and friendship, German unselfishness and Gemuthlichkeit in our whole life, in our faith, in everything we think and do, and that we intend to leave these qualities as a sacred inheritance to our children. This is our patriotism. . . . Politically we are French and wish to remain so. But, when we preach or sing, write or read, pray or make poetry, we have to do it in German. Only under these conditions can we be faithful, pious, brave and lovers of freedom. Take away our speech — and you will bring up a race of slaves, whom you may never again trust. We Germany as a World Power 85 have given much, sacrificed much. We ask nothing in return, and will not even count our cost. But what is left they should not take from us. They must leave us our German Christianity, and not try to dress up our preachers in Paris. They must not forbid our children to speak to us as we have spoken to our fathers and mothers. They must not spoil our love of song, nor tear our past from our hearts. This, however, was the very thing Napoleon iii tried to do, as is proved by the documents found by Dr. Rocholl. He met with vigorous protests, not only from the Protestants but also from the Catholics. Their reasons for wishing to retain the German speech were different. Father Cazeaux found that French instruction in school and German speech at home re- sulted, in most instances, in a state of ignorance where neither language could be easily read by the common people who had been obliged to leave school early. He, therefore, came to "the sad conclusion that he who fights against the German speech is waging war, as it were, against the religion, the sense of right and wrong, and consequently the morals of Alsace." The Protestants stood more distinctly on the ground taken by Baum, who believed that the whole inner life of the Alsatians was bound up with their German speech. Without this they could no longer pray or sing, or laugh or weep as heretofore, but would have to become a race of untrustworthy slaves. Through 250 years the vast majority of the people of Alsace-Lorraine had kept their German speech in spite of oppression, in spite of the inspiration of the revolution, and later again in spite of a more system- atic and offensive oppression. Then there came 1871. The country, except Toul, Verdun, Belfort, and their 86 Germany's Point of View surrounding territories, returned to the empire, from which it had been " fraudulently snatched away " by Louis XIV. Forty-three years have passed. The coun- try has its own constitution, which grants it a local Diet, while it has almost full representation in both the Reichstag and the Bundesrat. Its anti-German del- egation has dwindled from fifteen representatives to two, its emigration is negligible, thousands of its sons have taken office under the civil service of the coun- try, and when this war broke out the vote of German patriotic loyalty was almost universal. The country is among the most beautiful of Europe, so that the French love to refer to it as '' le beau jardin/' The people who largely inhabit it are a hard- working race, German to the core, peaceful, impatient of change, and, as a peasant said to an American vis- itor two summers ago, "perfectly content to be and to remain German." CHAPTER VII ALSACE-LORRAINE ALSACE-LORRAINE enjoys today, under its new constitution, manhood suffrage and the secret ballot. The second chamber of the Alsatian Diet, so elected, chooses its own speaker. The pres- ent speaker is Dr. Ricklin, who has been additionally honored by the electors as one of the fifteen repre- sentatives from Alsace-Lorraine to the German Reichstag. Having been prevented by ill health from attending the session of the Reichstag on August 4 of this year, he addressed a letter to the speaker of the Reichstag, which, translated, reads as follows : Dear Mr. Speaker — Please excuse my absence from the Reichstag. I started for Berlin Sunday night, August 2, but was taken ill suddenly and had to return to Cars- pach-Sonnenberg. I regret my absence from the Reich- stag very much because I should have liked to take the opportunity of expressing there in the name of my con- stituents my regret and deep sorrow at the political diffi- culties which have arisen. The idea of war between Ger- many and France is so terrible and awful for us people in Alsace-Lorraine that we hardly dare to think of it. We do not want a war between Germany and France at any cost, certainly not for the sake of altering our political position. People who have spread a different view among the French and have thereby fanned the French thoughts of war are traitors to our people and have drawn upon them the curses of thousands of Alsace-Lorraine people, fathers, mothers, and wives, who with bleeding hearts must see their sons and husbands go into the most ter- rible of all wars. To the last we hoped that we might be spared the 87 88 Germany's Point of View terrors of a war between Germany and France, and even now our people refuse to give up hope. If, however, God has decreed differently, well — then the Alsace-Lorraine people too will do their whole duty and they will do it without a single reservation. The rules of the Reichstag do not permit a representa- tive to vote by mail, but I have the right to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I should have voted, if I had been present, in favor of all the bills which the present state of affairs demanded, including the bill granting the neces- sary funds for carrying on the war. You have the right, Mr. Speaker, to make any use you choose of this letter. With the expression of great re- spect I am very sincerely yours, (Signed) Dr. Ricklin; Member of the Reichstag. Professor Lichtenberger, taking exception to the author's previous remarks, stated in the Transcript of November 21, 1914, that Alsace had risen "on the eve of the v^ar in a movement of solemn, unani- mous protest against the violence v^hich had been done her by annexation to Germany." He v^as prob- ably not acquainted with Dr. Ricklin's letter and drew his conclusions from reports published in France. In times of war every side is inclined to magnify the news favorable to its own contentions and to gener- alize from isolated occurrences. Since the last elec- tions to the Reichstag resulted in a delegation of thirteen representatives who proclaimed their alle- giance to the various German parties, and two rep- resentatives who proclaimed their French sympathies, it appears that the people were divided in their feelings for and against Germany at the ratio of thirteen to two. There can be little doubt that this small minority of French sympathizers created demonstrations in favor of the French on the eve of the war. One of Alsace-Lorraine 89 the two representatives in the Reichstag, Mr. Wetterle, immediately went to Paris, where he issued a procla- mation, signing it " former representative in the Ger- man Reichstag." He was, of course, well received and may have carried to France the information which suggested to Professor Lichtenberger a general uprising in Alsace-Lorraine. Dr. Ricklin's letter, however, carries more weight than Mr. Wetterle's manifesto, not only because of his important position as speaker of the second cham- ber of the local Diet, but also beqause of the fact that he represents the group of thirteen in the Reichstag, while Mr. Wetterle represents the group of two. Professo;* Lichtenberger, however, was right when he spoke of such a tremendous movement on the eve of the war that it could be called a unanimous move- ment. But it was a patriotic uprising in favor of Germany, as is proved by countless letters, and best of all by the numbers of young men from Alsace- Lorraine who volunteered for the German Army. In gifts for the German soldiers at the front, the various Alsatian cities are vying with each other, while per- haps the most patriotic and most generous is the very city of Zabern, where the unfortunate affair between the military and the hoodlum element of the town took place last year. Nobody outside of Zabern excused the action of the officers. The townspeople themselves, however, who knew the conditions, the provocations, and most especially the general character of the officers, said much in their defence. Zabern was one of the first districts which elected a German friendly representative to the Reichstag and has gone on doing so ever since. 90 Germany's Point of View This proves how dangerous it is — if one really cares to know the truth — to reason from exaggerated reports. Unless one had known the facts just men- tioned, one would have felt justified in believing that Zabern of all places was anti-German. As a matter of fact, it is exceedingly well satisfied with being German. One should also not forget that the Zabern inci- dent was the only one of its kind that has occurred. A weak and inefficient burgomaster, a troublesome hoodlum element, a vigorous anti-government propa- ganda carried on by a very small minority, and a young and overzealous officer — all combined to bring about an explosion which would have been much worse, most Germans believe, if the commander of the troops had not shown strength and common sense. The general disapproval, however, not only in Al- sace, but all over Germany, of such army regulations as made the clash possible proved how great the freedom of the press in Germany is. The German press is as free as that of America, and those editors who recently stated that articles like the one of Ber- nard Shaw in the New York Times would have landed their authors in jail in Germany were mis- taken. In times of war, Germany, of course, censors her newspapers just as the other belligerent coun- tries do, although in this particular war her censor- ship seems to be less rigorous than that of her op- ponents. In times of peace, however, the freedom of speech in Germany is limited only by the demands of decency. Scurrilous and slanderous attacks are forbidden there as here, but everybody remembers the very vigorous criticism of the emperor himself, a Alsace-Lorraine 91 few years ago, when the people believed that he had spoken unwisely and had jeopardized the international policy of the empire, for the conduct of which the chancellor is the responsible minister. Bernard Shaw is no lover of Germany, but his nimble wit has found the chinks in the armor of the present British Government, and with keen satire he has demolished the arguments by which some British statesmen have presented Germany or Prussia or the Kaiser as arch fiends. This has made him persona non grata in many circles, for the more ardent anti- Germans apparently feel that the Germans must be either fiends or angels. If they were angels, the Allies would have to be in the wrong, and since this appears to be incredible to those whose sympathies are with the English, or the French, or the Russians, or the Japanese, or the Hindus, or the Zouaves, or the colored troops from Africa, or the Servians, they feel uneasy in the face of any argument which presents the Germans to them as very human. It is, however, conceivable that the Germans are not so bad as they have been painted, although they yet must bear their share of guilt in the present war. It takes two to make a quarrel, and the fact is that Germany today finds herself at war with her neighbors. The first accusations were launched against Ger- many as a whole, but when it was found that Germany had made a pretty good name for herself through two generations, the charges were laid at the door of the Emperor. Unfortunately for the accusers, Germany and its Emperor were found to be inseparable, and the mature judgment of the Emperor expressed as recently as in June, 19 13, by such prominent men as 92 Germany's Point of View Ex-President Taft, the Duke of Argyle, Sir Gilbert Parker, and many others, presented an entirely dif- ferent picture of William ii than seemed compatible with the notion that he was an arch-enemy of mankind. Mr. Taft said: The truth of history requires the verdict that, consid- ering the critically important part which has been his among the nations, he (the German Emperor) has been, for the last quarter of a century, the greatest single indi- vidual force in the practical maintenance of peace in the world. The Duke of Argyle said: The German Emperor's life has been worthy of his father and of his mother, and no higher praise can be rendered in grateful acknowledgment of a great career — great with the abounding blessing of peace, duty done for his people, and his justice to his neighbors. This generation of Germans have good reason to be proud and to love their patriotic emperor. Sir Gilbert Parker said : The greatest praise that I can offer concerning Emperor William ii is that he would have made as good a king of England as our history has provided, and as good a Presi- dent of the United States as any since George Washington. It was said of Emperor William that he was medieval in his war spirit, but he has proved himself to be a modern keeper of the peace. When it was found that also the Emperor could not for long be painted as a fiend, Prussia was redis- covered. Hand on your heart, reader, just where and what is Prussia? Prussia extends from Koenigsberg to the Rhine, from the sea to the beautiful hills in central Germany. Are the cheerful inhabitants of Alsace-Lorraine 93 Cologne, or the poetic dwellers on the banks of the Rhine, the Saale, and the Elbe, or the rugged men in whose Silesian mountain huts the traveler finds an always cheerful welcome, or the people of Pome- rania, who cling with tender love to their less fertile fields — are these the fiends who have brought about this war ? And if they are not the guilty people, then where are they? Where is this terrible Prussia that has terrorized Germany, although it had only seven- teen out of the sixty-one votes in the Bundesrat, and not more than its proper quota of representatives in the Reichstag? But, it is said, it was not Prussia as such, but the Prussian spirit which has undermined the fine German character. If this is so, it is strange that no notice of it reached the outer world until after the outbreak of the war. Searchers after the truth will find that also this charge against Prussia will have to be abandoned, because it was only made in the hope of catching the thoughtless. Until recently Russia had a rather ominous sound as the name of a country where free- dom could not live. Prussia sounds somewhat like Russia, and the similarity of sound, it was hoped, would suggest hostile thoughts to the American mind. An interesting insight into the general lack of famil- iarity with Prussia, its name, location, and tendencies, is given by the last publications of an American mag- azine, which prints its statistics of the naval losses in this war consistently thus : British, German, French, Prussian, Austrian. This reminds one of Heine's famous story. Asked what he thought of Mr. B., he replied that he did not know him, but that he hated him because he 94 Germany's Point of View reminded him of Mr. C. Asked what his objection was to Mr. C, Heine repHed that he did not know Mr. C. either, but that he fancied he would dislike him if he should know him. The more frequently people hear Prussia accused as barbarous and auto- cratic, the more readily they will believe that they would hate her if they knew her. It is, therefore, not difficult to see why the name of Prussia has recently appeared in European despatches, when in reality this kingdom has been sunk since 1871 into the German Empire, so far as its foreign relations are concerned. It is as if the name of the State of New York were to supplant the term United States when- ever the character, the tendencies, or the motives of the American people were discussed. The attacks on Treitschke, the historian, and Nietzsche, the philosopher, who are accused of being at the bottom of the European war, will refute them- selves when people read the writings of these men and are not satisfied with unconnected excerpts. Treitschke * wrote before the first Hague Conference, and it can be, stated without fear of contradiction that he took a higher moral ground in his essays on international law than had been taken by any of his contemporaries anywhere. As to Nietzsche, this delightful contretemps hap- pened, that while the official British Press Bureau was sending out copious notices intending to prove that the immoral teachings of Nietzsche had corrupted the whole of Germany, the French Government sent to Harvard as exchange professor Professor Lichten- berger with the avowed purpose of preaching to * See President Hadley on Treitschke in the Yale Review. Alsace-Lorraine 95 America the high ethical values of this same — Nietzsche ! Such glaring inconsistencies — to use a long and gentle word — of the official British Press Bureau will tend to lessen American belief in the trustworthiness of the British publications, especially since several American papers have discovered ways and means of obtaining at least some reports from their own cor- respondents. Accounts like those of Irvin Cobb, James O'Donnell Bennett, Ray Beveridge, Colonel Emerson, and Halliday Witherspoon, present true pictures of the war and of the real Germany. As a result the circle of people eager or willing to believe the worst of Germany is growing smaller every day, while the papers that refuse to print any news, except what is pro-Allies, are fast disappearing. None of these American newspapers, however, were as unfairly partisan, even at the height of the season, as the press in some other neutral countries has been. Let the pro-Germans glance at the Greek or Spanish papers, and they will turn to the American editors with thanks and congratulation ; for not one of them has stooped so low as these other editors have done. But even the German papers are not free from exag- geration and misrepresentation. Papers live on news, and when good, clean, and true news is not to be had, they must subsist on husks — not from preference, but from necessity. It is a far cry from this excitable newspaper liter- ature of today to the first joyous but restrained tones of German literature, uttered in the ninth century in a corner of Alsace. The old monastery tower is still standing, In a beautiful garden of Weisenburg, where 96 Germany's Point of View Ot fried, the monk, wrote his Evangelienbuch, which he presented to Emperor Louis The German in 865. It was one of the first books written in German, and contains these v/ords: "Why should I not use the vernacular? German is not a language constructed by rule, but it is surely not lacking in terseness and beautiful simplicity." Practically no books are extant by any of Otfried's contemporaries and immediate successors in Alsace. Several names are recorded, but none deserve mention before Gottfried von Strass- burg in the early thirteenth century, whose Tristan and Isolde is known wherever there is the least inter- est in German literature. A hundred years later Alsace gave to the world the great mystic meister, Eckhart, and his even greater pupil, Johannes Tauler. The latter preached that work was the crowning glory of life, and the surest way to social peace. In addition to this, however, man should commune with God and steep his soul in God's eternity, ''just as a drop of water is lost in a bumper of good wine. And if such a man were drawn into the depths of hell, heaven and eternal happiness would have to be even in hell." After another hundred years the greatest master of the German tongue was once more a son of Alsace, Sebastian Brant. He too was a teacher of ethical values, but he preferred the humorous satire to the sermon. His great book is called Das Narrenschijf, "The Ship of Fools," in which the foibles of all walks and ranks of life are cleverly derided. Beginning with himself, a collector of books, he passes in review students, princes, peasants, society ladies, ill-tempered wives, artisans, merchants, and others. All are shown Alsace-Lorraine 97 their special weaknesses, which make them ridiculous. Unless they put them aside, Brant promises to give them the bells and the cap of a fool. Brant's enormous popularity was due to the fact that a great preacher, Johannes Geiler, made the sev- eral chapters of this book the texts of his sermons. The preachers at that time were the most important men, and, of all, Thomas Murner of Strassburg was perhaps the greatest. He was the first one to translate Virgil's ^neid into German. It was published in the early sixteenth century. Murner himself was an opponent of Luther, while his fellow Alsatians to a very large extent embraced the teachings of the Reformation. After the Reformation all the great writers, and especially the poets of Alsace, were Protestants. There was the novelist, Jorg Wickram, who wrote the His- tory of Two Burning Love Affairs (about 1550), and Johannes Fischart, who has been called the Luther of the second half of the sixteenth century. As in the case of many writers of this period, the titles of Fischart's books are characteristic of the man. One was Serious Words to My Beloved Germans, and an- other The Grandmother of Common Sense. In this book he tried to do for the Germans what Franklin did for the Americans in the Poor Richard^ s Alma- nack 200 years later. Farmers' almanacs were known even then, and because Fischart believed that their foolish prophecies tended to fortify the ignorant in their superstitions he substituted, with fine satire, even more foolish prophecies, such as these : " In this month water will be more plentiful than wine," or " In this year all children will be born naked." 98 Germany's Point of View Plutarch's Morals, and the writings of Seneca and many other classic authors, were translated into Ger- man by Alsatian scholars during this and the seven- teenth century. On the whole, however, these cen- turies were in Alsace, as elsewhere in Germany, poor periods for literature. Unlike the rest of Germany, however, Alsace resolutely refused to accept the teach- ings of the foreign, notably the French, literary schools. The Alsatians were Germans, and wished to remain so in everything and most especially in their speech. And why not? for, said Michael Moscher- osch, " is there an animal so foolish that it would change its voice to please another? Have you ever heard the cat bark to please the dog, or the cat moo, or the cow bray, or the donkey neigh ? " Then why should an Alsatian speak French, or be French to please his new^ masters? Without practically a single exception all the Alsa- tian writers continued to write in German, and to address themselves to the people at large, and not only, as was done elsewhere, to the more highly cultured classes. The result was often somewhat uncouth, as for instance, Messerschmid's The Donkey's Nobility and the Sow's Triumph, but it served to keep alive in the people their intense love of everything German, and their hatred of French manners and speech. The more cultured classes gradually formed a Ger- man literary circle in Strassburg which is well known through the enjoyment and profit it gave to Goethe in 1770. Then there followed the French Revolution, after which a distinctly French influence began to trans- form the country into a French province rather than Alsace-Lorraine 99 a German land. The peasant class, however, the back- bone of every State, remained then, as it is today, thoroughly German. Nor is this remarkable, for the German generally loves his past, and it pleases him to think of his ancestors. He worships the places they used to frequent, and to his ear no language, not even the most courtly, sounds quite as beautiful as the one his fathers used to speak. Professor Lichtenberger is a guest in this country, and since he has expressed his apprehension lest the quotations from his book, cited in a previous chapter, convey the impression that he shares the German point of view, it is due to him to declare that this is not the case. It was expressly stated that views like his, aiming at a " double culture " for Alsace-Lorraine, amounted, "politically speaking, to a French propa- ganda," and were generally " classed with the aims of the more outspoken French sympathizers." His book, however, is written in such a fine spirit, so devoid of all political claptrap and bitterness, and so obviously desirous of suggesting a solution of a difficult prob- lem, that even the supporters of the German side of the case should read it. In addition, he states more than once that Alsace-Lorraine had been fraudulently taken away from Germany by Louis xiv, and thus admits the fact which is the cornerstone of Germany's contention. This is the more gratifying, as other French writers have tried to twist the meaning of the treaty of Westphalia in their endeavor to justify the theft of King Louis. A notable instance of such a perversion of the historical facts is found in M. A. Legrelle's book, Louis xiv et Strasshurg, essai sur la politique de la France en Alsace d'apres des docu- 100 Germany's Point of View ments officiels et inedits. While Professor Lichten- berger grants the facts, it would appear from his letter that he attaches little weight to the distinctly German origin of the Alsatians, and their love for their mother tongue. He reasons that in 1871 Alsace had been " firmly French, if not in the dialect which the peas- ants spoke, at least in its general culture and its na- tional feelings." This statement does not seem to be borne out by the fact that only 160,000, out of about 1,500,000 people, preferred French to German'citizen- ship when they were given the opportunity of choosing between them, before Germany introduced her gov- ernment. But if the statement is accepted as correct, and if it is granted that Alsace-Lorraine should have been permitted to remain French in 1871 because its "na- tional feelings were French," then by this very same argument Alsace-Lorraine should today be permitted to remain German ; for, by its elections to the Reichs- tag, by its patriotic response to the call of the empire, and by the attitude of its people, it has shown that whatever its national feelings were in 187 1, today they are overwhelmingly and distinctly German. CHAPTER VIII ENGLISH AND FRENCH VOICES — GERMAN VICTORIES THE editor of the London Daily News wrote on August I, 1914: The greatest calamity in history is upon us — a calamity so vast that our senses are numbed with horror. We hardly dare to look into the pit that yawns at our feet and yet any hour, any minute, may plunge us in beyond all hope of return. At this moment our fate is being sealed by hands that we know not, by motives alien to our interests, by influences that if we knew we should cer- tainly repudiate. Every step at this hour may be irrevo- cable. The avalanche trembles on the brink and a touch may send it shattering into the abyss. The peace of every land, the happiness of every home in Europe, the very bread by which we live, hang at this moment upon the will of one man, the czar of Russia. The world has been made to believe that Germany began this war, that the German Emperor started it, that Great Britain went into it with the sole purpose of protecting Belgian neutrality and of upholding the sanctity of treaties. She has done neither. Instead of rushing troops and landing marines, and joining France in turning the battles from Belgian soil, she, a nation of over forty million people sent for several months less than one-half of one per cent of her popu- lation to fight. Belgium, with a population of less than one-seventh that of Great Britain, put more than twice as many soldiers in the field as her powerful ally, and has largely continued to fight the British battles. Nous lOI I02 Germany's Point of View sommes trahis ( "we have been betrayed" ) was Cle- menceau's cry a few weeks after the outbreak of the war, and soon after another Frenchman sent this letter to the Morning Post: The French press is quoting an article from your paper in which you say that England must make exertions worthy of its cause and the exertions of its Allies ! May I assure you that the great majority of the French people are saying the same thing every day? France is living only for the war. Her people, her money, her industry have been placed in the service of the war. Our factories are closed, our commerce has stopped. We have only one thought, namely, that our 2,600,000 men strike Ger- many to the ground. What has England done? She has sent us 200,000 men, and has — issued a call to her sons ! The English contingent fighting on the Continent does not even represent half of the Frenchmen who are already " hors de combat." Your appeal for recruits has achieved that up to now 600,000 able-bodied men out of a population of 40,000,000 have deemed it worth their while to risk their lives on the battlefield — while the fate of your country is in the balance ! . . . Your papers de- clare daily in eloquent articles that England will fight one, two, three and if necessary twenty years, and raise one two, even three million soldiers. ... If you can raise them do so at once in the interest of your own country. The writer then continued to show that the defeat of the Allies would be more disastrous for England than for France, for the British fleet alone would be unable to prevent Germany from getting supplies through the countries of her neighbors. The real war could not last longer than a year, and if the Allies were beaten, England alone, without France and Russia, would be unable to continue it (in spite of Mr. Lloyd George's silver bullets). In order to prevent defeat, England would have to make sacrifices. It was wrong that the English clerks should remain at their desks, and the English and French Voices 103 English farmers in their fields, and that English mer- chants should be engaged in capturing German trade. It was wrong that the English theaters and music halls were kept open, while all Frenchmen between the ages of nineteen and forty-eight were at the front. The letter closed with these words : " I repeat, if our men are on the firing line, why not yours?" No amount of censorship will, for long, keep from the world such cries for help. And when the world will know how poorly Great Britain at first championed the cause of poor little Belgium and of gallant France, neither of whom would have risked their all in war if it had not been for the promises of Sir Edward Grey, it will be more ready to listen to the voices raised in England against the war, before Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Asquith wrote two catchwords on their banner : " Belgian neutrality and the sanctity of treaties." Belgian neutrality ! This Sir Edward Grey has himself dropped from his promised guarantee for future years. (See the British Blue Book No. 155 and the discussion in the New York Times, November I, 1914). The sanctity of treaties ! If Sir Edward Grey hon- estly believed that the treaty of 1839 was valid, it imposed upon Great Britain the duty of protecting Belgian neutrality. Did she protect it? She did not. Was she prepared to do so, or was she not rather like the man of little money who undertakes to guar- antee a note of a million dollars, wdiich he knows he cannot meet? Belgian neutrality, sanctity of treaties, German mili- tarism, Prussian aggressiveness — .all these were ex- 104 Germany's Point of View cuses, for the London Daily News, August i, 19 14, was right when it said : At St. Petersburg, there sits the man who has every one of these hves and milHons more at his mercy, and who at one word can let hell loose upon the face of Europe. Is he a man we can trust with this momentous power? He who decorates his black hundreds on the morrow of their massacres and holds half Europe in the grip of a medieval despotism — is he the man whom the free peoples of France and England can trust with their destiny? Is he the man for whom we are going to shed our blood and our treasure? Is Russia the type of civili- zation that we are prepared to bleed ourselves white to make triumphant over Europe and Asia? The question is for us. For though the Czar has his hand on the avalanche, it is we who have our hand on him. It is we who in the last analysis must say whether Europe is to be deluged with blood. Do you doubt it? Turn to your paper this (Friday) morning. There you will see a message from St, Petersburg signed by Renter. It begins : The situation shows, so far, no change in the direc- tion of peace. The sailing of the British fleet from Portland has created an immense impression and, coupled with Japan's assurances, has more than confirmed Russia's determination to stand to her guns. In that flash we see the situation. We see the Czar with his hand on the avalanche looking toward England for the one assurance that he needs. Let England say, " No, you touch it at your own risk and your own peril," and his hand will drop. Let England falter, temporize, equivocate, and he will plunge us into ruin with the rest. We are told that we must be quiet, that we may encour- age Germany by making her believe that she has not to reckon with us. But the move is not with Germany. The move is with Russia. It is she whom we encourage or discourage by every word that is said and every action that is done. It is she who has the issues of war and peace in her hands. It is she whom the sailing of our fleet from Portland has *' confirmed in her determination to stand by her guns." Quiet? But who is keeping the English and French Voices 105 Times and the Daily Mail and the rest of these papers which by years of anti-German propaganda have been paving the way to this stupendous catastrophe — who is keeping them quiet? Nay, who is inspiring them? Who is authorizing them to tell Russia that she may start the avalanche with the assurance that we shall be in the abyss with her ? They talk of our " obligations to our friends." We have no obligations except the obligation to preserve this country from any share in the crime that threatens to overwhelm Europe. Again and again we have had the assurance of the prime minister and Sir Edward Grey that we. are free agents, that our hands are not tied. If that is so, why are these mischievous declara- tions about our complicity allowed to pass ? Every one of them is a new incitement to Russia, a fresh match applied to the powder magazine of Europe. They are reproduced in Russia to feed the flame of popular pas- sion and to nerve the Czar to the fatal act. If we are free — and we know we are ' free — what ground is there for involving ourselves in this unspeakable calamity? On the immediate cause of the quarrel we can have no sympathy with Servia. The assassination of the Crown Prince and his wife was a brutal and cold- blooded crime, the fruit of a conspiracy laid with infinite care and deliberation and wholly inspired by Servia. It was a plot so complete, so official, as it were, that there was no possibility of the victims escaping. They were literally enveloped by death from the moment they entered Serajevo. The crime was only the culmination of a long train of events, all of which aimed at raising rebellion among the Slavs of Austria-Hungary, and its immediate purpose was to destroy the one life which seemed neces- sary to save Austria from disruption on the old emperor's death. We need not attempt to justify the terms of the ultimatum ; but no one denies the provocation, no one sug- gests that if the two countries could be isolated Austria would not be justified in exacting severe terms from the criminal. If, then, we have neither sympathy with Servia in the quarrel, nor a traditional interest in the aims of her master in the Balkans, why should we go to war? Is it because we wish the Russian civilization to overwhelm the German civilization? There is not a thinking being in this land who, competent to form a judgment, would io6 Germany's Point of View not repudiate such a monstrous thought. If we crush Germany in the dust and make Russia the dictator of Europe and Asia it will be the greatest disaster that has ever befallen Western culture and civilization. It will be a reaction to barbarism — the triumph of blind super- stition over the most enlightened intellectual life of the modern world. And if it is a question of political supremacy, of that vague gibberish that is talked about " the balance of power," can we doubt where our interest lies? For years, under the industrious propaganda of Lord Northcliffe, Mr. Strackey, Mr. Maxse and the militarists, this country has been preached into an anti- German frame of mind that takes no account of facts. Where in the wide world do our interests clash with those of Germany ? Nowhere. With Russia we have potential conflicts over the whole of southeastern Europe and southern Asia. We are told that the day of our " splendid isolation " is over — that we must have " friends," and therefore enemies. It is false. Its falsity is proved by the very situation with which we are faced. It is because Eng- land is free that Europe hesitates. It is our neutrality which is the only protection that Europe has against the hideous ruin and combustion on the brink of which it trembles. Let us announce that neutrality to the world. It is the one hope. There is no other. Let us make it clear that unless and until British interests are attacked, we will have no part in this world-insanity, that we will not shed a drop of English blood for Czar or Servia, that our one obligation is the interests and peace of this land, and that we refuse to recognize any other. We can save Europe from war even at this last moment. But we can only save it by telling the Czar that he must fight his own battles and take the consequences of his own action. If the British Government does this, it will do the greatest service to humanity in history. If it does not do it, it will have brought the greatest curse to humanity in history. The youngest of us will not live to see the end of its crime. The British Government did not do this ; for, even if it had wished to listen to this impassioned appeal, English and French Voices 107 it was too late. As we now know from the letter of the Belgian diplomat in St. Petersburg (see Chapter One), and can infer from the despatches of Sir Ren- nell Rodd from Rome (see New York Times, Novem- ber I, 19 14), the British support had been promised in St. Petersburg during the early morning hours of July 30. A few days later, on August 2, that is before the German troops had marched into Belgium, Sir Edward Grey assured France of his support, nor was this promise made conditional on a German infringe- ment of Belgian neutrality. (See also the discussion of the French Yellow Book, Chapters xvii to xix). The world-war ensued. Germany and Austria- Hungary matched against a potential strength that outnumbers them at a ratio of more than seven to one, while their combined area, on the resources of which they can draw, is outnumbered at a ratio of probably more than thirty to one ! The editor of a Boston paper, which prints all avail- able news and feels not called upon to separate the chaff from the nuggets of truth, said as early as No- vember, 1914: "Germany is winning all along the line." And he was right. Fortune may change and the changes of war may hereafter favor the Allies. The Germans may lose what they have won, but for the present it is a fact that they are gaining all along the line. Readers of the papers, who have seen perhaps ninety items or more of news favorable to the Allies to the few accounts of German victories, must remem- ber that it is not the number of small successes but the size of the few great successes which counts. There are, however, in the American newspaper of- io8 Germany's Point of View fices exceedingly few men who know Europe so well that they are able to judge from the cabled accounts whether the capture of a certain position or city is important or not. The most notable exception to this rule is Anthony Arnoux, whose marvelously lucid dis- cussions of the daily despatches are appearing in the Boston Journal. Let the reader take from his bookshelf any ordinary school geography, turn to the map of France, and lay by its side the published maps of the positions of the hostile western armies. Then let him ask himself a few simple questions such as these : Where are the French coal mines? They are held by the Germans. Where are the French iron mines? They are held by the Germans. Where are the other French mineral mines? They are held by the Germans. Where are the French industrial centers? Where are the great cotton mills, or the iron works? Where are most of the gun factories? They are all held by the Germans. When this is realized, the vastness of the German successes in France will be understood. The tremen- dous onslaught early in September, and the subsequent clever retreat, will be appreciated as one of the most remarkable military feats ever executed. At this dis- tance it is impossible to know whether the Germans ever intended to continue their victorious march on Paris. It is more than likely that this was not their intention. In the meanwhile, the German troops maintain their English and French Voices 109 hold on all the necessities of France, her mines and centers of industries, and are slowly forging ahead in the north toward the Channel coast. Occasional re- verses here or there are immaterial ; the capture of a railway center, however, or a town commanding the approaches to good roads, is very important. All these military successes have been achieved in spite of the great numerical inferiority of the German troops. The reports from Sir John French often mention superior numbers of the enemy. If these reports are accurate, they can have reference only to comparatively small contingents, for on the whole battle line of the West the Germans are probably out- numbered at the ratio of three to two. In the East they are outnumbered to an even greater extent; perhaps even at the rate of two to one. But here also the successes at arms have been enormous. In two great battles, those of Tannenberg and Allen- stein, the field marshal, von Hindenburg, has anni- hilated one entire Russian army of five army corps, and half destroyed another army. The loss of men can easily be repaired by Russia, for her supply of men is practically inexhaustible. The loss of officers is more serious, and the loss of guns and ammunition is a calamity for Russia. She has only one small gun factory, and until her northern harbors thaw out she will be unable to replenish her stock of guns and cannon. Over and above all this, the incontrovertible fact remains that for months Germany has not been obliged to support her armies, either of the West or of the East, on her own territory. She buys her supplies for cash. or gives her receipt in the hostile countries, and no Germany's Point of View is enabled to save her own comparatively meager resources. This is of the greatest importance, be- cause the Allies have begun a systematic campaign of starving out Germany. Great Britain has broken all laws of warfare on sea by preventing any foodstuffs from entering Germany, either directly or by the way of neutral countries. She has even taken German citizens from neutral ships and detained them as prisoners of war. Under these conditions Germany is compelled to maintain her army in the territory of her enemies, who, in their turn, of course, are at liberty to consume the food which they and their Allies will not permit to enter into Germany. The German successes on the sea are too well known to deserve repetition. Ton by ton and man by man, Germany has triumphed over Great Britain, and when the small size of her navy is considered her victories thus far grow to fabulous proportions. It would be more than foolish to assert that Ger- many will be able always to press her advantages thus far gained, and that she will meet with no serious reverses in the future. But it would be equally foolish to deny that up to date Germany has won military successes greatly in excess of the most sanguine expec- tations of those who knew the enormous odds against her. But, oh, the sacrifices she has brought on the altar of the Fatherland! Tears and sorrow in every fam- ily ! In one single family, that of von Konig, five brothers have laid down their lives for their country. The victories have been dearly won. But Germany is not the only country where sorrow English and French Voices iii reigns. In the French letter quoted above, the state- ment is made that there is not a single French family without mourning. The sufferings of Belgium and Poland are known to all. Russia, Austria, and all the other countries have their share, and in Great Britain, too, the relatives of many who have gone to the war are mourning their dead. Men are often drawn together by a com^mon sor- row. As the shadows of death draw ever deeper over the whole of Europe, is it asking too much that enmity and jealousy, revenge and passion may leave the hearts of men, and that their thoughts be directed toward the blessings of peace? A peace which is won by the humiliation of one side or the other will carry, in its very nature, the germ of future hatred and war, but a peace which is born of a common sorrow and is the result of mutual good will may last, and will allow Europe, yes the whole world, to heal its wounds. CHAPTER IX ENGLISH MILITARISM, BELGIUM, AND ITALY IT HAS been stated by the friends of Great Britain that the AUies are fighting to put down miUtarism, and to cast out from the world the spirit of barbarous warfare. Lord Kitchener has been placed in charge of the British War Office, and has been eulogized both at home and abroad. The picture of this great general is, however, incomplete unless one remembers what his colleague, the first lord of the Admiralty, Winston Spencer Churchill, said of him. In his River War, page 211, Mr. Churchill said: From the Khalifa's house I repaired to the Mahdi's" tomb. The reader's mind is possibly familiar with its shape and architecture. It was much damaged by the shell fire. The apex of the conical dome had been cut off. One of the small cupolas was completely destroyed. The dome itself had one enormous and several smaller holes smashed in it; the bright sunlight streamed through these and displayed the interior. Everything was wrecked. Still it was possible to distinguish the painted brass rail- ings round the actual sarcophagus, and the stone beneath which the body presumably lay. This place had been for more than ten years the most sacred and holy thing that the people of the Soudan knew. Their miserable lives had perhaps been brightened, perhaps in some way ennobled, by the contemplation of something which they did not quite understand, but which they believed exerted a pro- tecting influence. It had gratified that instinctive desire for the mystic which all human creatures possess, and which is perhaps the strongest reason for believing in a progressive destiny and a future state. By Sir [now Lord] H. Kitchener's orders the tomb has been profaned 112 English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 113 and razed to the ground. The corpse of the Mahdi was dug up, the head was separated from the body and, to quote the official explanation, " preserved for future dis- posal " — a phrase which must in this case be understood to mean that it was passed from, hand to hand till it reached Cairo. Here it remained, an uninteresting trophy, until the affair came to the ears of Lord Cromer, who ordered it to be immediately reinterred at Wady Haifa. The limbs and trunk were flung into the Nile. Such was the chivalry of the conquerors ! ... if such conduct is to be characteristic of its [the British in Egypt] Government, then it would be better if Gordon had never given his life, nor Kitchener won his victories ! On page 378, Mr. Churchill continues : The stern and unpitying spirit of the commander was communicated to his troops, and the victories which marked the progress of the River War [April, 1896, to February, 1899] were accompanied by acts of barbarity not always justified even by the harsh customs of savage conflicts. Another passage on page 445 may explain why those who have friends and relatives fighting on the German side have condemned the Allies for import- ing their African black troops into Europe. He says of a certain battle when Kitchener had decided to modify his cruel warfare: The Arabic word for quarter, '' Aman!" was explained to the British brigade. Of course in actual assault very few were spared. . . . Men do not come across the open and let themselves be shot at for nothing. The black soldiers were beyond regular control. By the side of this pen picture of Lord Kitchener, drawn by his colleague, in charge of the British navy, one should place the picture of Mr. Churchill himself, drawn by A. G. Gardiner in his delightful portrait gal- lery called Pillars of Society. This book, first pub- 114 Germany's Point of View lished a year ago, and republished in January, 19 14, was reviewed in the Transcript on October 14 last. It is accessible to all readers, wherefore a few quo- tations may suffice: With his abnormal thirst for sensation, he combines an unusual melodramatic instinct. He is always uncon- sciously playing a part — an heroic part. . . . Hence that tendency to exaggerate a situation which is so character- istic of him. . . . Hence his horrific picture of the Ger- man menace. He believes it all because his mind once seized with an idea works with enormous velocity round it, intensifies it, enlarges it, makes it shadow the whole sky. In the theatre of his mind it is always the hour of fate and the crack of doom. . . . Behind all his actions, however sudden or headlong, there is the calculation of a singularly daring and far- sighted mind — a mind that surveys the field with the eye of the strategist, weighs the forces, estimates the posi- tions and, when the hour has come, strikes with deadly sureness at the vulnerable place. " Keep your eye on Churchill," should be the watchword of these days. Re- member, he is a soldier first, last, and always. He will write his name big on our future. Let us take care he does not write it in blood ! At about the same date in 19 13 when these words were written concerning one member of the present British Government, another member — Sir Edward Grey — held a conversation with the Belgian minister in which he touched upon a subject which is para- mount today, Belgian neutrality. Sir Edward has published in November, 19 14, through the press, a record of this conversation, which is exceedingly inter- esting from several points of view. First, he refers to the " apprehension in Belgium that England would be the first to violate Belgian neutrality." This proves what Germany has maintained, that it had been current gossip in Europe for some time that, in case English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 115 of a war, one or the other of the great powers would invade Belgium. In other words, the invasion of Belgium in this war did not come as a surprise. It had been anticipated in all quarters. Sir Edward then goes on to state, that he did not think this apprehension could have had its origin in any act of Great Britain, and he was sure that England would not be the first to violate the neutrality of Belgium. It would be interesting to know whether the Bel- gian minister had spoken of the danger threatening the preservation of the neutrality of his country from the military " conversations " between the Belgian au- thorities and the British war office through Lieutenant Colonel Barnardiston. These had placed England in the possession of the military secrets of Belgium. As long as the two countries were on good terms there was no danger. During the last ten or fifteen years, however, national friendships in Europe were not very stable, and in 19 13 Belgium apparently had begun to mistrust England. She felt so strongly on this point that she ordered her minister in London to communi- cate this apprehension to Sir Edward Grey. This is very important, because Germany's ex- pressed belief that France and Great Britain had made plans to enter Belgium has been brushed aside as a poor excuse, due to an insincere desire on her part to defend her own action. If, however, Belgium in 1913 had heard enough rumors and received enough infor- mation, probably through her secret agents, to make her apprehensive lest " England would be the first to violate Belgium neutrality," the presumption is estab- lished . that Germany too was sincere when she said ii6 Germany's Point of View she believed that plans had been made by her oppo- nents to invade Belgium. The most important part, however, of Sir Edward's latest publication is contained in the last paragraph, which reads: For us to be the first to violate it and to send troops into Belgium would be to give Germany, for instance, justifica- tion for sending troops into Belgium. Also, what we de- sired, in the case of Belgium as in that of other neutral countries, was that their neutrality should be respected, and as long as it is not violated by any other power we should certainly not send troops ourselves into their territory. Let the reader re-read this paragraph carefully. It is divided into two parts. The first contemplates the possibility of England being " the first to violate " Bel- gian neutrality, and dismisses it as improbable because "it would give Germany, for instance, justification for sending troops into Belgium." There is not one word of horror at the very thought of England's being suspected of doing such a terrible thing as violating the neutrality of Belgium. In view of the attitude taken by the British Government in this war, one is astonished at not hearing Sir Edward Grey say: " Sir, your suspicion is an insult. The violation of Belgian neutrality would be a 'heinous crime,' and I am a gentleman." This is what a gentleman would say in private life if he were suspected of contem- plating an act which he holds to be criminally wrong and immoral. He would not defend himself against such an imputation by pointing out that it would be against his interests to commit the deed. The second part of the above paragraph is interest- ing because of the words " in the case of Belgium, as English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 117 in that of other neutral countries." They indicate that Sir Edward Grey, hke the other European statesmen, made no distinction, before August, 19 14, between the neutraUty of Belgium and that of other countries. This, too, has been a contention of Germany. In this connection, however, it is valuable to remem- ber, first, that Great Britain was the only one of the great Powers which has not ratified The Hague Con- vention concerning the rights and duties of neutral Powers in case of war on land; and, secondly, that, according to the standards of The Times itself, the military conversations between the Belgian general staff and the British War Office, through Lieutenant Colonel Barnardiston, constituted a breach of Belgian neutrality. This latest publication of Sir Edward Grey, there- fore, has proved the reasonableness of several German contentions. 1. The possibility of an invasion of Belgium in case of war was current gossip in Europe for some time prior to 19 14. 2. Rumors and secret information concerning a con- templated invasion of Belgium by England were so strong in 1913 that the Belgium Government felt obliged to discuss the matter with Sir Edward Grey. 3. The thought of an English invasion of Belgium was not indignantly repudiated by Sir Edward Grey as impossible in 19 13, but gently denied by him as unwise. 4. Sir Edward Grey, in 19 13, rated the neutrality of Belgium as of the same kind as that of other neu- tral states. 5. The reputation of Great Britain for fair and hon- Ii8 Germany's Point of View orable dealings among her European neighbors was so slight in 19 1 3 that little Belgium felt herself more menaced by Great Britain than by any other power. Almost the same cable which brought the news of this remarkable communication from Sir Edward Grey announced a statement by the former Italian prime minister, Giovanni Giolitti, who thought it was neces- sary to emphasize that Italy always had been loyal to treaties, and in this connection added : I feel it my duty to recall a precedent showing how correct was the interpretation of the alliance by the Government when the conflict began. During the Balkan War, on August 9, 1913, being absent from Rome, I re- ceived the following telegram from the late Marquis de San Giuliano: "Austria has communicated with us and Germany that it has been the intention to act against Servia, defining such action as defensive and hoping for an application of the casus foederis (i. e., a case where the treaty between the three nations would come into force) by the Triple Alliance, which I consider inappli- cable. I am trying to agree with Germany concerning efforts to prevent Austrian action, but it may be necessary to say clearly that we do not consider such eventual action as defensive, and, therefore, do not think that there exists a casus foederis. Please send a telegram saying whether you approve." I answered: "If Austria goes against Servia, a casus foederis evidently does not exist. It is an action she accom- plishes on her own account. It is not defensive, because nobody thinks of attacking her. It is necessary to declare this to Austria in the most formal manner, hoping that Germany will act to dissuade Austria from a very danger- ous adventure." This was done, and our interpretation of the treaty was accepted by our allies, our friendly relations not being in the least disturbed. Thus the declaration of neutrality made at the beginning of the conflict is according to the spirit and the letter of the treaties. I recall this incident from a wish to demonstrate the complete loyalty of Italy before the eyes of Europe. English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 119 This statement has given rise to the following very natural deduction in the American press: The historic significance of Giolitti's disclosure is great, but not greater than its significance for the imme- diate future. Such a disclosure is not made by an ex- Premier in support of his successor's policy of armed neutrality if that neutrality is expected to be long con- tinued. Giolitti spoke directly against Germany and Austria, and Italy anticipates the completion of its military preparations by the i6th inst. This is, undoubtedly, the inference which the Eng- lish press bureau wished us to draw. The despatch is marked as " delayed in transmission," and was finally sent on the very day on which the report of the fall of Lodz, and of the victorious advance of the German troops toward Warsaw was received. The suggested entry of Italy into the war on the side of the Allies may have been meant to compensate friends for the Russian failure in Poland. In this connection it is very interesting to note that an earlier statement by Giovanni Giolitti was not for- warded by the British censor, or at least received no currency in the American press. In it Giolitti refers humorously to the offer of the Allies to give Italy Trent, Triest, and Dalmatia, and the offer of Count Andrassy to give Italy Nizza, Savoy, Corsica, and Malta, and says that neither of the generous donors has the gift he promises in his pocket. He concludes : No ; Italy is not wavering like Buridan's donkey between two bundles of hay. She does not want either the one or the other gift. We shall certainly not be guilty of deceit and disloyalty, nor attack our friends from behind. Not even a Machiavelli would have fallen, in his doctrine of the safety of the state, to such a depth of cynicism. The honor of a nation is of more worth than anything else. 120 Germany's Point of View Men live not by bread alone, but also by dignity and honor. We do not know whether the Triple Alliance is still valu- able for us, but we cannot forget the benefits it has brought us through three decades. There are indications that our country is as little eager for a war against Austria as for a war in company with Austria. Possibly the Repub- licans and Nationalists may wish a war. We certainly do not. Our country as a whole does not want to have any kind of a war. It needs peace. One war, the Lybian War, was' quite enough for us. We do not know what victory might bring us, but we do know that defeat would mean the ruin of Italy. This sounds very different from the despatch trans- mitted, after some delay, by the British Press Bureau. Anybody familiar with Giolitti's style and his fond- ness for pithy phrases cannot help suspecting that his later remarks w^ere re-written and emasculated to serve a definite purpose. In view of his earlier statement, the last phrase cabled over from London gains in importance, and may convey a different meaning from the one which the friends of the Allies wished to give it. Giolitti is quoted as having said that he wished " to demonstrate the complete loyalty of Italy before the eyes of Europe." This can only mean loyalty to the friends, Germany and Austria, whose assistance had "brought benefits " to Italy through three decades. Nobody here can foretell the future, or know what Italy will do, but if one wishes to conclude from Giolitti's speech that Italy will "attack her friends from behind " and join the Allies, one is pre- mature. Contrary to the general understanding in America, Italian public opinion is by no means hostile to Ger- many. Austria has never been popular in Italy, while English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 121 the Italians individually have always maintained cor- dial feelings toward the other great Latin nation, the French. And who would not? The Germans them- selves would have liked nothing better than to be on good terms with France, from whom an unfortunate historical inheritance has kept them estranged. As regards England, unless all the ascertainable evidence is at fault, this nation is rather unpopular in Italy. Her dealings in Egypt, and her general policy in the Near East and Africa, that is, at the very door of Italy, have not won her an enviable reputation. Gratitude toward Germany, and dislike of Austria, on the one hand, are balanced by warm feelings for the French people, and distrust of England, on the other hand. The restless desire for war, moreover, of the anti-government parties is held in check by the wishes of the Government to be, as Giolitti puts it, ** loyal to our friends, and to maintain the honor and dignity of the country." Much has been made of the disappointment felt, and, doubtless, often expressed, by many Germans early in this war at the refusal of Italy to join her allies of the Dreibund. People have entirely forgot- ten that for years the most thoughtful men of Ger- many have reckoned with just this possibility, that a war might take place, in which Italy would not join. Paul Rohrbach, iu that wonderful book, Der Deutsche Gedanke in der Welt, which the Macmillan Company have issued under the title German World Policies, said, in 1912, that in any estimate of Germany's strength in a future war, it would be unwise to include Italy, because Italian public opinion was uncertain, and 122 Germany's Point of View it was not possible to drive the country into a war against its wishes. The incident,* moreover, to which GioHtti referred in his latest statement makes it perfectly clear that the German Government understood Italy's position. All talk, therefore, of any danger threatening Italy in the event of a German victory is wide of the mark. The German Government cannot, and the German people do not, harbor ideas of revenge toward Italy. The Germans as a whole are a friendly people, who wish to be on good terms with their fellowmen. If Ger- many should be successful in this struggle against odds such as have probably never before been en- countered by any nation, a large part of the people of this world will harbor no friendly thoughts toward her. A war of revenge against Italy could bring her nothing but the enmity also of the Italians. There would be absolutely nothing she could gain. For this reason, nobody, probably either in Ger- many or in Italy, considers the loose talk of revenge seriously. But since Italy has nothing to fear from a victorious Germany, if she remains neutral, she has no incentive whatever to run the risks of war on the side of the Allies. If the Allies should be success- ful, it seems incredible that they should wish to punish Italy for not having *' attacked her friends from behind," as Giolitti says. If, however, they should attempt to do this, America would purely not sit idly by and see Italy suffer for having kept her pledge, when the very fact that Germany was believed to have * For a full discussion of this incident see the British Annual Register for 1913, in which the whole credit for having averted a European war is given to Emperor William 11. English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 123 broken her treaty obligations has turned so many sin- cere and honest Americans into bitter enemies of Germany. This enmity at first was so severe that nobody, in the beginning, could have foretold the change of opinion which would, take place. The writer, in De- cember, 19 14, was in a district of northern Maine, where the population to a man seemed to favor Ger- many. The wonderfully gallant fight which Germany is making against almost incredible odds had taken hold of their imagination. They were not so much interested in the claims and counter-claims as to who began the war, for, with the hard common sense of country communities, they knew that it takes two to start a fight. Their general admiration, moreover, for the industry and personal worth of the Germans, which their newspapers had given them during the past twenty years, could not be suddenly superseded by the accounts in the same papers of the unspeakable bad- ness of the Germans. They preferred to believe the accumulative evidence of years rather than the pas- sionate appeals to hatred suddenly emanating from England. And, after all, these questions were far too complex to be interesting. The one interesting fact was that a comparatively small state dared to fight the Russian giant, and at the same time France, Bel- gium, and England, with Canada, Australia, India, Egypt, and South Africa, and, in addition, Japan; and not only fight them, but also hold them in check, and do so with a fair prospect of ultimate success. An additional point of interest in Giolitti's state- ment deserves attention. It seems that Austria's pa- tience with her troublesome neighbor, Servia, was 124 Germany^ s Point of View almost exhausted as early as August 9, 19 13, but that Germany, at the request of Italy, was able to restrain her from taking a dangerous step. Only those who are familiar with the character of Servia — and, for- tunately, the report of the Balkan Commission of the Carnegie Peace Foundation supplies an impartial por- trayal of the wretched character of this state — can have any idea of what Austria has had to suffer, and, consequently, of how hard Germany had to work to restrain her. From Giolitti's own words, it aTppears that Austria felt that she would be merely defending herself if she should proceed against Servia. Thanks to Giolitti, the world now knows of a definite instance when Germany put a restraining hand on her ally, Austria. Some may feel that Germany should have done the same again in 19 14, but they forget the horror at the murder of the archduke and his v/ife, and the deter- mination of Austria that the hour had arrived when Servian plottings must cease, and that this was a case of life or death for Austria. Political murder, strangely enough, in the eyes of many good persons, is a shade less reprehensible than ordinary murder. They should, however, remember that the Servian assassins did not spare the Countess of Hohenberg, either. She was not of royal blood, and for her sake the archduke had been obliged to renounce the right of succession for his children. Think of these orphaned children, bereft at one stroke of both father and mother! And remember, further, that the archduke himself was not murdered because he was cruel or autocratic, or the tool of reaction- aries. On the contrary, he was murdered because English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 125 he was a strong and liberal man, under whose guidance it was assumed Austria would develop into a vigorous and thoroughly democratic state. If one considers all these facts, there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the German chancellor, who said that Germany had advised forbearance to Aus- tria, so far as was compatible with her duties as a faithful ally. It is not often that the British censor passes so many despatches in one or two days which contain the very information with which to strengthen the German case. Some critics have found fault with the pro-German writers in this country because they no- where furnished absolutely complete proofs. The writers are very conscious of this defect, but it is not their fault that insufficient information is per- mitted to reach America. The best they can do is to call attention to individual facts, and to point out how these facts seem to dovetail together, and how they make the case of Germany, as they see it, probable. CHAPTER X IS THE ENGLISH NEWS OF BELGIUM RELIABLE? THE Berne Daily News of November 19, 1914, contained this item: The German civil administration is entering into per- sonal negotiations with the most prominent Belgian manu- facturers with a view to the speedy resumption of work in the factories. It has offered its assistance and has promised to take all necessary steps to expedite matters. Its chief concern is to provide work for the laborers. The distribution of food among the populace is being carried on under German supervision. There is at present no famine, although it is, of course, impossible to speak of normal conditions. Salt is imported from Germany in huge quantities. And in the country as a whole several hundred thousand poor people are fed daily at the expense of the German Government. The latter statement seems to be borne out by a photograph in the Illustrated Courier de Guerre, No. 4, which contains as its first picture a view of '' Ger- man soldiers distributing food to the poor people of Brussels." This account in a Swiss paper and this picture, which is obviously not faked, are somewhat at vari- ance with the bulk of the news of Belgian conditions and German behavior there which have reached Amer- ica. Unfortunately most pro-German information reaches America by mail only, and when it has lost its "news" value. Our daily papers are purveyors of news, and nobody can blame them severely for refusing to warm over cold dishes. Occasionally an 126 Is the English News of Belgium Reliable f 127 early " canard " will be denied, but one can hardly expect an editor to shout it from the housetops that he had " featured " an erroneous story several weeks ago. The denial, therefore, appears in a paragraph somewhere after the day's harvest of information cabled over from London. There it is not seen by everybody, while the erroneous first impression con- tinues to sadden the hearts even of those who would not like to condemn Germany unheard. People who wish to be on the safe side should real- ize this, and instead of crediting all stories should believe implicitly only those which are officially con- firmed. Without attempting to discuss here all the stories detrimental to the good name of Germany, which people who know Germany have recognized as erroneous from the first, a few may be mentioned as characteristic of many others. One of the best authenticated reports of the be- ginning of the great war was based on the addresses and discussions in the British Parliament early in August. It there appeared that while Sir Edward Grey had worked hard to preserve peace, the German Emperor had failed to do anything. It now is seen from a long letter by Fred C. Conybeare of Oxford to the Nation (New York, December 10) that this was not the case. He says : I need not add that our English Parliament was, at the moment it declared war, unaware of this exchange of telegrams between the Kaiser and the Czar, and there was nothing before them to m.odify the opinion that Germany had been throughout as nakedly aggressive as her ally. Mr. Conybeare does not state whether Sir Edward Grey intentionally failed to lay these telegrams before 128 Germany's Point of View Parliament, but he makes it perfectly clear that the opinion of Parliament was based on insufficient infor- mation. After reading his whole letter one concludes that, in his view, the vote of Parliament might have been the same, but that even in that case the feelings toward Germany would have been different. He dis- cusses this correspondence, which had been withheld from Parliament, and comes to the conclusion, (i), that Emperor William knew nothing of the Austrian ultimatum until after it had been sent; (2), that he attempted "on the three days, July 29-31, to avert war" ; (3), that the Kaiser had virtually obtained these terms (viz. : terms which would have prevented war) from Franz Joseph on July 31, when he learned that Russia had mobilized her entire army, not only against Austria, but also against himself as well. Forthwith he wired and reproached the Czar with this, that having sought and obtained his mediation, he yet was at the same time frustrating his efforts for peace. The Czar answers that he " appraises very highly " his " dear cousin's position as mediator," but that he had decided five days before on the military measures objected to by way of defense against the preparations of Austria. The excuse seems to me a little lame, and I think the Czar should have pledged himself at once to stay his mobilization against Ger- many, and give the Kaiser's attempt at mediation time to bear fruit ; for it was a method of securing peace less likely to offend Franz Joseph than Sir Edward Grey's proposal of a round-table conference at which Germany, Italy, France, and England should discuss his action and sit in judgment on him. The Czar anyhow went on with his mobilization. Is the English News of Belgium Reliable f 129 In justice to Mr. Conybeare and the Nation it must be stated that the tenor of his letter is not pro-German. He is not another Shaw attacking the British Gov- ernment. Far from it ; but so much more justification exists for quoting these passages as proof of the asser- tion that not only the British Parliament but also the American press formed its first impressions on insuf- ficient information. Very few people have the time and the background of a previous accurate knowledge of European condi- tions to form their own opinions unassisted by the confidence which they place in this or that leader or in the deliberations of the Reichstag or of Parliament. It was, therefore, natural that many Americans should have started with the view of the English Parliament and have believed that the German Emperor had made no honest attempts to prevent war. When these tele- grams between the Emperor and the Czar became known in America, they appeared as a belated en- deavor to excuse the Emperor's inexcusable inactivity. The case is very different when one appreciates that the view of Parliament was based on incomplete records. In this case it was the absence of a bit of news which worked to the detriment of Germany. Many more times, however, it has not been the absence of accurate information but the superfluity of inaccu- rate stories which has made it diffkult to judge the contestants fairly. An excellent instance of this is discussed by Professor F. W. Taussig of Harvard University in the same number of the Nation (Decem- ber 10). He proves that the following often quoted words are apocryphal. They have been frequently 130 Germany's Point of View attributed to Emperor William and have confirmed many righteous people in their dislike of the Kaiser, who was believed to have said to his troops : Remember that the German people are the chosen of God. On me, on me as the German Emperor, the spirit of God has descended. I am His weapon, His sword, and His vice regent. Woe to the disobedient. Death to cowards and unbelievers. Anybody at all familiar with the character of the men whom the Emperor was believed to have thus addressed, and with the tone of the Emperor's^ usual addresses, knew, of course, from the first that a mis- take had been made in attributing these words to William 11. For the majority of the people, however, nothing short of Professor Taussig's proof will be convincing. Another statement which has alienated the good will of many had reference to a telegram which the Emperor was said to have addressed to the King of Italy : " Conquered or conqueror, I shall not forget your treachery." Being a supposedly official docu- ment, the German Government took pains to deny that any such telegram had been sent. The denial was printed by many American papers, but was prob- ably seen by only a fraction of those who had read the original telegram, for this telegram had been cabled from London and been *' featured " as an im- portant news item. It would be idle to pursue this discussion, for these few instances suffice to show that under present con- ditions, when even the most reliable papers are de- pendent for their news on partisan sources, the indi- vidual reader should refrain from being impressed Is the English News of Belgium Reliable f 131 by an item until either his previous knowledge or an official confirmation has given it the authority which in times of peace the reputation of the paper offers in which it is printed. Equal caution is advisable as regards the claims made by the various contestants. The New York Times' publication, Current History of the European War (December, 1914, Vol. i. No. i), contains on page 201 "A Reply to Professor Harnack," by some British theologians. Toward the end of the second column we read : All these considerations take on a more imperative cogency when the treaty rights of a small people are threatened by a great world power. We therefore believe that when Germany refused to respect the neutrality of Belgium, which she herself had guaranteed, Great Britain had no option, either in international law or in Christian ethics, but to defend the people of Belgium. This statement expresses the average British point of view, and one which is shared by most of those Americans who are pro- Ally. It would not have been written if these British theologians had known : 1. That their own Government had given cause to Belgium, as recently as one year ago, to suspect that Great Britain would be the first to send troops into Belgium. (See Chapter ix.) 2. That the action of their own Government had been instrumental in committing Belgium to negotia- tions, which, according to the London Times, itself constituted a breach of neutrality. (See Chapter v.) J. That their own Government was on record as declaring that a treaty similar to the one of 1839, namely, the treaty of 1867, guaranteeing the neutral- 132 Germany's Point of View ity of Luxemburg bound them "neither legally nor morally" (which is the equivalent of the British theo- logians in international law or in Christian ethics) to come to the defense of this country. 4. That the official organ of the British ministry in 1870 actually suggested that Luxemburg, whose neutrality Great Britain had guaranteed, should be ceded to Germany instead of Alsace-Lorraine. In substantiation of the last two points the follow- ing editorials from the London Times may be quoted. It will be remembered that Bismarck had complained of the continued violation of the Luxemburg neutral- ity in favor of France during the autumn months of 1870 and that he had claimed the right of disregarding, therefore, the stipulations of the treaty of 1867. Great Britain was desirous of preventing this, but equally determined not to go to war on this account, for she had nothing at stake in Luxemburg comparable to what she believed to have at stake in Belgium. As a matter of fact, Germany did not invade Luxem- burg in 1870-71. The London Times of December 14, 1870, said: Prussia, like every other power which signed the treaty of 1867, undertook a double obligation, the obligation which by necessity is separate, to observe the neutrality of Luxemburg, and the obligation which is defined as collective, to maintain its neutrality. There is an obli- gation to treat Luxemburg as neutral and an obliga- tion to act collectively with others in preventing any infringement of its neutrality. What is the meaning of this collective guarantee? It evidently excludes the notion that any single state is pledged to defend Luxemburg with its unassisted power. [The reader will please note these words.] If the King-Grand Duke called upon the signa- tories of the treaty to fulfil the guarantee of neutrality Is the English News of Belgium Reliable f 133 contained in it, grave questions would undoubtedly arise. We should not dream of rushing single-handed to its defence. We are under no obligation of honor to do so [the British theologians say: "Great Britain had no option "] ; but should have to consider well before deter- mining what course it behooved us to adopt On December 15, 1870, the Times reiterated and proved at length that England w^as not bound either legally or morally to come to the defense of Luxem- burg, and continued: Some indeed have gone so far as to regret, for the sake of Germany no less than of France, that Luxemburg cannot be ceded as a French province instead of Lorraine in the French treaty of peace which must come, however long it be delayed ; and it may not even now be too late to enter- tain this idea. At all events, it cannot be our duty, in default of any obligation, either express or implied [the Luxemburg guarantee of 1867 is even stronger than the Belgium guarantee of 1839], to defend its neutrality against Germany. And on December 16, 1870, the Times said : If violations of neutrality on the part of Luxemburg be proved, the guarantee of its neutrality, which rests on its preservation of neutrality, falls to the ground. Where in all these editorials expressing the official British view of the case in 1870 is there one word which bears out the statement made by the British theologians in their reply to Professor Harnack? They may still hold the high views of British respon- sibility to which they gave voice, but they must agree that these views are not shared by the traditions of their Government. You cannot at one time elabo- rately declare that a treaty in which you have guar- anteed the neutrality of a country is not binding on 134 Germany's Point of View you either legally or morally, and that "you should not dream of rushing single-handed to its defence," and at another time declare war on a nation which is already fighting two powerful foes, claiming that you do so unwillingly and only because such a treaty leaves you "no option, either in international law or in Christian ethics " but to go to war. For some months England, nevertheless, has suc- ceeded in making the world believe that this had been the case. She thus has appeared as the moral cham- pion of violated innocence, while Germany became an object of objurgation. To this was added the fact that Germany pushed the war into the hostile coun- try from the first, and that all the natural tragedies subsequent to a.nj war were transacted on the soil of the people with whom the world at large was pre- pared to sympathize. It was quickly forgotten that only a few years ago Belgium had been the object of equally bitter objurgation, and that the unspeakable wicked atrocities of the Congo had made Belgium a byword of bestial brutality. Forgotten were the cartoons in which the poor wretches of the Congo prayed for venegance on their cruel masters. For- gotten was the fact that no patriotism, no feeling, however mistaken, of doing right accounted for the Congo crimes, except the craving for money and ever more money. It is fortunate that we are born with a short mem- ory, for herein lies the hope that after this tremendous war the people of the various nations will again form friendships and jointly advance the civilization of mankind. The records of history, however, are more exact. 7^ the English News of Belgium Reliable f 135 and the fact that Belgium has acquired a huge de- pendency in the Congo State, and has changed from the small State of 1839, which needed the guarantees of her neighbors, to one of very great wealth, and has become a colonial empire of far greater proportions than Germany, this fact will stare all future historians in the face. It is, therefore, doubtful whether they will hold that the Belgium of 1914 was the Belgium of 1839, which was forced to accept the decree of perpetual neutrality. If this should be their verdict, no obliquity will be charged either to Belgium or Great Britain for their military conversations and agreements entered into in 1906 and probably con- tinued since then. For a powerful and sovereign State has the right to make military or other arrange- ments with any nation it chooses. But as long as Belgium was a neutral country, such agreements were improper, and constituted a breach of neutrality, as the London Times itself (October 12, 1913) confessed. This confession, to be sure, was made before it had become known that records of these agreements had been found in Brussels by the German Government. This point is so important that the denial of the existence of such records by the British and Belgian ambassadors, or the attempt on their part to explain them as harmless, is perfectly natural. The follow- ing statement, however, by the Belgian minister in Washington, Mr. Havenith, quoted in the Nation, De- cember 10, is most remarkable: The Belgian Government has requested that these alleged documents should be published in full. Three months have passed since this alleged discovery, but nothing has appeared. 136 Germany's Point of View To which the Nation adds : What he refers to is, of course, the documents found in Brussels which the Germans assert are proof that Belgium had surrendered her neutrality to England. That they do show anything of the kind, there is not the faintest reason to believe. ... It ought to be remembered, in all this, that the plea made by Germany — last reiterated by the Im- perial Chancellor in his speech a few days ago — is not only a plea in defence of Germany's conduct, but a charge against Belgium of disgraceful bad faith. To make such a charge without at least a respectable pretence of proving it is monstrous, and really but intensifies the feeling of Germany's guilt in the whole matter. The remarkable thing is that the German Govern- ment published lengthy extracts from the documents found in Brussels, in the official North German Ga- zette of October 13, 1914, first edition, where they cover almost half a page. Neither Mr. Havenith nor the editor of the Nation read, it would seem, the official Gazette or any other German paper, for there can be no doubt that this important information was reprinted in every German newspaper. Before the war, it was not necessary for American editors to read German or to have on their staffs men familiar with Germany and able to read German papers, be- cause, whatever we may think of Englishmen, their sense of fairness never permitted them to suppress the important information of other countries — albeit they sometimes colored it. American editors, there- fore, learned to rely on their London news and to dispense with the expensive adjuncts of men who are authorities on other countries. During the war, however, it would be asking too much of England to transmit not only her own news but also that favor- able to Germany and detrimental to herself. This 7^ the English News of Belgium Reliable? 137 observation, nevertheless, has not yet appealed as natu- ral to many Americans. It is indeed difficult to doubt the reliability of a source which one has come to trust through the test of many years. The German news, on the other hand, which has been freely offered in this country, has not always appealed to every- body. It is, however, to be hoped that the editors of the more important American dailies and weeklies will come to realize from their actual experience that under present conditions they cannot expect to live up to their standards of justice unless they supplement or check their London news by the perusal of at least the official German Gazette. The most important documents, as published in the Gazette, were found in a portfolio which was in- scribed. Intervention Anglaise en Belgique. There was a letter dated April 10, 1906, and addressed to the Belgian Minister of War, which tells that the chief of the Belgian general staff had held several consul- tations with the British military attache in Brussels, Lieutenant Colonel Bernardiston, at the latter's re- quest. These two gentlemen had worked out a plan of campaign of England and Belgium against Ger- many, for which England was to supply an expedi- tionary force of one hundred thousand men. The plan had met the approval of the chief of the British general staff, Major General Grierson (now deceased). Other papers contained full details of the strength of the various arms of the British corps and the names of the ports where the troops would embark and disembark. There was also an exact " time table." On the strength of this information the Bel- gian general staff prepared exact plans how and where 138 Germany's Point of View the troops should enter Belgium, how they should be provisioned, and where they should be quartered. These details were carefully worked out in a joint conference by Belgian and English officers. The lat- ter demanded that a large number of interpreters and Belgian gendarmes should be placed at the disposal of the British troops, who were to be furnished with the necessary maps. These maps of Belgium were later prepared in English. Some of them have been found and been published in the Gazette. Dunkirk, Calais, and Boulogne were the ports where the British troops were to disembark, and from where Belgian rolling stock was to transport them into Bel- gium. Such an arrangement is of course unthinkable without a previous arrangement also with France. That such an arrangement existed is, moreover, proved by the presence of the French plan of campaign in the secret archives in Brussels. Another interesting paper contains the statement of Lieutenant Colonel Barnardiston that it was impos- sible at that time to count on the support of Holland. He also made the confidential announcement that the British reserves would be landed in Antwerp, as soon as the sea should be swept clean of the German ships. He further urged on Belgium the advisability of es- tablishing an exhaustive system of espionage in the western provinces of Germany. In addition to the documents in the portfolio Inter- vention Anglaise en Belgique, an exhaustive report of Baron Greindl to the Belgian Secretary of Foreign Affairs has been found. Baron Greindl was Belgian ambassador in Berlin for many years. He called attention in his report to the danger threatening his Is the English News of Belgium Reliable? 139 country from its surrender to one of the powers of the entente. Baron Greindl, in fact, seems to have been more afraid of a violation of Belgian neutrality by England than by anybody else. And that his view was eventually accepted by his Government as correct is proved by the latest publication of Sir Edward Grey, which was discussed in a previous chapter. The publication of these papers in the German Official Gazette was almost simultaneous with an arti- cle in the London Times, which tried to absolve the British Government from the charge of negligence because they had not prevented the fall of Antwerp. The Times of October 12, 1914, said: The last and greatest difficulty was the neutrality which had been imposed upon Belgium against her will. A more fatal gift was never presented to any state. It prevented her from combining with the Netherlands for the defence of their common and inseparable interests, and, worse than that, it made it impracticable for Belgium to enter into any conversation or arrangement, military or other, which would insure to her the rapid and effective support of her English friends. All such ideas, if they were entertained — and England's weakness on land threw them into the shade — had to be postponed until Belgian territory was violated by an aggressor, when in all human probability the aid desired would come too late. The documents from Brussels, published by the German Government, refer to what must be called a " conversation or arrangement, military or other," and consequently constitute, according to the Times itself, an infringement of Belgian neutrality. Since these arrangements were made at the request of the British military attache, it was Great Britain herself who first violated the treaty of 1839, ^'^^ tempted Belgium to commit an act by which she forfeited all the rights guaranteed to a neutral by international law. CHAPTER XI GERMAN SOLDIERS MOLTKE wrote on November 19, 1880: Nobody, I think, can deny that the general softening of men's manners has been followed^ by a more humane way of waging war. The introduction in our generation of universal service in the army has marked a long step in the direction of the desired aim, for it has brought also the educated classes into the army. The truth of this statement is fully borne out by the reports which have reached Germany from the front. The following incident, reported by the chief actor, may well form the basis on which to construct a picture of the German army in the field today. It is a translation of Professor Hartmann's own account: French Lesson at the Front Place — A stubblefield in Belgium. Time — Autumn, 1914. After a forced march in brigade formation, our regi- ment is resting. The guns have been stacked and the knapsacks and cloaks thrown off. The field kitchens are drawing up, and company after company, in excellent order, the soldiers are moving up to receive their cups of hot coffee, which has been brewed on the march. The brown liquid has revived their spirits, and in animated groups the soldiers are lounging on the field, talking and laughing. Together with my cronies (a district attorney, 140 German Soldiers 141 a teacher from Vogelsburg, and a young fellow of eighteen, with blue, expectant eyes, who has been promoted to a lieutenancy since the war began) I have occupied a shock of sheaves. Here we are partaking, like gormandizers, of our breakfast, which consists of army bread — as dry as it is nourishing — and a slice of bacon. We are in excel- lent humor. Next to us, our reservists, splendid fellows from the country, have lighted their pipes and are singing the beautiful home and soldier songs which often soften for the time being even the hardest hearts of warriors. " France, poor France, how will you fare When our German militaire Visits you ? Colors : Black and white and red. Poor little France, it is too bad ! " Songs like this are heard all over the field, while the distant thunder of cannon in the west tells us that our comrades are in action. Everybody is elated. We have just heard " officially," from some staff officers who flew by here in an automobile, that our troops have entered Brussels; and the cloud of smoke in the southeast can mean only one thing, according to our maps — that the fortress of Longwy is being successfully bombarded. We feel it in our bones that today or tomorrow we, too, shall have work to do. " Professor," an imperious voice is suddenly shouting across the field. " My captain," I reply at once, inter- rupting my pleasant rest, albeit somewhat awkwardly, considering my weight and age of thirty-six. When I stand at attention before my captain, who is of my age and the best of comrades after hours, while very strict in his official capacity, he says : " Professor, orders from the chief of the batallion : * French lessons to the com- pany.' Begin at once. Nobody knows where we shall be tonight." " Very well, sir." " Second company, attention ! Take out your pencils and notebooks. Meet our professor. Lieutenant of Reserve Hartmann ! " Gay murmurs and laughter pass along the line, and after a few minutes the whole company is gathered about me, comfortably stretched out on the field, with paper and pencils. The lesson begins : " Well, then, fellows, we are in Belgium now, and 142 Germany's Point of View soon we shall be in France. There they use francs and centimes. Write down : i franc = lOO centimes (s-a-n-t-ee-m) ; i franc = 80 pfennige; i sou (s-00) =4 pfennige; i franc = 20 sous. Don't let the Frenchmen cheat you. Tell me, what fine things do you wish to buy in France ? " " Wine," most of them shout in reply. "Well, then, write: du vin (d-e-v-e-n-g). And now remember this once for all: Every word in which there is an n or an w is pronounced through the nose, and is prolonged, stretched out like a rubber band, as it were. If you don't do that, the people won't understand you. Well, then: du vin — " and (just as if I stood before my beginners' class at home) I try to produce a nasal sound of incomparable beauty. " Now, fellows, close your nostrils and try to imitate me ! " At once two hundred and fifty hard German fists are closing, more or less tightly, over as many organs of smell, and " du vin " rings the challenging sound all over the field. The whole company roars with laughter. What a funny speech that is ! "Go on writing: Milk — du lait (d-e-l-a) ; lard — du lard (d-e-l-ar) ; ham — du jambon (d-e-sh-ang-b-ong) ; cheese — du fromage (d-e-f-r-o-m-arsh)." Many another delicacy is served on paper, and all the soldiers are writing as diligently as if their hard hands had always held a pen at home. Then we turn to the numerals i to 10 (eng, do, troa, katt, senk, sees, etc.), and to the polite forms of address, " msyo," " madam," " madmoasell." Finally we learn, Donnez-moi (donna moa), which they are told to put before the thing they want, if they are asking for any- thing. One fellow wants to know the French for " kiss," and amid great delight " le baza " is entered in every notebook and every memory. " This is a fine and necessary word, boys, and after it write * I'amour ' (larmoor), love, for these two words belong together. And don't ever forget to place ' donna moa ' before them. ' Soldiers to the guns ! ' the order sounds. ' Second company to your guns ! ' the order is taken up everywhere. Notebooks and pencils are stored away in the bread boxes, and ten minutes later the iron line is again on the march to meet the enemy." German Soldiers 143 We may imagine them singing the splendid march- ing song, Ich halt einen Kameraden. After each verse the Httle song of birds and woods and home is added. Thus : I had a friend and comrade, None knew a better boy. The drums are calling loudly. See, how he answers proudly ! To walk with him was joy. The birds in the woods are singing, Are singing to warm your heart. At home, ah, at home, your dear ones We'll meet, and never will part. Gloria ! Gloria ! Victoria ! With heart and hand for the Fatherland ! A bullet came to meet us — Was it meant for you or me? It struck him down, and, calling My name, I saw him falling. He seemed a part of me. The birds in the woods are singing. Are singing to warm your heart. At home, ah, at home, your dear ones We'll meet, and never will part. Gloria ! Gloria ! Victoria ! With heart and hand for the Fatherland ! Once more he tried to touch me; I could not take his hand. My gun was loaded quickly. Remain in heaven, pray thee. My comrade and my friend ! The birds in the woods are singing, Are singing to warm your heart. At home, ah, at home, your dear ones We'll meet, and never will part. Gloria ! Gloria ! Victoria ! With heart and hand for the Fatherland ! 144 Germany's Point of View The song died away, the thunder of the cannon grew louder, the well-shod feet of the soldiers re- sounded on the hard road, but many a man heard nought but the beating of his own heart. Then the professor struck up Korner's Prayer During Battle (given here in the translation by C. T. Brooks from the excellent collection of German songs in The Ger- man Classics), and company after company joined in the magnificent song: Father, I call to thee. The roaring artillery's clouds thicken round me; The hiss and the glare of the loud bolts confound me. Ruler of battles, I call on thee : O Father, lead' thou me ! O Father, lead thou me ; To victory, to death, dread Commander, O guide me; The dark valley brightens when thou art beside me; Lord, as thou wilt, so lead me. God, I acknowledge thee. God, I acknowledge thee; When the breeze through the dry leaves of autumn is moaning, When the thunderstorm of battle is groaning, Fount of mercy, in each I acknowledge thee. O Father, bless thou me ! O Father, bless thou me; I trust in thy mercy, whate'er may befall me ; 'Tis thy word that hath sent me ; that word can recall me. Living or dying, O bless thou me ! Father, I honor thee. Father, I honor thee; Not for earth's hoards or honors we here are contending; All that is holy our swords are defending; Then falling, and conquering, I honor thee. God, I repose in thee. German Soldiers 145 God, I repose in thee ; When the thunders of death my soul are greeting, When the gashed veins bleed, and the life is fleeting, In thee, my God, I repose in thee. Father, I call on thee. The very air seemed purified. Whatever selfish train of thought the individual soldier or officer had been following fell into insignificance before the grand conception of God and man. Deep silence ensued, almost mechanically the troops moved on. Suddenly the colonel was seen to receive an order, and, on a message from him, the professor struck up another song. Everybody knew what that meant, for it was the German national song: Deutschland, Deutschland Uber Alles. It is here given in the translation by Margarete Munsterberg : German land above all others, Dear above all other lands, That — a faithful host of brothers — - Evermore united stands ; That, from Maas to farthest Memel, And from Etsch to Belt expands : — German land, above all others. Dear above all other lands ! German faith and German women, German wine and German song, In the world shall keep the beauties Which of old to them belong. Still to noble deeds inspiring. They shall always make us strong — German faith and German women, German wine and German song ! Union, right, and freedom ever For the German Fatherland ! So, with brotherly endeavor, Let us strive with heart and hand ! 146 Germany's Point of View For a bliss that wavers never, Union, right, and freedom stand — In this glory bloom forever. Bloom, my German Fatherland ! - " In less than an hour," Professor Hartmann's sim- ple story given above says, " we received our baptism of fire." Several weeks have "passed since that first French lesson. Many a bullet has come across and separated " friends and comrades." The rest have doubtless often repeated the words '' donnez-moi du vin/'^ and. some may have had the opportunity of saying, " don- nez-nioi un haiser, mademoiselle." All have daily sung Deutschland, Deutschland liber alles, and put their, whole heart into the refrain : At home, ah, at home, you dear ones. We'll meet, and never will part. Entrenched from Strassburg to the sea, the Ger- man troops lie facing their opponents, and, if accounts are true, a kind of truce stops all activity along the entire line from sundown to five-thirty in the morn- ing. On Christmas eve, as the shadows deepened, a new air from the German side was wafted across the frosty ground. The French and English knew its message. But the wild Indian troops, the Zouaves, and the Turkos had not heard it before, and had never felt the deep stirrings of the human heart, when Stille Nacht, heilige Nacht! broke on the silence of the holy night. There was a German Christmas party in the Hotel Somerset during the holidays in December, 1914. In German Soldiers 147 the center a huge spruce tree, surrounded by a forest of smaller trees, almost touched the ceiling. At one end hung a picture of William 11^ painted as Germans know the man to be- — strong, upright, just and kindly. Suddenly the lights were lowered, while hundreds of gay little dots illuminated the huge Christmas tree. The band began the first soft tones of Stille Nacht, and the whole large company of Germans and their American friends, including the Governor of the Com- monwealth, sang this most German of all German songs. The impression was overpowering. Gently lighted by a few concealed bulbs, the portrait of William 11 smiled on the company. Forgotten were the cares, forgotten every bitterness, for there was not a man or woman whose heart did not expand in love and gratitude to God. Such was the feeling here when a few hundred people joined in this song. What was it on the bat- tlefields of Europe, when in the West and in the East not hundreds but thousands, nay many hundred hun- dred thousand German soldiers reverently sang their Christmas song: Silent night ! Holy night ! All is dark, save the light Round yon virgin mother and Child ! Holy Infant, so tender and mild. Sleep in heavenly peace ! Sleep in heavenly peace ! Silent night ! Holy night ! Shepherds quake at the sight ! Glories stream from heaven afar, Heavenly hosts sing Alleluia, Christ, the Saviour, is born ! Christ, the Saviour, is born ! 148 Germany's Point of View Silent night ! Holy night ! Child of heaven, oh ! how bright Is the smile on thy lovely face, With its message of heavenly grace, Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth ! Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth ! CHAPTER XII THE MEANING OF TIPPERARY DEALERS in phonographs report that more rec- ords of Ifs a Long Way to Tipperary were sold in Boston during the Christmas season of 1914 than of any other song. The tune is Hvely and catch- ing, and Tipperary, like many Irish names, has a sound tinged with romance. The British have made this their marching song, and there are people, no doubt, who in their imagination see and hear brave battalions marching to the defense of Belgium. Tip- perary, Tipperary ! The British are coming ! Tip- perary ! Do you know what that means? Do you know that Tipperary is a county of Ireland? That in 1841 it had 435,553 inhabitants, and seventy years later, in 1911, only 151,951 inhabitants? That because of Eng- lish cruelty, misrule, avarice, and oppression, this coun- ty has today only about one-third as many inhabitants as it had in 1841 ? Before assuming that freedom and justice have entrusted their case to the side which today sings Tipperary, would it not be wise to ask whether freedom and justice have been at home in Tipperary and in Ireland through these many years of English rule? Forty-two years ago, Wendell Phillips addressed the elite of Boston, as the Boston Daily Advertiser of that day says, on the Irish Question and more espe- 149 150 Germany's Point of View cially on the defense of England which the famous historian, James Anthony Froude, had attempted to make. Phillips said : In my hasty way I have had occasion to study somewhat at length the history of Ireland in its relations to the British Government, and I confess, with the exception of the dates and names, I should not have recognized the picture which the brilliant essayist drew. Is it not exactly the same today? The more one knows of the real Germany, the less one recognizes the picture which England draws in the news thiat is flashed over her cables to the remotest parts of the world. One would think that this would detract from its value. On the contrary, to certain minds and news- papers it is more valuable because of its distortion. Even so noble a soul as Dr. Agnes Repplier has tem- porarily lost her bearing, and this " prominent " essay- ist (to quote Who's Who in America) wrote recently : " The Germany described by Dr. Dernburg is one which few Americans will recognize." Under ordi- nary conditions she would have asked : " Is it one which those who have been born there or lived there will recognize?" and being unanimously assured that it is, she would have been satisfied and pleased to have learned something. Instead, she is in search of a Germany which will square with the fantastic notions with which the British Press Bureau has filled her mind. In 1872 Mr. Froude was, as it were, the British Press Bureau, desirous of spreading erroneous notions concerning the English-Irish relations in this country. But then Wendell Phillips held aloft the torch of truth in Boston. Who will be the Wendell Phillips today? The Meaning of Tipperary 151 Then an Ireland was presented to America, not as it was, but as England wished it were, that she might excuse her actions. Today it is exactly the same. If Germany were as the English reports paint her, then and only then would there be an excuse for England joining in war with Russia and Russia's faithful money lender and ally, France. If, on the other hand, Ger- many is as those who have known her through years unanimously believe her to be, then England stands accused. Herein lies the terrible dilemma of the people whose sympathies are v/ith the Allies, because they know them best or are sprung from their blood. Be- fore the Massachusetts Teachers' Club recently Fred- eric P. Fish drew an absolutely im.partial picture of present European conditions, with which he is prob- ably as familiar as anybody in Boston. After the meeting one of the members remarked, " I had no idea that Fish was pro-German." The more the truth gains ground, the more the terrible injustice done Germany and its men and women appears. For a true report to overtake a false one is not easy, and there are few men who can help a just cause as Wendell Phillips did in December, 1872. Referring to Mr. Froude's lecture, he said : No doubt it was fair enough to England. With rare justice he painted her as black as she deserved. . . . When you turn to Ireland, every statement, I think, which the Englishman made is false ; false in this sense, that it clutched at every idle tale which reflected upon Ireland, while it subjected to just and merciless scrutiny every story that told against England. He painted the poverty, the anarchy, the demoralization, the degradation of Ireland for the past three centuries, as if it stood out exceptional in Europe, as if every other kingdom was bright, and this was the only dark and disgusting spot on the Continent; 152 Germany's Point of View whereas he knew, and would not, if questioned, have denied, that the same poverty, the same reckless immoral- ity, the same incredible ignorance which he attributed to the population of Ireland was true of France at that day, true of England at the same period, truer still of Scotland at every date that he named. And then, when he came to the public men of Ireland, he painted them monsters of corruption, steeped in the utmost subserviency, in the most entire readiness to traffic for votes and principles, when he knew that, all that being granted, these men were only toiling and panting in their narrow capacity to lift them- selves up to the level of the corruption of their English brothers. He painted every leading Irishman but Grattan either as a noisy demagogue or a childish sentimentalist; and even Grattan, when he had said that he was honest; he finally ended him by painting him a simpleton. . . . Eight years ago I was hissed in Cooper Institute for having said that England was a second-rate Power on the chess-board of Europe; but today her journalists have ceased to deny the fact, and are engaged in an explana- tion of why she is so. And the two great influences which have made her fall from a first-class Power are the neglect and oppression of her own masses, and seven centuries of unadulterated and infamous oppression of Ireland. Tipperary ! It is a long way to Tipperary ! But Eng- land, it is not a long way from Tipperary. The next time the reader hears your catching tune, he will' ask " What did England do with the 300,000 people that are less in Tipperary today than were there two generations ago ? " And over the embarrassed silence he will hear the death groans of saintly Father Sheehy, the parish priest of Tipperary, whom the English murdered in Clonmel Jail in 1782 after he had been tried and acquitted in Dublin. '' They placed his severed head upon a pike above the gates of gloomy Clonmel Jail, where it remained for ten years exposed to the jeers of a brutal British soldiery." At last the aged sister of Father Sheehy is said to have stolen the head and The Meaning of Tipper ary 153 buried it with his dismembered body in St. Stephen's Cemetery in sacred Tipperary soil. Two other ecclesi- astics, Albert O'Brien, Archbishop of Cashel and Emly, and Bishop Dwyer, were hanged by the English in the market place of Tipperary. The more one listens the louder and clearer the groans from murdered and massacred priests, women and children, old men and soldiers, strike one's ear, not only from Tipperary, but from everywhere in Ireland and through the whole of the past seven centuries. The early history of Ireland is not well known, and most of the chronicles collected in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, while based on facts, have come down to us in the nature of fables. So much, however, is sure, that the Romans never conquered Ireland as they had conquered England, for there are no Roman names in Ireland to tell of such conquests. St. Patrick about 450 and St. Columba, a century later, introduced and strengthened the Christian religion, and while the rest of Europe was from about 500 to 900 A. D. a continuous battlefield on which the younger races were taking up their new abodes, Ireland was during these centuries the home of scholars and saints, and the source of the best available cultural light. Then came the conquest by the Danes, who were driven out after 200 years by Brian Boru, who had succeeded in uniting the various factions into one strong army. At his death, however, the fatal Irish individualism reasserted itself and after several generations of divi- sion and anarchy Henry 11 of England had no difficulty in establishing his rule in Ireland. "The next six hundred and fifty years" we read in volume ix of 154 Germany's Point of View Irish Literature, edited by Justin McCarthy, are a ''black catalogue of wars of conquest and obstinate resistance, confiscation, plunder, tyranny, and injus- tices, nay, of extermination itself." Under Edward iii the ancient Irish laws were abolished and intermar- riages between the English and the Irish were for- bidden and punished, not as misdemeanors, but as crimes. And worst of all, the use of the Irish lan- guage was forbidden. This was centuries ago, but the language did not disappear. In 185 1 there were 1,204,684 people who spoke it, and in 189 1 680,174, while of these 38,121 people knew no other langauge. This means that even today there are nine people in every thousand who cannot speak English. In 1495, just as the discovery of America opened the prospect of freedom and breadth of vision to the world, the notorious Poynings' act fastened the tyranny of England on Ireland, for it forbade the Irish Parlia- ment to convene except at the call of the English king or to deliberate on measures other than those of his choosing. This fettered the political life of the coun- try and made any opposition against the persecution and robbery of the king's barons impossible. The cruelties then perpetrated against the whole Irish race defy description and even if much is discarded as fable, the residuum is enough to stain forever the good name of the conquerors. Things, however, went from bad to worse, for after the reformation, under Henry viii^ religious fanaticism was added to arrogance and race hatred. Queen Elizabeth persecuted the Catholic Irish with great cun- ning, and when the rebellion of Hugh O'Neill had collapsed, parcelled out a whole county to favored The Meaning of Tipperary 155 English colonists. Cromwell, however, was the most ruthless foe Ireland has ever had. He reduced the country in nine months and held it in an iron grip. Some amelioration took place under Charles 11 and James 11^ but not enough to prevent a civil war, which culminated in the defense of Limerick, the battle of the Boyne, and the Treaty of Limerick in 169 1. Does Sir Edward Grey remember this treaty of Limerick? Does he know that the Irish laid down their arms trusting the English word? And has he forgotten that the English Parliament broke this treaty, when the Irish troops were dispersed, broke it against the will of the king who wished to keep his word, and without any excuse? In the work by Justin McCarthy quoted above we read : The infamous ignoring of this treaty by the conqueror was a violation of plighted honor which has done more than any one event to keep alive Irish hatred and distrust of England. Nor did England care what the Irish thought. She imposed on them worse penal laws (1695-97) than she had given them before, and went serenely on coercing and robbing them and stamping out the fre- quent rebellions with blood and iron. The first turn for the better was brought about by America. When she had won her independence, England was prepared to listen to the voice of greater moderation. First she repealed the Poynings' Act, and driven to action by men like Burke, Grattan and Flood she started on the legislative career which has just resulted in the home rule bill. But even in this bill the English Government could not hew straight to the line of honesty. To satisfy Redmond and his 156 Germany's Point of View followers the bill has been passed and signed, and to satisfy Carson and his followers it has been suspended for a year and the promise has been given that it will never be put into execution in its present form. No national foe of England, nor Bernard Shaw himself, has uttered as severe strictures of the Asquith Gov- ernment as the Irish since the signing of the Home Rule bill. The present Government, they have said, is so crooked that they cannot even perform the sim- plest routine act in a straightforward manner. The hundred years and more intervening between the repeal of the Poynings' Act and the passage of the home rule bill are among the worst that beautiful island has suffered. In previous centuries, as Wendell Phillips pointed out, sordid conditions could be found in every country. The nineteenth century, however, was one of unparalleled growth in every other civilized State. The advance was rapid everywhere but — in Ireland. The populations and their prosperity grew everywhere but — in Ireland. Here, however, many died by the sword, more of neglect, and countless numbers of starvation. The Patriotic Societies Rebel- lion was put down in 1800, and in the next year Ire- land was " tricked out of its Parliament " which it had preserved at least in name, and was " cheated into union with Great Britain." The first to wage war under the altered conditions was Robert Emmet, whose parents were at home in Tipperary. The next time you hear Tipperary sung, why not include gallant Robert Emmet in the gallery of English victims whose ghosts are liberated by the British marching song, for he was hanged in Dublin in 1803! The Meaning of Tipperary 157 The next uprising of large proportions took place in the early forties. A national newspaper, the Nation, had been founded by two Catholics and one Protestant in 1842, and, being ably conducted, had spread the Irish hopes of freedom. The movement failed, and most of the leaders were cast into prison and none too well treated, among them Daniel O'Connell, Thomas Steele, and Richard Barrett. One of the most bril- liant and violent opponents of the English at that time was a Unitarian minister, John Mitchel. He was arrested, tried, and condemned as a felon to Van Diemen's Land! Before the sentence could be exe- cuted Tipperary elected him to a seat in Parliament. One more man to remember when Tipperary strikes' your ear — a Unitarian minister, John Mitchel, con- demned by the English as a felon to Van Diemen's Land considerably less than one hundred years ago, because he dared to raise his voice against the oppres- sion of his people! Tipperary! The English are coming ! And then the terrible calamity of blight on their potato fields visited the Irish in two successive years, 1845 arid 1846. It was followed by the great famine. Why? Was there no food in the country? Had the farmers no stock in their barns, no fowl, or goats, or sheep ? Had they no grain ? Oh, yes ; they had all this. But they dared not touch it. It had to be shipped to England to pay the rent to the landlords, most of whom lived in England. Think of it ; while people were dying by the thousands, while kind-hearted America and other countries sent supplies, and Eng- land magnanimously appropriated money for the build- ing of unnecessary roads that the half-starved Irish 158 Germany's Point of View might earn a penny, these poor, downtrodden people had to export to England the food they had, that they might pay their absentee landlords ! If they did not pay they were evicted. Conditions grew bad be- yond description. A traveler of the time wrote after seeing the people: "I wonder not that they die, but that some of them live." When the famine was over, fever set in, and then the large emigration began. Within a few years Ire- land had lost 2,000,000 of her small population. And right across the narrow strip of water England was prospering, and some of her good people were writing books or talking publicly, just as they are today, that personal kindness and morality should distinguish na- tions as well as individuals. The trouble with these good people is that they are willing, although they are in the majority, to retain at the head of their affairs men whose principles are not theirs. They and many good Americans raise their voices to heaven against Germany today because Germany, they say, is not feeding Belgium. Feed Belgium! Germany would wish nothing better than that, if England would let her buy the necessary food. But contrary to all international law, contrary to the principles of justice enunciated by Sir Edward Grey himself during the Russo-Japanese War (see Atlantic Monthly, Decem- ber, 1914), England and her Allies will not permit one ounce of foodstuff to reach the German ports or any neutral ports where Germany could buy it. To deprive an army of food has always been considered fair, but to try to starve out a whole people of non- combatants, to starve, incidentally, also the Belgians who have risked their all for England, and to starve The Meaning of Tipperary 159 one-fifth of the French population which is living in territory now held by the Germans, this is a procedure unheard of in the annals of history. Nor is there another people in the world that could be guilty of it except the English who, seventy years ago, with great equanimity saw a million Irish starve to death that they themselves might collect their regular rent! One would have thought that the Irish famine would have induced the English to attempt a thor- ough house-cleaning. But even this lesson was not strong enough. '' Young Ireland " and the '' Fenian Brotherhood " rose and fell before some reforms were attempted. In 1869 the disestablishment of the Irish Church was decreed, and in 1870 the first Irish Law Act was passed. Then, however, new cruelties were per- petrated and the Irish National Land League was sup- pressed and its leaders imprisoned. In C. S. Parnell, finally, the Irish cause found a worthy leader. The result was the first Home Rule bill, which was de- feated in 1886, and the second Home Rule bill in 1893, which was likewise defeated. While the Local Gov- ernment Act of 1898 marked the first great step in advance, what the fate of the present Home Rule bill will be nobody knows. The Irish have not for- gotten the Treaty of Limerick, and are not yet con- vinced that John G. Rowe is wrong who says in his Romance of Irish History the English slogan as re- gards the Irish was '' No faith was to be kept with the Irish." This is a short survey of Irish history under Eng- lish rule. It has been deemed unnecessary to dwell on individual scenes of horror. But if the reader is in- i6o Germany's Point of View terested in this side of the case there are many books written on the subject. The more he reads, the more clearly he will see where the English writers of today get their inspiration for their accounts of the atrocities they ascribe to the Germans. To such inquisitive souls the Athencu Oxonienses, by Anthony Wood, is especially recommended, for it contains the accounts of an eye-witness of the storming of Drogheda. The friends of Drogheda and the monsters of Tip- perary are not the English any one of us know, for these are kind-hearted and just. The writer recently met one of a band of unselfish Englishmen who have made it their business to bring a bit of love and human kindness to the Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians in the English detention camps. They are doing much good, but as long as they acquiesce in the conduct of war as waged by their Government in Ireland, South Africa, Egypt, and India, they must bear the scorn which an unprejudiced posterity will heap upon them. It has been claimed that that was the only kind of warfare fitted to the savage manner of their Indian opponents. After the rebellion of Cawnpore in India, General James George Neill ordered that all "those engaged in the rebellion should lick up the dried blood of the murdered before being hanged, thereby to add the certainty of hell after death to their present tor- ments." The official order (July 26, 1857) reads: " The task will be made as revolting to his (the pris- oner's) feelings as possible, and the provost-marshal will use the lash in forcing anyone objecting to com- plete the task." Such treatment is demanded by the savage nature of the Indian natives, according to the English themselves, and yet it is these very Indians The Meaning of Tipperary i6i that the EngHsh have now imported to fight the white man's battle ! Mr. Froude, the English Press Bureau of a genera- tion ago, explained the English attitude in an un- guarded moment as follows : The English, ever ready, when confronted with similar problems {i. e., military difficulty] in India or elsewhere [meaning Ireland], to use same [excessive cruelties] on lighter occasions, yet make a compromise with their con- sciences, and when the severity is over, and the fruits of it in peace and order are gathered and enjoyed, agree usually or always to exclaim against the needless cruelty. Father Sheehy, Archbishop O'Brien, Bishop Dwyer, Robert Emmet, John Mitchell Tipperary! Ifs a long way to Tipperary! CHAPTER XIII GERMANY BROKE NO TREATY CAROLINE A. MASON, the author (Mrs. John H. Mason), has addressed a letter to the writer and given him permission to make such use of it as he pleases. It contains a succinct statement of the views held by very many people who feel obliged to condemn Germany, although they do it regretfully. To them the case is so clear that they cannot understand how anybody, German-born or not, can refrain from lifting his voice in stern rebuke. The writer understands Mrs. Mason's position, for he, too, was deeply troubled at the first news of Ger- many's invasion of Belgium; and, while he never lost his faith in the country of his birth, he believed that the German Government had made a grievous mistake. Later when more detailed reports reached him he changed his views, with a joy which only those will understand who have known a loved one accused of crime and great moral obliquity, and have found him, after anxious weeks of waiting, probably innocent; nay, more than innocent, because the original ac- cusation seemed to have been brought against him wantonly. A change of heart is not arguable, nor are argu- ments in place in reply to such a frank and generous letter as that of Mrs. Mason. The writer, therefore, contents himself with printing Mrs. Mason's letter 162 Germany Broke No Treaty 163 and giving some of the reasons why he, and many with him, nevertheless, hold Germany to be innocent, and why they believe in the justice of her cause. 1913 Park Road, Washington, D. C. Professor Edmund von Mach : Dear Sir — From time to time I have read your articles in defence of the practices and purposes of Germany in the present lamentable war. As a consequence, I am now yielding to the inclination to express to you what I am aware is the sentiment of a large number of readers. No one can fail to appreciate the restraint, the fine temper, and spirit with which you write. While certain advocates of the same cause do Germany incalculable injury by their lack of these characteristics, you surprise the public by your demonstration that even now a German can keep his temper. Because you, better than others, can grasp our point of view, I venture to think it may not be wholly useless to write frankly concerning these issues as Americans intimately and veritably regard them. Let me say, then, that, with all your loyalty of intention and acumen in argument, these various attempts of yours to justify Germany in re Belgium, must remain fruitless. This is for a basic reason and one which nothing can change. You remember Emerson's " What you are thunders so loud that I cannot hear what you say " ? What Germany has done in obvious and avowed violation of faith, honor, and, above all, of humanity, is so monstrous that an ocean of words can never wash it from the memory of mankind. With every new revelation of her bitter oppression of the Belgian people, the deeper grows her moral isolation in Christendom, whose fundamental laws, whether technical or not, she has cynically ignored. Those of us who have loved and trusted the German people in better times are listening, but in vain, for one voice .from within to redeem her infamy of unanimous consent to her deeds. What would we not give if a voice like yours should be lifted in stern rebuke instead of in defence of your nation's course? Then faith that Ger- many's conscience was not dead would again flicker into Hfe. May I in all sincerity speak to you of my own expe- 164 Germany's Point of View rience? This not because of any importance on my own part, but because I know it to be typical. I shall set down nothing on which you may not depend as simple truth. First of all, I simply cannot penetrate to any adequate reason for the mysterious transformation of Germany's whole Wesen. I know that thirty years ago she was not what she is today. In my girlhood I spent a year in Germany in study and travel. I imbibed a deep affection for the land, the people, the literature, traditions, customs, folklore, music. In Germany I received my earliest inspiration in authorship, and my literary work began with translation of Hermann Grimm's essays. Through the first twenty years of my married life my enthusiasm for all things German knew no abatement. During that time I did not travel in Europe, but ten years ago there began a series of visits to England, and more particularly to the Continent, on the part of my husband, myself, and our daughters. With these journeys began the rude shock of disenchantment as regards the people of Germany. They were not the people I had known. Traveling widely, often off the beaten paths, often with- out a man in our party, we have been treated with unfail- ing courtesy and consideration by those we have met, officials and otherwise, except by Germans. Astonished and chagrined, I have been forced to admit that the typical Teutonic men and women thus encountered are underbred, overbearing, noisy, eager to grasp every selfish advantage, ready to ride roughshod over the rights of others. A recently published book by Mr. Whitridge asserts that the Germans have become *' easily the most objectionable people to be seen in the inns and on the highways of the Continent." Twenty years ago I should have indignantly resented this statement; today I must admit that it is perfectly true in my own experience. If you have patience to read on, you will, I think, con- fess that I am justified in this conviction. I will mention three incidents of travel. In Sicily, last winter, we traveled from Syracuse to Girgenti — a long, hard day's journey. In our party were three ladies, one an invalid, and a gentleman. In the next compartment were two Germans with their wives, who ate, drank, laughed, and talked loudly all day, A week before Germany Broke No Treaty 165 we had engaged rooms at the Hotel des Temples, two miles or more from the station of Girgenti. Arriving three hours late and well on towards midnight, in a cold, tor- rential rain, we were met by the hotel porter, who told us we were expected and a closed carriage was waiting for us. While we collected our luggage, the German party, who had traveled in the next compartment through the day, commandeered our carriage, the only one procurable, by what means, I do not know, and drove cheerfully away, not to the Hotel des Temples. The second incident occurred to my husband on a soli- tary walking tour over the Gemmi Pass. After a stiff morning's walk he entered the dining-room of a small mountain inn, where sat, at different tables, an English gentleman and a German officer. The latter had thrown his traveling case down in the middle of a small settle. In order to find a seat, my husband moved this case a few inches, whereupon the German officer sprang to his feet, with crimson face and glaring eyes and menace of physical force, and poured out upon him a storm of loud abuse, beginning with, " How dare you," etc. My hus- band was too astounded to defend himself ; but the Eng- lishman turned upon the German and sternly bade him stop, the only offender being the man who had placed his luggage where he had no right so to do. In the third instance which I care to mention, my daughter was, several years ago, obliged to travel alone by night from Paris to Dresden. Not wishing to take a sleeper, she chose a seat in a compartment reserved for ladies, which was occupied through the night by herself and a middle-aged Frenchwoman. My daughter was a girl of serious and dignified demeanor, but she was young and pretty. As the evening wore on, sounds of students' songs and loud revelry reached the ladies' compartment, and pres- ently there appeared in the corridor a group of German students, four or five. Discovering an unprotected girl, these young men stationed themselves at the door of the compartment, being careful not to be found within its limits and to disappear quietly on every approach of the guard, which approaches were infrequent. They carried on there (addressed to my daughter) a campaign of personal innuendo and ribald insult, combined with vulgar panto- mime which no one could witness without horror and i66 Germany's Point of View disgust. The Frenchwoman, terrified, went down on her knees and spent the night in prayer, which may have been consoHng to herself, but which left my daughter com- pletely alone to bear these brutal indignities, which were kept up until morning with efficiency. My daughter ought, no doubt, to have called the guard and insisted upon pro- tection, but she dared not do this, not knowing what form retaliation might take. It is perhaps no wonder that her hair whitened prematurely. Although we have traveled widely, no occurrences in the least parallel to these have been experienced by us, where the offenders were other than German. What is true of us is the common experience of travelers. Now, my contention is that the spirit shown in the above-mentioned instances of ill-usage was not the spirit of the Germany which my girlhood knew and loved. If, as the newspapers are fond of saying, the maxim, " Might makes right," has, as appears, become the watch- word of new Germany, can you give me any sufficient reason? You are at liberty to make such use of this letter as you please. I wish you would send it to some of your friends in Germany for answer, if you do not care to answer it yourself. It is written in absolute sincerity and good faith. Dec. 20, 1914- Caroline A. Mason. As regards Mrs. Mason's unpleasant experiences with German tourists it must be confessed that the latter have been a nuisance for some time. When a country grows rich suddenly some people are sure to call attention to themselves on account of their bad manners. German writers have been as outspoken in their condemnation of such a behavior as any. Said Dr. Paul Rohrbach in German World Policies: From whatever point of view one looks at the Germans abroad — granting, of course, some splendid exceptions — one is met by defects either of inner worth or of ability to make an active propaganda for the German idea. Need we refer to the embarrassing habits of the German tour- ists who go through the world in droves, with a minimum of toilet and a maximum of noisy talk ? Germany Broke No Treaty 167 But. when one has acknowledged this unpleasant habit of many German tourists, one should add that the experience of Mrs. Mason's daughter is an excep- tion. The writer knows of many ladies, young and old, who feel absolutely safe in traveling about Ger- many unattended, his own youngest sister having often gone alone from the shore of the Baltic to Meran. As to the incident with the German officer, related by Mr. Mason, it is incomprehensible. In the first place German officers do not travel over mountain passes in uniform, nor are they in the habit of taking scoldings from strangers. If, therefore, Mr. Mason was thus rudely treated by a German, he must have made a mistake in identifying him as an officer. But since it was a German w^ho behaved in boorish fash- ion, most Germans and lovers of Germany would wish to apologize for that man's incivility. Incivility is never excusable, whether it takes the shape of a cold and insulting stare or of an excited torrent of words, as is not unusual with the emotionally quick Germans. The German temper, however, cools as quickly as it rises, and is no indication of the worth of the national character. It is a defect inherited from the past, which Germany has only very recently begun to outgrow. Doctor Rohrbach, however, was perfectly right when he told his people that the true worth of their char- acter would not become known to men of other nation- alities so long as their surface dealings with foreigners revealed the unpleasant relics of a narrow-minded past. And he was equally right when he said that the real Germany was very different from what such casual meetings with bad-mannered Germans led the foreigners to believe. His countrymen seemed to like -1 68 Germany's Point of View his frankness, for they read his books by the hun- dreds of thousands, and lovers of Germany have de- tected a notable abatement of the tourist nuisance in recent years. Mrs. Mason's chief contention against Germany, however, is the latter's treatment of Belgium in the present war. In advancing the views of those who differ from Mrs. Mason, the subject may be divided into several parts : Did Germany break a sacred treaty ? Did she commit a crime by violating the neutrality of Belgium even if no binding treaty had existed? Was she barbarous or unnecessarily cruel in conquer- ing Belgium? Is her present treatment of Belgium unjust and inhuman? As to the treaty of 1839, which is the only one which England or any pro-Ally has claimed to have been violated by Germany, the writer has convinced himself that it was void. Instead of arguing the case he prefers to outline the several steps taken in his investigation which has led to this conclusion. People interested in the subject may then check the accuracy of his deductions, and whether they agree with him or not, will realize that his conclusions are the result of an honest endeavor to discover the truth. The most convenient book in which the whole treaty can be looked up is Edward Hertslet's The Map of Europe by Treaty. The treaty was signed on April 19, 1839, by Belgium on the one hand, and England, France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia on the other hand, and contains the following: Article VII. Belgium, with the limits specified in Articles i, 11, and iv, shall form an independent and per- petually neutral state. It shall be bound to observe such neutrality towards all other states. Germany Broke No Treaty 169 This treaty, contrary to the general belief, contains no guarantee on the part of the five signatory Powers. On the same day another treaty was concluded be- tween Belgium and the King of Holland to regulate the important matters of carrying the separation of Belgium from Holland into effect. It contains prac- tically all the articles of the other treaty, including the neutrality article and adds a few other matters. Finally a third and very brief treaty was concluded on the same day, in which the sovereigns of the five signatory Powers of the first treaty declare "that the articles hereunto annexed and forming the tenor of the treaty concluded this day between his majesty, the King of the Belgians, and his majesty, the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxemburg, are con- sidered as having the same force and validity as if they were textually inserted in the present act and that they are thus placed under the guarantee of their said majesties." The neurality article states that Belgium "within the limits specified in Articles I, II, and IV, shall form an independent and perpetually neutral State." The Belgium there mentioned was a small state of com- paratively meagre resources. It is not the same Bel- gium which today is one of the richest colonial em- pires, owing to the incorporation of the Congo into the state. If for any reason Belgium should have wished to throw off, not only in fact but also openly, the tutel- age of the Great Powers, she could have claimed that the consent of the Powers to incorporate the Congo into her body politic had altered her limits. The Powers themselves had destroyed the Belgium 170 Germany's Point of View of Article VII, which was bound to be a neutral state. In 1867 France proposed to Prussia that the latter should consent to the former's annexation of Belgium. Prussia did not consent, and Napoleon's plan miscar- ried. On the very face of it the treaty is binding on all the signatory Powers or on none. France's pro- posal nullified her share in the treaty, and the deli- cate question arises : " Was the treaty nullified by France's proposal, but did it come to life again when the proposal was not carried out?" When France offered to annex Belgium she did not believe that there was a treaty in her way, because she looked upon the 1839 treaties as having aimed at the separation of Belgium from Holland, and this separation having been carried out a generation ago, their usefulness had been outlived. In 1870, during the Franco-Prussian War, England wished to secure the neutrality of Belgium, and nego- tiated two identical treaties, in which she promised to fight by the side of Prussia against France or vice versa in case the one country or the other invaded Belgium. These treaties were to remain in force until one year after the treaty of peace between France and Prussia and thereafter the neutrality of Belgium, so far as high contracting Powers (England, France, Russia) were concerned, should rest as here- tofore on the treaty of April 19, 1839. These new treaties were vehemently debated in Par- liament, and quotations from Mr. Gladstone's speeches are given both in favor of and against the theory that he held the treaties of 1839 ^o be invalid. Some who have read these speeches (and not only the recently Germany Broke No Treaty 171 published extracts) believe that Mr. Gladstone con- sidered the time inopportune to decide the question of validity, and purposely spoke vaguely on both sides. The opposition, voiced by Mr. Osborne, was more positive. He said: This treaty is entirely superfluous, if the treaty of 1839 is worth anything at all. In the eyes of Austria and Russia that treaty is entirely superseded by this. You have struck a blow at that treaty which you can never put in the same position again. The Government argued that the reference to the treaty of 1839 at the end of the new treaties should meet these objections, but Mr. Osborne reasoned that this was not so. If five Powers enter an agreement by which all are bound equally and on even terms, three cannot make a new treaty among themselves on the same subject without releasing the other two of all obligations. Since the earlier treaty bound all alike or none, the remaining three could no longer claim that it was valid when their own action had dropped out two of the original signatories. From all these considerations the validity of the treaty of 1839 ^t the present time has seemed to be at least doubtful ; nor does this take into consideration the fact that the treaty was signed by Prussia, and that Prussia in 1871 surrendered, so far as her foreign relations were concerned, her sovereignty to the Con- federation of German States known as the German Empire. Germany, in other words, has never been a party to these treaties of 1839. Let us, however, assume that a competent court should nevertheless overrule all these objections, and declare that the treaties of 1839 continued in force 172 Germany's Point of View on August I, 19 14, then one other pomt deserves attention. Article VII reads : " Belgium shall be bound to observe such neutrality towards all other states." The guarantee, moreover, quoted above if valid v^ould have been equally binding on every one of the five signatory Powers. Belgium, however, has not treated the several Powers alike, but has looked upon some as prospective allies and upon others as prospective enemies. In extenuation it has been claimed that events have shown that Belgium was justly suspicious of Germany, and that she had the right, therefore, of discussing precautionary measures with other Powers. Records of such discussions have been found and published. Some people have errone- ously called them treaties, which, of course, they are not. They do, however, show that England was put in possession of the military secrets of Belgium. A change in European politics might have taken place. As Sir Edward Grey himself announced re- cently, Belgium feared an invasion from England more than from anyone else in 1913. Suppose — just for the sake of argument — that England had invaded Belgium, would Germany have been bound by the treaty to come to the assistance of Belgium? Would she have been obliged to fight against an enemy who knew all the military secrets of Belgium? The writer believes that she would not have been obliged to do so. The action of Belgium in giving away her mili- tary secrets to one Power — that is, treating it differ- ently from the others and to the disadvantage of the others in case of war — released the others from any obligation under the treaty. Or to put it more suc- cinctly, it voided the treaty. Germany Broke No Treaty 173 The writer strongly urges the reading in full of the treaties of 1839, Napoleon's offer of annexation, Bis- marck's refusal, the treaties of 1870, the discussions in Parliament on these treaties, and the documents found in Brussels, and he is confident that the reasonable- ness of the assumption will be granted that no valid treaty bound Germany to respect the neutrality of Belgium. To bring up an obsolete treaty as a valid pretext for going to war against Germany seemed so pre- posterous to the German chancellor that he charged — this is Mr. James A. Peterson's explanation in the Living Church, January 2, 1915 — the British ambas- sador with going to war for "a scrap of paper." It was not Germany who dragged the sacredness of treaties into the dust, who flippantly referred to a valid treaty as "a scrap of paper." On the contray, it was England, the Germans believe, who showed her con- tempt for honorable treaty obligations. She had signed the Hague Conventions guaranteeing the rights of neutrals in case of war on land, but she had not ratified them, and while, therefore, not bound by them, could claim that she approved of them — until the test came. The same was true of the Conference of Lon- don. She had invited the nations to it, she was willing to enjoy the credit of being the leader in humane proposals for the conduct of war. But she did not ratify them and when the test came, she renounced them. It was exactly the same with the treaty of 1839. She had been unwilling to declare it either valid or invalid. For years military experts in Europe, both French and German, have talked of the necessity of 174 Germany's Point of View striking a blow through Belgium, and England never raised her voice in protest nor pointed to an existing treaty. When Sir Edward Grey was charged by the Belgian Government in 19 13 that England intended to be the first to invade Belgium, Sir Edward, in his reply published by himself, made no reference to an existing treaty, but contented himself with pointing out that such an action would be unwise. Who shows a greater disregard of sacred obliga- tions, he who calls an invalid treaty "a. scrap of paper," or he who elevates ''a scrap of paper" to the rank of a sacred treaty, and relegates the conventions of the Hague Conference — which were adopted at his own eager request — and the conclusions of the Conference of London — for the humaneness of which he had been willing to receive praise — to the level of "scraps of paper"? ( ( CHAPTER XIV THE STRAIGHTFORWARD CONDUCT OF GERMANY WOULD you condemn Germany for going through Belgium," an American statesman was asked the other day, " if there had been no vaHd treaty in existence which forbade it?" To which he repHed substantially as follows : " I should not con- demn her in the sense in which I have condemned her in my public statements, but I should say ' she did wrong.' " This is exactly the view of the German chancellor, and it is the view also of the writer. People who wish to form a correct opinion on the subject should separate the various questions and judge each one separately, just as they would like to have their own cases judged in a court of law if they v/ere accused by an enemy of criminal behavior. The treatment of Belgium during and after the conquest is a different question from the one which treats of the right and wrong of the invasion in the first place. The various steps of the investigation which have led the friends of Germany to doubt the validity of the treaties of 1839 were discussed in the previous chapter, where readers were urged to study these points and to check the inferences drawn from them. The writer himself feels the more confident in his belief that the treaties had become void, since he has not yet found a single authority on international law 175 176 Germany^ s Point of View willing to stake his reputation on the statement that the treaties are valid and that in a proper court they would, without doubt, be declared to be so. As a matter of fact, this terrible charge against Germany of having disregarded a treaty and of having broken her plighted word has been believed in America on the unsupported say-so of England. There may be many things that can be said against Germany, but those who love her have always been proud in their belief that Bismarck was right when he said in the Reichstag amidst the thunderous applause of the delegates : " We Germans are in the habit of keeping our word." Caesar and Tacitus said that this was a habit of the Germans and the historians have said the same ever since. "But," it is asked, "why then did the German Chancellor say that Germany was doing wrong by going through Belgium? If there was no treaty to hinder her, she only did what all nations have done at some time or another. Quite recently a glowing account of Jackson's victory at New Orleans stated that his victory would have been impossible without the help of Captain Samuel Chester Reid, and that the latter, in order to delay the British fleet, had to violate the neutrality of Portuguese waters. The American occupation of Vera Cruz was a violation of neutral territory, since no war had been declared. Japan and England recently violated the neutrality of China. France and England have violated, and have apologized for violating, the neutrality of Switzerland on their raids from the air on the German Zeppelin sheds. (If their bombs had hit their marks, the apology to Swit- zerland would have done Germany much good !) Japan The Straightforward Conduct of Germany i jy invaded Korea without a declaration of war, and both Russia and Japan fought their war on the neutral territory of Manchuria. In short, if there was no treaty in force which forbade the invasion of Belgium, why should the Chancellor have said that Germany was doing wrong?" This is the answer: Because, he is, as Professor Albert Bushnell Hart said before the Economic Club of Providence, on January 8, a singu- larly honest, sincere, and upright man. The Chancellor on August 4, 1914, had no proofs which he cared to lay before the world to the efifect that Belgium was not sincere in her desire to remain neutral in the coming war. And until such proofs were presented Germany had no moral excuse for invading Belgium. Legally this step was exactly like the American occupation of Vera Cruz, which some believed to be necessary while others doubted it. Both steps were wrong, and the German Chancellor had the courage to say so. The American invasion of Vera Cruz very fortunately was not followed by war. The Belgian invasion was accompanied by an ultimatum and war ensued. There was at that moment only one Power that could have prevented the war, and Americans of Ger- man birth will always regret that this one Power, their new home, took no steps to this efifect. If America had boldly said to Germany : " Take back your troops and your ultimatum, you are breaking The Hague conventions, which you and I have ratified," and Germany had replied : " Belgium is no longer neutral, for I have unimpeachable proof that France intends to attack me through Belgium, with the latter's con- sent " ; and if America had then said : " Show me your 178 Germany's Point of View proofs/' and had said to England: "You are on the spot, and while you have not ratified The Hague con- ventions concerning the rights and duties of neutrals, you say that the treaty of 1839 binds you to defend the neutrality of Belgium. Authorize me to tell Ger- many that her fear of a French attack, through Bel- gium, is vain, because you will come to her assistance, if France should move into Belgium" — if America had done this, it would have called the bluff either of Germany or of England, and might have prevented the war. Germany has since then published a number of documents which she claims to have found in Belgium and which prove that Belgium was de facto no longer neutral. If these proofs are accepted as correct, Ger- many's action, which the Chancellor called wrong, becomes excusable. It is, however, asking a good deal of those whose sympathies are on the other side to believe the unsupported statement of the German Gov- ernment, and to have the same confidence in the Chancellor's honesty as the people have who know him. No fault, therefore, can be found with those who prefer to rest the case for the present with the Chan- cellor's confession of wrong. They should, however, realize that even if this con- fession of wrong must stand, the condemnation due for it is not more than has been due in recent years to practically all the nations of the world, including America. A wrong is not a greater wrong because its unfortunate results come more forcibly home to us; nor will the just man demand a heavier punishment for his enemy than for his friend, if both have broken the same law. The Straightforward Conduct of Germany 1 79 In view of these observations the criticism (see Mrs. Mason's letter in the previous chapter) that Germany had " cynically ignored the fundamental laws of Chris- tendom, whether technical or not," can have no refer- ence to the actual entry of Germany into Belgium, but must refer to her conduct in and treatment of Belgium. "What would we not give," says Mrs. Mason, " if a voice like yours should be lifted in stern rebuke instead of in defense of Germany? Then faith that Germany's conscience was not dead would again flicker into life." Mrs. Mason and the majority of sincere people shar- ing her views have formed their opinions on the ac- counts of German atrocities which they have read either in the papers or in private letters from friends in countries hostile to Germany. If the writer had believed these stories, including the so-called official reports, or if he had believed only a small part of them, he would have raised his voice in protest long ago. He is, however, convinced that they are false, and that this can be proved. On November 20, 1914, a Boston physician, Dr. Robert W. Lovett, called on the writer on a special errand. Dr. Lovett had received a cablegram from his personal friend. Lord Fisher, the British First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, who requested his American friends to join in a petition to President Wilson. He had sent them a copy of the message cabled to the President, in which the President of the United States was urged to ask the German Government as a per- sonal favor to him (Mr. Wilson) to release on parole Admiral Neald and Mrs. Neald. Mrs. Neald is a daughter of Lord Fisher. Both were detained in i8o Germany's Point of View Germany. The Boston friends of Lord Fisher believed that Mr. Wilson, owing to his declared stand of neu- trality, would be unable to act, and that anyhow the proper way of appeal was to the German Government directly. They, therefore, requested the writer to bring the sad case (both Admiral and Mrs. Neald are in poor health, the latter being threatened with blind- ness) to the attention of the representatives of the German Government in this country. Knowing that the German Government would wish to be informed of the circumstances the writer was glad to forward the information given him, which was accompanied by the following letter, published here with the consent of the sender: My Dear Dr. Von Mach : / I beg to enclose the promised letters, and I am prepared to promise you that if Admiral Neald's request is granted I will do my utmost to secure in the press the widest publicity in acknowledgment of Germany's action. With many thanks for your courtesy in listening to me, I am, Very sincerely yours, Boston^ Nov. 20. (Signed) Robert W. Lovett. Two days later Dr. Lovett was informed that his request had been acted upon favorably by the repre- sentatives of the German Government in America and forwarded abroad. On December 2 the following item appeared in the press : On personal representations from President Wilson, through Ambassador Gerard, Germany has released Ad- miral Neald, retired, of the British navy, and his wife, who were military prisoners at a German health resort. Admiral Neald, a son-in-law of Admiral Fisher, First Lord of the British Admiralty, was left at a German spa during the exodus of refugees at the beginning of the war. It was reported that he and Mrs. Neald were held as mili- The Straightforward Conduct of Germany i8i tary prisoners in retaliation for the detention in England of a son of Admiral von Tirpitz of the German navy, captured in the engagement off Cuxhaven. President Wilson made representations on an appeal from the British ambassador here, and today Ambassador Gerard cabled news of the release of the Admiral and Mrs. Neald. The heading given this article read : " Germany Yields to Wilson." Dr. Lovett, realizing that this notice v^as inaccurate in several respects and that it did not " secure in the press the voidest publicity in acknowledgment of Germany's action," which he had promised, immediately obtained an introduction to the manager of the Associated Press, wrote to the State Department where the notice had been given out, and in every way tried to redeem his word, busy man that he is. He has been unable to induce the Asso- ciated Press to supplement their first erroneous despatch by another which should be just to Germany and call attention to the remarkable act of kindness of the German Government, which released the daughter of Lord Fisher because she was ill, and did not make her release dependent on any corresponding act of kindness to Germans in British detention camps. This incident is related to show that it is not easy at present to bring a story for general circulation into the American press from which a conclusion favorable to Germany could be drawn. Additional points of interest in connection with the Associated Press des- patch as it actually appeared are as follows : I. According to a reply from the State Department to Dr. Lovett, the original despatch from Ambassador Gerard was dated November 29. Why was it not given out until December 2? 1 82 Germany's Point of View 2. The telegram received at the State Department read : " In view of President's personal recommenda- tions orders have been given for release of Admiral Neald." 3. The whole second paragraph, which claims that Admiral and Mrs. Neald were held as "prisoners of war " and in " retaliation " for the detention of the son of the German Admiral von Tirpitz, is contrary to fact. Admiral Neald, who is not yet sixty, was de- tained at Bad Nauheim at the outbreak of the war, while Mrs. Neald, was, of course, not held as a prisoner of war at all. The paragraph was added with the view of lessening any favorable comment the release of the admiral and his wife might excite. Who added it? Did the State Department falsify the news? Did the Associated Press falsify the news? Why were not only the local manager, but also the general man- ager of the Associated Press in New York unwilling to correct the wrong news they had sent out? 4. Before placing implicit faith in the news they read, Americans of whatever sympathies should rea- lize that neither of the two great sources of their news- supply, the State Department and the Associated Press, are flowing today with their accustomed purity. It is immaterial for the argument in hand whether the managers of both sources are laboring under unusually difficult conditions or whether they could do better if they would. The fact remains that the searcher after the truth is obliged to realize that not all the news he receives is honest news. Why was ex-Premier Giolitti's second speech garbled and printed in America to show that Italy was pro-Ally The Straightforward Conduct of Germany 183 and his first speech suppressed in which he said that not even the cynicism of a Machiavelli would have stooped so low as to believe that Italy could enter the war against her two allies, Germany and Austria ? Why was his second speech misrepresented to say that in 19 13 Austria and the Kaiser had been detained from undertaking an unjust expedition against Servia only by the greatest exertions on the part of Italy, when every well equipped newspaper office could have quoted from the British Annual Register for 1913 these words : In foreign politics the greatest achievement of Germany this year was the prevention of a European war, which would in all probability have broken out if the Emperor William had not plainly declared on the one hand to Austria-Hungary that he would not support her should she be involved in a war with Russia as the consequence of an attack by her upon Servia, and on the other to Russia that if she attacked Austria-Hungary, notwith- standing her abstinence from active intervention in the Balkans, he would fight by the side of his Austrian ally. Why was it reported that Tom, Dick, and Harry shouted in the Italian Parliament for the Allies and against Austria, and why were the Italian papers not quoted which said that they were glad some delegates had committed this indiscretion because their treat- ment at the hands of their colleagues had shown how few people held such abandoned views? Why are individual Swedes writing anti-German articles in Lord Northcliffe's London papers quoted, while the almost unanimously German friendly Swed- ish press is not even mentioned in America? Why are the Swiss papers not mentioned in America unless they happen to contain an article which can 184 Germany's Point of View be given an anti-German twist ? Why was the address of Spanish university professors, sent as a sign of unwavering confidence to their German colleagues, suppressed here? These are all questions which every honest man and woman should answer to his or her satisfaction before feeling justified in believing the accusations against Germany and disregarding the official German reports of investigation. The '' round robin/' too, which was signed by seven reputable American newspaper men and which exonerated Germany from charges of cruelty and brutality, should be given greater weight. At times it almost seems as if the glaring profusion of stories concerning German atrocities had blinded people just as the searchlights of an automobile will blind them for a time and render them incapable of seeing anything else. Tucked away in an inconspicuous place, a few papers of December 30, 1914, brought the following notice. It was printed as the last paragraph of a despatch from Washington, which was featured in these words : " Dum-dums made here can't be used by Allies." The notice itself read: State Department officials have also been informed by an American diplomat just back from Europe that he found no ground for charges that Belgians have been mutilated by German soldiers. Under ordinary conditions most papers, after having printed for weeks and months stories of mutilated Belgians, and having given credence to so-called " official " reports which made such charges, would have given this notice a prominent place under the caption " Germans in Belgium Exonerated." In years The Straightforward Conduct of Germany 185 to come, after the passions have cooled, it will be one of the inexplicable mysteries of the age, why this was not done. People will realize that most atrocity stories were forged consciously or unconsciously, as that Scotch girl forged her two letters which purported having been sent by a Belgian priest. It may, however, be claimed that the Germans have been guilty of acts of cruelty, if not of atrocity. Know- ing the Germans as he does the writer does not believe this. Executions of civilians have undoubtedly taken place. This is most regrettable, but the moral guilt of Germany depends on the question whether the excesses of the Belgians demanded such a treatment at the hands of any army. A notice which appeared in the Socialist papers of Europe, and which is here quoted from the Vorwaerts of August 17, 1914, stated that M. Vandervelde, the Socialist member of the Belgian cabinet, had urged the Belgian Government to issue a proclamation asking the people to desist from their criminal excesses against Germany, but that his motion had been voted down. In some places local proclamations were issued and no tragedies ensued. An account of such proclamations which was given by a Belgian contributor to the Transcript in the fall of 19 14, was found, upon investigation, to have refer- ence only to proclamations issued by some local author- ities. If M. Vandervelde's suggestion had been adopted much sorrow might have been spared. In conclusion an address may be given which an American newspaper man delivered before the Ameri- can colony in Berlin shortly before Christmas, 19 14. Ambassador Gerard and Consul General Lay were present. The speaker was Lieutenant Colonel Edwin 1 86 Germany's Point of View Emerson, who fought for his country m the Rough Riders during the Spanish War. He is a graduate of Harvard, ir^ the class of 1891, and has been a war correspondent for Collier s Weekly, Chicago Daily News, Westminster Gazette, Black and White, Le Monde Illustre, and last autumn was sent to Belgium by the New York World. He said : My activities in the war zone were naturally those of a neutral. I am here on leave of absence, and our American Government consequently has no official interest in my doings. The fact that I was a war correspondent from a neutral country made it possible for me to observe matters more freely and to draw more unbiased conclusions than I probably could have done in an official position. This brings me to the word " neutrality." We have heard much in recent months of the violation of Belgian neutrality. It is even said that this is the only reason why England is fighting; for England is, of course, the protector of the small countries, as the Boers, the Persians, and the Greeks know from their own experiences. Once even the Amer- ican colonies were small countries, and we Americans know how to appraise the English enthusiasm for ob- serving the rights of neutrals. In the years of our greatest trial — I mean our great Civil War, from 1861- 1864 — the English sent several privateers to harass us. There was, especially, the famous "Alabama," who suc- ceeded, with English assistance, to dispose of our marine trade so completely that we have not yet recovered from this blow. And what is true of England is true of her dear allies. I was a war correspondent during the Russo-Japanese War, and I was present when the Japanese invaded the neutral state of Korea without first troubling to declare war, and when they proceeded to fight out the war in the likewise neutral province of Manchuria. Then nobody took the least notice of it. On the contrary, England did her best to support these flagrant violations of Chinese neutrality, just as she did the other day in the case of Tsingtao. When Germany does anything like this it is " violation of neutrality " ; when England does it it is " fair play." The Straightforward Conduct of Germany 187 When I was in Belgium recently I learned from my own observation that the so-called Belgian neutrality toward Germany did not amount to much — it was nothing but lurking hostility. I do not know whether it is known here that it is due to the American ambassador in Brussels that nothing similar to what happened in Louvain took place in Brussels. The mayor, Mr. Marx, had actually given orders to the citizens' garde to shoot on the Germans, when our ambassador urged them not to do it. Our ambassador also told me that Field Marshal von der Goltz as governor general of Belgium had made a splendid impression upon him, and that the official business was being carried on better under him than under the Belgian Government. In Louvain, unfortunately, we had no American consul who could have prevented the people from shooting on the Germans from their houses. In Louvain itself I was told by the inhabitants that the shooting had been a ter- rible mistake. They would never have done it, the people of Louvain told me, if they had not received a secret message from Antwerp that the garrison of Antwerp had been successful in an extensive sortie, that the Germans were routed and fleeing toward Louvain. When toward evening a small company of footsore German soldiers chanced to pass that way, the ill-informed people of Louvain believed they had to do with parts of the scat- tered and badly beaten German army, and so began to fire on them. Let me add here as a man versed in military matters that if I were in a war I should give orders to act exactly as the Germans did in Louvain, if hostile inhabitants were treacherously shooting upon my soldiers. I ask you, was this not the customary procedure of the American soldiers in the Philippines ? As a writer, I regret, of course, very much that the library of Louvain, which was historically valuable, was burned. In war, however, fire and sword are at work, and very regrettable losses occur everywhere and among all people who fight. The English burned our library in Washington during our war with them in 1814, and I myself happened to be present in Vera Cruz, this spring, when our American marines completely destroyed the very valuable library of the Mexican Naval Academy. 1 88 Germany's Point of View Mr. Emerson then showed and described a number of pictures, and continued: After these pictures of humaneness and kindness shown by the German soldiers to hungry children in Belgium you will know what to think of the much-heralded bar- barism of the German Huns. Impartial students of his- tory, I assure you, would find it difficult to believe that a highly civilized nation which up to last August had pro- duced a number of the most eminent thinkers, scholars, explorers, poets, statesmen, and countless benefactors of the human race, should suddenly have changed into cruel Huns after August 4. At the instigation of the enemies of Germany you can read today in the foreign press stories of every kind of cruelty, brutality, and immorality-com- mitted by the German officers and soldiers. I am only one witness, but I should like to testify to what I have seen with my own eyes. I was, all told, more than one month in the war zone, and I have seen countless prisoners and have spoken to many of them perfectly freely and without the intervention of the German guards. There was not one who complained of being inhumanly treated by the Germans. Nor did I see any officer or soldier commit a brutal act against any helpless person whatsoever. During all this time I did not see a single intoxicated soldier, although there is plenty of the best wine to be had near the French front. While I was in Belgium and in the north of France I have had countless friendly interviews with Belgian and French women and young girls. Not one ever complained to me that German soldiers had maltreated her or any of her countrywomen. This was the more remarkable be- cause the Belgian and French women of the districts which have suffered by the war hate the Germans from the bottom of their hearts and are not at all backward when they are talking to neutrals. When I was in Belgium people were talking a good deal of what they called a famine. I traveled in my automobile all through Belgium, this way and that way, but I found nowhere the actual hardships of a famine. In certain localities, where no more grain could be bought, and where the cattle had been lost or killed, the Germans distributed bread and other food directly to the inhabit- ants, as you saw from the pictures I showed you. The Straightforward Conduct of Germany 189 As regards the generally good conditions under the German administration, I was actually astounded. I have been through many wars, and I can assure you that the people of Cuba during our war there with Spain, and the people of Nicaragua during the American campaign last year, suffered much more hunger and distress than the Belgian people are suffering today. If in the future it should appear, as all friends of Germany hope it may, that Edwin Emerson and the official German reports are right, and that German soldiers far from falling below the standard of warfare as carried on by the people of Western civilization have actually risen above it, American public opinion will do justice to them and with wonted generosity make good the mistake which, under existing condi- tions, it was almost impossible to avoid. Being fully convinced of this, the lovers of Germany and America and progress do not altogether regret the unfortunate turn which the universal sympathy for the sufferers of the war has taken, for without this turn people would not have realized, any more now than in former instances, how terrible are the horrors of war. Arma- ments alone do not preserve peace. They may be needed, but they must be supplemented by a different attitude of mind than characterized the several nations of Europe. Intemperate speech, suspicion of one's neighbors, and insufficient confidence in the unvarying justice of one's own desires — these were the real causes of the war. The attitude of mind which can preserve peace when the passions are high is not to be had for the asking. It is of slow growth. The old motto : *' In times of peace prepare for war," has played the world false. Let America, therefore, adopt a new motto, or rather a modification of the old one: " In times of peace prepare to avoid war." CHAPTER XV THE ENGLISH WEB OF CALUMNY LOTHAR DE BUNSEN, a cousin of Sir Maurice de Bunsen, who was the British ambassador in Vienna at the outbreak of the war, lives in Scar- borough. A few days before the attack on Scarbor- ough by the German warships he wrote a letter to his kinsfolk, Dr. and Mrs. Ernest F. Henderson of Bos- ton and Monadnock, which contains this sentence : Here we have continual scares of invasion — much to the joy of Bernard and Ronald. The whole coast is an armed camp and one does not know what will happen. Compare this with Sir Henry Luce's communication to the Nation of January 14, which said — referring to the raid on Scarborough : So far from the nation being terrorized by this attack on defenceless towns, with the concomitant circumstance of the slaughter of civilians, including women and chil- dren, the result has been a distinct incentive to recruiting. There can be no doubt that Mr. Lothar de Bunsen knew what he was talking about when he said that " the whole coast " was " an armed camp," and that Sir Henry Luce and other newspaper men who en- larged on the fact that Scarborough was defence- less, were mistaken. The realization that they have been sending out falsehoods will come as a shock to these gentlemen when they discover — perhaps not until after the war — that their own Government has 190 The English Web of Calumny 191 connived in the spreading of erroneous information. In their defence it may be said that they have few or no opportunities at the present time to ascertain the truth. But the respectable American magazines v^ho add the weight of their authority to these false- hoods by publishing them are more fortunately situ- ated, and it is greatly to be hoped that they will not hereafter permit their sympathies to blind them against the truth. All over the country thoughtful people have begun to see through the web of calumny which the British Press Bureau has endeavored to spin about Germany, and even the most prominent are no longer diffident in expressing their views. The late Curtis Guild, ex-governor of Massachusetts, sent the writer a per- sonal letter, from which the following paragraphs are quoted : My Dear Doctor : The attittide of the United States must and should be neutral. Neutrality, however, in my opinion, does not consist in attacking one belligerent and defending the other. You will not blame me, of course, for a warm affection for a country where I have been treated with the greatest kindness and courtesy, shown me in Russia. I have no objection, however, to being quoted as a witness to the courtesy and magnanimity often shown by Germany and Austria to their prisoners. The son-in-law of Lord Fisher, the first sea lord of the Admiralty, was detained as a prisoner of war in Germany. The condition of his health was such that through Amer- ican friends representations were made to the imperial German Government petitioning for his release. Dr. Robert W. Lovett, my college chum, was the prime mover in the case, but I had something to do with it. The German Government, with great magnanimity, released on parole Admiral and Mrs. Neald. I was personally called upon at an earlier date in regard 192 Germany's Point of View to a Scottish member of Parliament and his son, who were caught in the network of war at an Austrian watering- place. They were non-combatants, but the son had been most active as a soldier in the Boer War. There being no British ambassador, of course, at Vienna, the case was, through American friends, brought to the attention of the American ambassador at Vienna, in whose hands English affairs now are. Without any delay or interposi- tion of red tape these two Englishmen were sent on their way rejoicing. Your appeal for fair play the other day was so sincere and so earnest that, though I have tried to keep myself neutral except so far as my sympathies for the wounded and starving in the European country (Russia) I know best are concerned, I have no objection to your quoting me. The war is bad enough as it is without attempts by any persons to make out any of those engaged as human monsters. Very cordially yours, (Signed) Curtis Guild. Boston, Jan. ij, 1915- " Human monsters ! " This is, however, the very picture which some people have drawn of the Ger- mans in Belgium, and which other, and generally very good people, have repeated, because in the good- ness of their hearts they have not believed it possible that anybody could invent such terrible charges. Germany is the only belligerent in the western the- atre of hostilities who is carrying on the war in the enemy's country. This assures her many material advantages, but naturally increases also the resentment of the population of the occupied districts. In addi- tion to the horrors of war, men killing men, there are the hardships of war, men eating up the stores of food, and millions trying to subsist where heretofore only thousands found their livelihood. During the first enthusiasm, when the people's own troops pass along on what is confidently expected will be a march The English Web of Calumny 193 of victory, the people gladly feed them from well- filled larders. But when the soldiers pass the same way again on a hurried retreat, and the enemy entrench themselves, and through weary months are forced to remain in the conquered territory, then the giving becomes a burden, even if the food is paid for by the victorious commanders. Despair takes hold of the non-combatants, and they blame not war and conse- quently all who play this gruesome game, but the par- ticular participant in it whose prowess or lucky star has made him the master of their district. This is natural. Outsiders, however, who refuse to let their sym.pathies blind their judgment, should distinguish between the necessary hardships of war and those which a humane conqueror could avoid. In the present case even friends of Germany have been not a little troubled by some practices which have seemed to be indefensible. While America is generously pouring out food, money, and supplies, the papers alm.ost weekly report new levies of money or supplies made by the Germans in the very districts which America is called upon to feed. Terrible ac- counts of suffering continue to arrive from Belgium, while no official contradictions of the excessive Ger- man demands seem to be issued. At this distance it is impossible to argue the case. A few general observations, however, may be of help for those who wish to form their own conclusions. A community may be perfectly well able to make a substantial contribution and yet exhibit among its poorer people an appalling degree of suffering. Every- body will agree that this should not be so, but it is so. During an exceedingly cold night in New York, 194 Germany's Point of View a few weeks ago, the lodging houses were so full that in a particular house four hundred and twenty-eight men were herded into one room. They were so tightly packed that lying or sitting down was impossible for anyone. Every piece of furniture had been removed to gain space. The men stood up all night, each one supported by those about him, and thus they — slept! Many were very hungry. This happened in New York, the richest community of the United States, which is able to pay millions of dollars each year in taxes. Many of the so-called " indemnities " levied by the Germans in Belgian cities are taxes. When an army occupies a city or a district it becomes responsible for its administration, and by international law has not only the right but also the duty of collecting the taxes and disbursing them as the needs of the place demand. In Brussels, for instance, and doubtless in other cities also, the Belgian policemen and other civil employees have been retained at their former salaries. Why should these salaries not be paid by the people for whose benefit they are disbursed? Often the Germans found an empty municipal exchequer v/hen they arrived, the previous government having fled with the available cash. In such cases an immediate con- tribution became necessary, which was as annoying to the Belgians as it is to anybody to have to pay his taxes twice because the town treasurer had run away with the first levy. In addition to these perfectly legitimate contribu- tions, the German commanders have occasionally levied what has been called punitive contributions. It is these extraordinary taxes which at this distance neither The English Web of Calumny 195 the friends of Germany can undertake to defend, nor her opponents claim to be sufficiently well informed to condemn. On January 16 the Belgian Legation in Washing- ton issued the following notice : According to a cable received by the Belgian Legation today, the city of Courtrai, Belgium, has been fined ten million marks (about $2,500,000) by Germany, not for disobedience, but for obeying the orders of German commanders. The circumstances are as follows : Two German officers, Commander Maxerman and Commandant Pschors, arrived at Courtrai and ordered the municipal authorities to have all arms deposited in the Tower of Broel, under threat of a heavy penalty. In compliance with these. instructions, all arms were deposited in the place named. Then there arrived a new German commander, Com- mandant van Kneesebeck, who goes to the Tower of Broel, sees the arms in the place where the other German com- manders had ordered them put, and fines the city of Courtrai ten million marks, under pretext that it is a clandestine deposit of arms, in spite of the fact that the order of his predecessors to place the arms in the Tower of Broel was well known to everybody and was even placarded on the walls of Courtrai. There are in Courtrai at present no Belgian officials who could officially report this incident to M. Habe- nith, the Belgian minister in Washington. It is, there- fore, based on private information. Those who are looking for injustice from Germany will believe it; others will doubt it, because it is too obviously a ridicu- lous act of oppression. It is here quoted as contain- ing an indication of conditions under which punitive contributions may be levied. If a community main- tains clandestine deposits of arms, the occupying Power has the right to punish it, and the most humane punishment is a fine. Such fines should be commen- 196 Germany's Point of View surate not only to the degree of guilt, but also to the ability of the community to bear them. Looked at from this angle the levying of the contribution itself is no act of oppression, although it may become so when it is disproportionately large, or levied not for cause but on a pretext. Judged by the accounts of those who have actually been in Belgium, like Messrs. Irvin Cobb or James O'Donnell Bennett, there is not one scintilla of truth in the assertion that Germany had unjustly wielded her power of levying punitive contributions. By all odds the most important and enlightening discussion of this subject was printed in the New York Times and Sun January 17. It was written by James O'Donnell Bennett in reply to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Unfortunately for Boston readers their own Sunday paper, which is syndicated with the Times, did not print this article. Add to this conscious policy of suppression practiced by some papers, the difficulty of obtaining authentic news from the war zone, and the neutral bias of the British censor in control of the cables, and it is not difficult to see that an erroneous picture of Germany's treatment of Belgium may have gained currency in many quarters. If Belgium is starving today to a greater degree than New York and Boston are starving, where thou- sands of people are out of work and hungry every day of the week, the fault does not rest with Germany but with England and incidentally America. England has avowedly begun a campaign of starving out her enemies. Contrary to all laws of humanity, and in defiance of international law, as interpreted by her own statesmen, England prevents shipment of food The English Web of Calumny^ 197 from reaching not only the military forces but also the civil population of her enemy. And although America has recently addressed a note to her, she has fallen far short from demanding the respect which, in the interest of justice, England herself once de- clared neutral Powers should enforce. On December 15, 1870, the London Times, then the official organ of the British ministry, declared: Germany might have refused to recognize the immunity of neutrals' goods in French ships or French goods in neutral bottoms, and no action can be conceived more injurious to neutrals, especially to those neutrals who possess regularly commissioned navies that can command the seas. Why has Germany refrained from this step? Simply because she is pledged by the Treaty of Paris to abstain from privateering, and she has a wholesome apprehension that neutral Powers would not tolerate a violation of the engagement. Does England's present conduct imply that an offi- cial man-of-war can do what a privateer should not do? Or that the United States does not possess a " regularly commissioned " navy, " that can command the sea?" Or that, because of her influential sympa- thizers in this country, she need not have "a whole- some apprehension that neutral Powers would not tol- erate a violation of the engagement?" Whatever her reasons may be, she has certainly not shown any " wholesome apprehension " that America would " not tolerate a violation " of her own interpretation of the rights of neutrals, and of the far greater rights of humanity, which demand that non-combatants be not deprived of their food supply. As a matter of fact, England, with the consent of the only great neutral Power who could force her to do right, has for months 198 Germany's Point of View cut off the food supply from Germany, and conse- quently also from Belgium. Although Belgium has sacrificed herself to save France and England, the lat- ter are perfectly willing to see the Belgians starve. In their desire to starve the civil population of Ger- many they do not shrink from sacrificing the very lives of their plucky ally, Belgium. If tomorrow the United States Government should insist that food supplies for the civil populations of Germany, Austria, and Belgium should pass to these countries, there would be no further need for Belgian relief funds and committee. Give Germany the opportunity of feeding the hungry people in the dis- tricts occupied by her and she will do it as well as she has always fed her own poor, and for years has ban- ished destitution such as is known in London, Liver- pool, New York, and Boston from her own big cities. Such a result, however, would upset the anti-Ger- man propaganda in America which is drawing its sustenance from the appeals for sympathy which the accounts of Belgian distress cannot help produc- ing. The good people making these appeals often play, perhaps without knowing it, fast and loose with the truth, and doubtless are believed by many. To take only two instances: In his appeal for Belgium, Mr. E. Summer Mansfield, Belgian consul in Boston and chairman of the New England Belgian Relief Committee, makes this statement : " The entire popu- lation of Belgium is destitute and without govern- mental protection of any kind." That the first part of this assertion is very much exaggerated is shown not only by the accounts of reputable American news- paper men who are writing on the spot, but also by The English Web of Calumny 199 the accounts in the impartial Swiss, Dutch and Scandi- navian press, not to mention the official German re- ports. It could be completely dispelled if Mr. Bryan chose to publish the reports of the American minister in Belgium. The second part of Mr. Mansfield's claim cannot, of course, be believed by anybody, for nobody yet has accused Germany of insufficiently "governing" any- where she has control. If people, nevertheless, should feel inclined to give credence to Mr. Mansfield, they should turn to Mr. Bennett's account, mentioned above, and read of the security felt by the inhabitants whenever German officials take charge of affairs. The same paper which contained Mr. Mansfield's overstatements brought an advertisement of the Ker- messe Flamande with this sentence in large type: " The Great Hall will represent the picturesque square of the ancient city of Louvain, destroyed by the Germans." It is undoubtedly true that many people still be- lieve that Louvain has been destroyed. Months ago the German Government published a map of Louvain in which the small part which was burned was shaded. Some American papers have reproduced this map; others have failed to do so, although it was offered to them. In addition, the German Government pub- lished a large picture divided into two parts. On the right was a photograph of the famous Town Hall of Louvain before the war and on the left one of the Town Hall after "the destruction of Louvain." The latter showed many debris and ruins in the foreground, and contained a legend to the effect that the ruins were those of the adjacent houses which had been 200 Germany's Point of View dynamited by a German officer and his volunteer sol- diers, at the risk of their lives, to save the Town Hall when the fire had spread. In America generally only the half of the picture which shows the ruins in the foreground has been reproduced, and the ex- planatory legend has been — erased! A casual glance at the picture, therefore, conveys the impression that the Town Hall lies in ruins, and that what still is standing must be useless. And, finally, only one other reference to a news item of a few weeks ago which was adversely commented upon in many editorials, and increased the bitterness which many pro-Allies felt toward Germany. It was prominently reported that Germany had notified the neutral countries that she would no longer feel obliged to recognize the exequaturs granted by the Belgian governments to the consuls of these countries. This was interpreted to mean, so far as the United States are concerned, that Germany wished to be rid of the American officials in Belgium who, alone, could still be trusted to see that some degree of justice was se- cured for the oppressed people of Belgium. Later it was found, and inconspicuously reported by some, but not by all the papers, that Germany's note had no special reference to American officials in Belgium; for just as Mr. Mansfield, the Belgian consul in Bos- ton, is not a Belgian, but an American, so many for- eign consuls in Belgium are citizens of that country. Germany did not want to have her commercial busi- ness with the neutral countries, with whom she wishes to maintain friendly relations, carried on by consuls who are citizens of a hostile nation, and she gave a notice which enables her to cancel the exequatur — The English Web of Calumny 201 any country has the right to do this and often does it — of any consul whose personal animosity tends to create ill feeling between her and other countries. Those whO' know Germany and her people do not need any arguments to make them feel convinced that the picture of inhuman and cruel Germans oppressing Belgium is erroneous ; but there are a great many peo- ple who do not know Germany, or, what is even worse, only half know her. To answer their several argu- ments in favor of their anti-German views is impos- sible; nobody, moreover, is ever convinced against his will. If these people, however, will take the pains of following out the various lines of investigation suggested in this and the chapters which treat of Ger- many and Belgium, they will at least see what has puzzled many of them, that it is possible to arrive honestly at opinions contrary to their own. This whole discussion began with a letter by Mrs. Caroline A. Mason, which appears in Chapter xiii, it may, therefore, fittingly be concluded with a reply received by Mrs. Mason, which is here published with the consent both of the sender and the receiver: Mrs. Caroline A. Mason : Dear Madam — After reading your letter to Dr. von Mach, as reprinted in his article in the Boston Transcript, I cannot refrain from writing to you in regard to what you say has been your experience in traveling in Ger- many. It surprised me very much, and I feel sure it is entirely exceptional. I myself have traveled alone from one end of Germany to the other, staying alone in hotels and traveling by night as well as by day. I have also taken extended walking trips in company with one other lady, often visiting places where no Americans had been before us, and I have never experienced anything but kindness and politeness. It is true that many German 202 Germany's Point of View tourists of the bourgeoisie class have bad table manners, are noisy, and not altogether agreeable, but I have not found that they are inclined to molest or disturb other travelers; on the contrary, I could fill a volume with instances of true and delicate courtesy and helpfulness on the part of Germans of every rank and station, even the lowest. A statement made by the superintendent of the Sailors' Haven in Boston, an institution devoted to the welfare of all seamen of whatever nationality, may be worth quoting in this connection, even though it is not strictly to the point. He says that the German sailors are the cleanest set of men he has ever known. I was in Germany last summer, during the first month of the war, and I am one of many Americans who can testify to the extreme consideration with which we were treated under what no one can deny were most trying circumstances. The behavior of some Americans during that time was a painful and humiliating contrast and a poor return for the courtesy accorded them. I have the honor to be, Respectfully yours, (Signed) Amy T. Marston. loi Pinckney St., Boston, Jan. 12, 1915. This letter quotes Mr. King, the superintendent of the Sailors' Haven, who, therefore, was asked whether he was willing to have his statement that ''the Ger- man sailors are the cleanest set of men he has ever known," published. He replied, " Yes. And add ' the politest.' " CHAPTER XVI ''la GRANDE PITIE DES EGLISES DE FRANCE'^ PROFESSOR BARRETT WENDELL has coupled his name with that of Mr. Whitney Warren, an American architect of French training, who has sent out an appeal after "a, four days' trip through the wasted towns of northern France and western Bel- gium, where he has seen the devastation wrought by the Germans." Both gentlemen are thoroughly familiar with France and must have known of the terrible destruction of beautiful French churches, relics of the best period of years at the behest of an anti-Christian French Govern- ment. Why did they shut their eyes to such vandalism, nor raise their voices in protest, or support M. Maurice Barres, academician and member of the French Parlia- ment, who in vain has tried to stem the tide? Why did they not exclaim in horror when in his official reply to M. Barres' protest, M. Beauquier uttered these blasphemous words in the French Chamber of Deputies, amid great applause and laughter: Since God is almighty, He can himself repair His churches and see to it that they are not destroyed. If He does not perform this miracle, it means that He does not wish to do it. And if He does not wish it, we must bow to His wilL Why did none of these lovers of ''la Belle Paris" tell their countrymen in America what was going on 203 204 Germany's Point of View throughout France since the passage of the anti- rehgion law a few years ago? Does it mean nothing to them when old baptismal fountains are ripped from their sites of centuries and desecrated by being placed as troughs in municipal piggeries ! And that in times of peace, with the approval and even at the command of the Government ! Not even the most destructive German shells, nor all of them combined, have probably done as much harm as the iniquitous French law which made the church buildings the property of the municipalities, which have the right to close them to the worshippers whenever the buildings are out of repair. The munici- palities are neither obliged to repair the buildings nor to permit the congregations to repair them. When no mass has been said in a church for some time the building may be condemned and be sold at auction. How this law works may be best illustrated by reciting the fate that befell the beautiful church of Grisy- Suisnes. It is here translated from M. Maurice Barres' book, La Grande Pitie des Eglises de France: One fine day late in the year 1909 the Abbe Auvray, curate of Grisy-Suisnes, which is the county seat of Brie- Comte-Robert, where the beautiful roses are, received a call from the local gendarme, who told him that he was instructed to report within forty-eight hours to the mayor, M. Triboulet, whether the curate wished to pay from his tithes for the necessary repairs in his church. The repairs were necessary and considerable : the roof was falling to pieces, and the official architect has estimated the cost to be 48,000 francs. M. Auvray had raised 25,000 francs, which he placed at the disposal of the municipality. More he could not do. . . . Six months passed, and then the gendarme returned to the priest, from whom he obtained the church keys, under some pretext. He brusquely placed them in his pocket, and notified the abbe that a proclama- "La Grande Pitie des Eglises de France" 205 tion had been issued and the church building been declared to be no longer a consecrated building. Within a week notice appeared, signed by MM. Triboulet, mayor, and Paillard, sheriff, announcing the public sale of the " effects and the articles of divine worship." M. Henry Carbonelle of La Liberie, attended the auction. Listen to his account: When I arrived at Grisy I met on the road from the station three or four young country fellows who had secured some vestments of the boys' choir. They had put on the cassocks and placed on their heads the little red calottes. They were singing obscene songs which they accomxpanied with gestures of the same nature. In the church some fifty people were assembled about M. Paillard, who acted as auctioneer. He was conducting the business from the high altar, and stood on an impro- vised platform. Near him his clerk was taking notes of the prices. ". . . fifteen francs for this confessional; 15 francs! . . . "— 16, 17, 18. . . /' The confessional was knocked down for 19 francs. A workman triumphantly carried away a chair at forty francs. A Virgin in stone, head and arms broken, brought 401 francs, while an entirely new snowy-white St. Joseph barely found a purchaser at one franc and fifteen centimes. The Virgin, to be sure, dated from the fifteenth century. The organ sold for 115 francs. The clock, weight 500 kilos, was knocked down for 800 francs. " That's too much," a dealer whispered by my side ; " one franc a kilo would have been enough." Night came: the candles were lighted. Some fellows who smoked made use of this opportunity to light their pipes or cigarettes. The auction proceeded : " Five francs fifty centimes for the Christ, thirty-five francs for the altar-rug, twenty-eight francs for the beadle's stick, twenty-five francs for a * Descent from the Cross.' "- But the night settled in darkness over the church, which looked like a junk-shop. It was necessary to stop. " I can't come tomorrow," the sheriff said, discussing the matter with the mayor. At last the mayor announced — and his voice thundered through the church — " The 2o6 Germany's Point of View auction will be resumed next Saturday, on Christmas Day, at one o'clock." On my way to the station I met at the door of the saloon the merry young fellows of before, still dressed in the cassocks. But they had stopped singing. They were drinking. After the movable effects were sold, the build- ing itself was knocked down piecemeal, and then the demolisseurs arrived. A correspondent of I' Echo de Paris, M. Clair Guyot, saw them at work. " When I arrived," he said, " the walls had been torn down, and the stones been neatly piled up around what used to be the nave. The men were tugging with enor- mous levers at the foundations of a buttress which they were demolishing. Under their frequently renewed efforts the stones began to crumble, and at last the foreman shouted, ' There she goes ! ' " " I say," one of the workmen said, " that was hard work. Say what you will, those old fellows used to build well." " I'll bet," another replied, " that they did not think that some day people would dare to demolish their church. If they could see what's left of it now ! ..." During this conversation some children had come along on their way from school, also the gendarme. " Well, well," the latter said, " it seems to me you have done a good job since I was here last. Have you found anything ? " " Yes," said a laborer, " a bronze coin. It's very old, for the date is 1610." The "patron " was so pleased with it that he paid us the price of a couple of drinks. The " patron " was not, as you might think, the con- tractor. This " patron " was his honor the mayor. " That doesn't at all astonish me," the gendarme replied, " for he came here while you were at lunch, thinking that there might be something here, and poked about with his stick. By the way, have you looked into this hole? I'm sure it will contain something wonderful." One workman at once began to ply his pickaxe. The school children hid behind some stones for fear of being driven off. Under the blows of the pickaxe the pavement of the ancient nave gave way, the earth caved in, and some human bones appeared. Then, dropping their tools, the workmen hauled out what was left of those who had once received sacred burial in this church. The first thing to be lifted out was a skull which had been pierced by the ''La Grande Pitie des Eglises de France'' 207 pickaxe, and which was thrown far away; then a big breast and backbone, and at last some huge thigh bones. " This was a mighty chesty chap," one of the workmen said. "Ah, me ! the old fellow did not dream that we should haul him out again some day. Wait a moment. Let's make him dance a can-can ! " Then, holding between his knees the upper parts, he joined to them the thigh bones, and, when his work was well done, he moved the figure to and fro in rhythmical cadence, whistling a tune. The others laughed. I had enough, and fled. Where were the French-American architects then, and where the high-churchmen, who today are trying to make capital for their anti-German propaganda of the unfortunate damage done to some of the glorious monuments of art? Rheims, the beautiful, dearer probably to the Germans, who love not only art but religion, than to the French, was wantonly turned into a fortress. The French knew very well that it is impossible to fortify a place and to shoot at an enemy from Rheims without drawing also his fire upon Rheims. Mr. Warren Whitney's appeal would have rung truer, if years ago he had demanded that the fortress of Rheims be razed. And truer still, if he had joined M. Maurice Barres in his endeavor to save the churches of France, for Grisy-Suisnes is not the only place which stands today deprived of its old shrine. Let people read M. Barres' book, let them visualize the destruction wrought, and above all the blasphemous spirit in which it has been done. When the truth is known America will no longer waste her pity on a country which in a sacrilegious spirit has made war for years not only against the Christian religion, but against all religion. America does not care how a man worships, but she insists that 2o8 Germany's Point of View the Deity be not profaned. To raze a beautiful old Gothic church out of spite to the sect which still wishes to worship there, and even more perhaps out of the desire to enrich the public coffers with the paltry sum the church and its sacred effects may bring at auction, this is so abhorrent to the average American that Messrs. Wendell and Whitney have wisely refrained from mentioning it. " Devastation wrought by the Germans ! " Indeed ! Why is the Cathedral of Rheims even' today undam- aged except its roof? Because it was Germans', and not Frenchmen, who were fired upon from the fortress, because with a self-control unparalleled in the annals of warfare, the Germans forbore to do what they had a perfect right to do when the French had made an observation point of the towers of the cathedral. In spite of all denials by the press, it is an established fact that the French so used the cathedral. There is many a monument in France and Belgium which owes its preservation to German care, devotion, and self-sacrifice, and to try to make capital of the destruction of other places is playing fast and loose with facts. There is not another nation which, under similar conditions, would have destroyed so little as the Germans. Would the French, whose artillery is shooting today on their own treasures, and who even in years of peace destroyed their own churches, have spared Rheims Cathedral? Or the English, whose records in Africa, Egypt, and India are known, who are today bombarding the coast towns of Belgium and the villages behind the German trenches, and who in 1814 set fire to the White House and the Capitol, not because it was a military necessity, but wantonly ? Or '^La Grande Pifie des Eglises de France^' 209 would even the Americans have been able to save Rheims when they failed, in their expedition to Vera Cruz, to save from destruction the valuable library of the Naval Academy ? Or the Russians, or any other nation save perhaps the Japanese? War is a terrible thing, and war carried on in the enemy's country will always let loose a horde of com- plaints against the victor. War cannot be carried on with kid gloves, and Germany is not, nor can she be, in the conquered territory, a gentle master. But she is just and humane, all hostile reports to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor can this be different, for the German army is a citizen army where no criminals or savages are admitted. This point cannot be over- emphasized, for it distinguishes the German army from all others. As early as October 27, 1914, the Niagara Falls, (N. Y.) Journal contained the following notice from Niagara Falls, Ontario: The military authorities have asked the police here to send all British subjects who appear in court to the Victoria Avenue armory if they desire to enlist. While no man with a criminal record is permitted to serve with the German army, the English have done much of their recruiting among culprits whose sentences were remitted if they were willing to enlist, whether or no they had previous records. This may account for the fact that a phrase which constantly appeared in the first English reports seems latterly to have disappeared: "The morale of our men is excellent." In spite of this there are not a few high-minded Americans who, knowing only the finest type of Eng- lishmen, will not be shaken in their belief that the 2IO Germany's Point of View English warfare is superior, and actually nobler, than that of other people. Possibly the following letter which appeared in the London Daily News of August i6, 1906, may open their eyes. It was written by a British officer to his mother, recording the progress of events in the campaign against the Zulu chief, Bambaata : About nine o'clock a. m., Mudhlogozulu, the paramount chief, appeared, carrying a white flag. Some two or three hundred accompanied him. He arrived a few yards in front of a sergeant and explained that he wanted to give in. The reply, of course, was a bullet that must have sent his brains some fifty yards off. His followers, who were now far too terrorized to use their weapons, stood back in a mass and shrieked for mercy. Mercy came quicker than expected — in the shape of a Maxim. What a sight ! The whole bundle dropped lifeless in less than a minute! Several women were among the slain, as well as a lot of young boys. . . . The general way of dispatching the prisoners is to take them out of camp and tell them to run away into bush. They only get about twenty yards or so when a bullet reaches them, and, of course, it is, " Good- bye, John," for them. A faithful Kaffir was looking about the fallen when he found Bambaata and at once took steps to have his head brought into camp for identification. Well, the first thing the doctor ordered was to have the matter kept secret, and also to have it stuffed at once. We carried the head with us for about a week, when it was dissected, and the skull will probably be made into a nice tobacco jar for someone. Curiously enough, I was never in better health, and altogether the food is splendid. In fact, I think it is the finest picnic I have ever been at. Those who think this letter too terrible to be true should look for confirmation of this EngHsh spirit of warfare to Mr. Churchill's account of Lord Kitch- ener's River War, and remember that the Daily News is no sensational paper, but the organ of the Society of Friends. "La Grande Pitie des Eglises de France" 211 The most horrible tale, however, that has come from the English army was related in Collier's Weekly, January 2, 1915, page 6: In a temporary hospital near the front, some fifty German and Indian wounded were put in the same ward. In the night the Indians got up and cut the Germans' throats. There was no editorial comment, no rebuke to the English for introducing such savages into Europe, no reminder that the recurrence of such practices would irretrievably alienate from. England the sympathies of all Americans. Forgotten, alas ! in many quarters, is the American Declaration of Independence, while its memory is kept alive in the hearts of America's more recent citizens. How many Americans who today blame the Germans for their bitterness against oppo- nents who are fighting them with savage Indians, Zouaves, and Turkos, know that their forefathers men- tioned in their Declaration of Independence as one of the reasons why henceforth there could be no connec- tion between them and England, that : He [the king of England] had endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is in undistin- guished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions. Even if this declaration has ceased to carry its message of proud independence to some Americans whose families have been long settled here, the Ameri- cans of German descent feel its ennobling force, and are proud that their hearts are vibrating to the emo- tions of the founders of American independence. God bless those noble men of long ago ! And God bless William 11 of Hohenzollern, German 212 Germany's Point of View Emperor! Some have called him medieval and out of date, many have maligned him, but nobody, familiar with his character and his work, has failed to recognize that in an age of materialism William ii has been the immovable rock of religious faith. Compare the de- struction of churches and the persecution especially of the Catholic faith in France with the toleration of all creeds and the reverence offered to the Deity in Ger- many, and you will see that also in this respect Ger- many is nearer to America than any other country. The Emperor's Christianity is very practical, and that is the reason why it has been so distasteful to the opponents of all religion, and why it has won for him the admiration of his countrymen. His speeches ring true. Sixteen years ago almost to the day he ad- dressed the men of Brandenburg, which is the oldest province of Prussia, in these words [the translation is quoted from What Germany Wants, pages 31 to 34] : My Dear Mr. President and Men of Brandenburg: The address which we have just heard gave a most patriotic survey, poetically embellished, of the deeds of the Hohenzollerns and the history of our people. I believe I am expressing your own feelings when I say that two factors made it possible for my ancestors to solve their problems as they did. One, and the chief factor, was that they of all the princes, at a time when such thoughts and feelings were not yet universal, realized their personal responsibility toward God, and acted accordingly, and the other, that they had the support of the people of Brandenburg. Put yourselves back for a moment to the time when Lord Frederick i was appointed elector here, and ex- changed his splendid home in Franconia for the March of Brandenburg. According to the historians, the condi- tions here at that time were such that we today can barely "La Grande Pitie des Eglises de France'' 213 conceive of them. We can therefore understand Lord Frederick's action only if we assume that he felt it his duty to accept the country which the emperor's favor had bestowed on him. He was eager to introduce in Branden- burg system and order, 'not only because he wished to please the emperor, and himself, but because he believed Heaven had assigned to him this task. Similar motives we can trace with all my ancestors. Their big wars with other countries, and their institutions and laws at home, were ever inspired by the one feeling of responsibility to the people who had been given into their keeping, and the country which had been intrusted to them. The president of the province has kindly referred to our trip to Palestine and what I did there. I am free to say that I have had many and varied experiences of an elevat- ing nature in that country, partly religious, partly histor- ical, and partly, also, connected with modern life. My most inspiring experience, however, next to the service in our own church, was to stand on the Mount of Olives and see the spot at its base where the greatest struggle of the world was fought — by the One Man — for the redemp- tion of mankind. This realization induced me to renew on that day my oath of allegiance, as it were, to God on high. I swore to do my very best to knit my people to- gether, and to destroy whatever could disintegrate them. During my stay in that foreign country, where we Germans miss the woods and the beautiful sheets of water which we love, I often thought of the lakes of Branden- burg and their clear, sombre depths, and of our forests of oaks and pines, and then I said to myself that, after all, we are far happier here than in foreign lands, although the other people of Europe often pity us. Speaking of trees, and our care and love of them, I am reminded of an incident which is of interest to us who have begun to assist the growth of the German empire. It happened after the great and inspiring events of 1870-71. The troops had returned, the exultation had abated, people had resumed their former labors, and the work of solidify- ing and developing the new Fatherland was beginning. The three paladins of the grand old Emperor, the great General, the mighty Chancellor, and the faithful Minister of War, had sat down to a meal, for the first time alone. When they had drunk their first glass to the sovereign and the empire, the Chancellor turned to his companions 214 Germany's Point of View and said : " Now we have obtained everything for the realization of which we have been fighting, struggHng, and suffering. We have reached the highest goal of which we ever dared to dream. After our experiences, what more can there be to interest and to inspire us ? " There was a brief pause, and then the old director of battles said, " To see the tree grow ! " And the room was very still. Yes, gentlemen, the tree which we must watch and care for is the German Empire Oak. It is bound to grow, because it has the protection of the men of Brandenburg. Here are its roots. It has weathered many a storm, and has often almost died, but its roots and shoots, firmly planted in Brandenburg soil, will keep, God grant, in all eternity ! The wish to bring about peace among all the people is magnificent, but one big mistake is generally made in all such calculations. As long as unregenerated sin rules among men there will be war and hatred, envy and dis-* cord, and one man will try to get the better of another. The law of men is also the law of nations. Let us Ger- mans, therefore, hold together like a solid rock! And may every wave which threatens peace, far away or at home in Europe, dash in vain against this immovable rock — the German people ! The Emperor's hopes have not come true. The most terrible tempest is raging, and Germany has been drawn into the vortex with irresistible force. Wars are only the continuations of previous policies, and so long as these are hidden who dares to say that Germany is altogether right and that her oppo- nents are wrong? But of this, all who know Germany are convinced that she is not wrong in the sense in which she has been misrepresented. And, so far as the Emperor is concerned, he will yet be known, not as the War Lord, which is a mistranslation of Kriegs- herr, but as the prince who loved peace, and the man who through a long and successful reign never lost his faith in God, and who lived a life of such personal "La Grande Pitie des Eglises de France'' 215 purity that no one dared to point the finger of scandal at him. Other leaders may have been more brilliant, or have increased their country by successful wars, but never yet has a man assisted his people, by the arts of peace, to as phenomenal a growth of prosperity as he. People have called him headstrong and fond of managing everything himself. But in the supreme moment, during ten months of the war, strong leader that he is, he has completely effaced himself. This is the reason why today everybody in Germany, young and old, rich and poor, prince and peasant, joins in the one prayer : ** God bless William 11 ! " CHAPTER XVII THE FRENCH YELLOW BOOK THE FRENCH Yellow Book is one of the most remarkable official publications ever issued. Avowedly circulated to prove the justice of the French case, it makes the most damaging admissions concerning the Allies, and, when one separates truth from fiction, reads like the eloquent pleading of a pro-German. If it correctly portrays the state of mind of the French officials in the anxious days pre- ceding the war, it suggests that among the Allies only Sazonof kept his head, because he was the only one who knew from the first just what he wanted. The book is delightful reading, but since it is full of contradictions a detailed study of its many despatches is needed to obtain a clear picture of the important ante-bellum events. Since not everybody is able to give the book such a study, the results of a thorough analysis and of a comparison of the French despatches with those published by Sir Edward Grey are here presented under eight separate heads. Each part is complete in itself, although it has not been deemed necessary to repeat in full in the later parts the quotations and references given in the earlier parts. The first three parts are introductory, and show that the French publication is incomplete, often inaccurate, and at times intentionally misleading. The remaining five parts discuss in turn the atti- 2l6 The French Yellow Book 217 tudes of Russia, France, Austria, Germany, and England. The Yellow Book, like all other Parliamentary pa- pers, is incomplete. Many despatches have been omitted. In Numbers 16 and 17 M. Martin announces to his ambassadors everywhere that M. Jules Cambon had sent him an important message from Berlin. The message itself, however, is not printed. One wonders what it may have contained in addition to the news that the Bourse is extremely weak (No. 16) and that in fact there had been a slump (No. 17). In Numbers 17, 26, 2y, references are made to despatches from Rome, while the despatches them- selves are missing. It will be remembered that most of the despatches omitted from the British Blue Book also hailed from Rome (see New York Times, No- vember I, 1914). Number 31 is a brief despatch from St. Petersburg on the subject covered by the long despatch Number 6 of the British Blue Book. Did the French Government omit most of the despatch because it was somewhat inconvenient to be reminded of several things? (i), that the French ambassador had promised as early as July 24 to go with Russia through thick and thin. This might have taken the luster off the promises to work for peace, which were to be strewn liberally through the book. (2), that Great Britain, the noble defender of weak and down- trodden Servia, said on July 24 that "her interests in Servia were mV." (3), that the Russian prime minister, M. Sazonof, said, on July 24, that Russian mobilization must "be carried out." One wonders when it really began. The Czar telegraphed the Ger- man Emperor on July 30 that it began on July 25. 2i8 Germany's Point of View But did he know? (4), that Sazonof himself wrote the reply which Servia sent to the Austrian demand. This deduction seems clear from the words quoted below. It will be remembered (British Blue Book No. 6) that Sazonof and the British and the French am- bassadors had gathered for a friendly chat. Said the British ambassador, " It seems to me desirable that we should know how Servia will answer." (His report puts it " is prepared to go to meet the demands formulated by Austria in her note.") Sazonof replied, "I must first consult my colleagues." (5), that at this same conference it was decided that it would be best if Sir Edward Grey would promise his sup- port at once, but that France and Russia " were deter- mined to make a strong stand," even if Grey " declined to join them." Since they were assured of Grey's dip- lomatic support, " strong stand " strikes the reader as a pleasant euphemism. The same diffidence induced the French Govern- ment to "doctor" Sazonof 's threat (British Blue Book No. 17), which said that Russia could not allow Austria to crush Servia and become the predominant Power in the Balkans, and if she feels secure of the support of France she will face all the risks of war, or, rather to omit the despatch of the French ambas- sador in St. Petersburg altogether, and to substitute one from Rome (No. 52), in which Sazonof told the first part of his threat, but not the threat of war, to the Italian ambassador, who telegraphed it to his foreign secretary in Rome, who told the French ambassador, who reported home. It will be seen later that while The French Yellow Book 219 threats of war were freely spoken of between France, England, and Russia, they were always omitted in discussing the case with Germany, Austria, and Italy. In Number 50 Martin refers to a despatch by Jules Cambon, the French ambassador in Berlin, who had said that Germany would reply to the first Rus- sian steps by attacking France. The despatch itself, and all the other interesting information it may have contained, have been omitted. Similar omissions may be detected throughout the Yellow Book. A very notable one is the autograph letter from the President to the king referred to in Number no as intended to influence England in favor of France. The text of the letter, which must have been written on July 30, 19 14, is not given in the Yellow Book, and when it was pub- lished by England on February 20, 191 5, it was wrongly dated, July 31, 19 14. Unlike most other official documents, this Yellow Book is inaccurate on its own internal evidence. Many of the despatches seem to have been written up from notes, the same notes serving for several despatches. Thus, in Number 25, M. Berthelot in Paris uses the same words, which, in Number 29, the Russian charge d'affaires is quoted as having spoken to Jules Cambon in Berlin. Part of Number 74 has been prepared from the same notes as Number 81. In Number 74, which dates from Berlin, July 27, Jules Cambon wrote : As Herr von Jagow did not answer me clearly, I asked him if he wanted war. He protested energetically. . . . " Moreover," he added, " direct conversations between Vienna and St. Petersburg are begun and are proceeding. I expect much good of them, and I have hope." 220 Germany's Point of View Number 8i, of July 2'8i, is another despatch from Jules Cambon, in Berlin, and contains these words : I asked him if he wanted war; he protested, and added that direct conversations between Vienna and St. Peters- burg were begun, and that from now on he expected a favorable result. Other inaccuracies have to do with the placing of the despatches out of their order. Number 33 states that the Austrian ultimatum is not known and should, therefore, precede Numbers 30, 31, 32 in which the ultimatum is known. In like manner Numbei^ 68, which speaks of a proposal of Sir Edward Grey, as of one that is to be made in the future, antedates Number 61, where Sir Edward's proposal is discussed. The same is true of Number 112, which was written be- fore Number 113. These and similar mistakes may be due to the hasty makeup of the Yellow Book, although the French Gov- ernment took more time for it than any other Govern- ment. No such excuse is possible for the following errors. In Number 30, Berlin, July 24, the beginning and the end contradict each other: I asked the Secretary of State if it was true, as was stated in the newspapers, that Austria had sent a note to the Powers dealing with her differences with Servia; if he had received it. Herr von Jagow replied affirmatively, adding that the note was energetic, and that he approved it, the Servian Government having long since exhausted Austrian patience. The last paragraph of the same note reads : It is none the less striking to note the care with which Herr von Jagow and all the officials under him are at pains to say to everybody that they know nothing of the nature of the note handed by Austria to Servia. The French Yellow Book 221 Even more striking is the fact that the Austrian note was delivered in Belgrade at 6 p. m., the previous day (Number 23), and that it was presented in Paris at 10 A. M. It is given in full in Number 24, and yet in Number 30 Jules Cambon has to explain his query by a reference to newspaper accounts. Equally marvelous is Jules Cambon's question in Number 92, July 29 : I asked Herr von Jagow if at last he had the reply of • Servia to Austria, because two days earlier, in Number 74, July 27, he reported to Paris as follows : I asked him if he had made himself acquainted with the Servian reply to Austria, which had been handed to him that morning by the Servian charge d'affaires. Number 28, July 24, gives evidence of a remarkable memory on the part of Martin. On this day the Ger- man ambassador, von Schoen, presented a note to the French Foreign Office of which he did not wish to leave a copy, but which, at my request, he read twice. Then Martin proceeds to quote almost verbatim the note presented by von Schoen. We can check the accuracy of his memory by the published account of this note in the German White Paper and the Brit- ish Blue Book, for the identical note was handed to, and left with. Sir Edward Grey on the same day. It covers an entire page in the Blue Book, Number 9, and, since London and Paris were in almost hourly com- munication with each other in those days, it is more likely that Martin knew the note from London than 222 Germany's Point of View that he remembered it. It is, however, strange that Paul Cambon's despatch from London containing the note is absent, and that Martin's later orders to his ambassadors are in error as regards the presentation of this note in London. In Number 36, July 25, Martin makes the definite statement that the German ambassador in London had not yet presented the note ; and in Number 50, July 26, that he had presented it on July 25, when, as a matter of fact. Sir Edward Grey prints it as received on July 24. In this same Number 50, July 26, Jules Cambon is quoted as reporting from Berlin that Germany would attack France on the first Russian steps, but his own despatch is not given. The Yellow Book abounds in various statements, which are flatly contradicted by known facts. The most glaring instance of this is Number 127, August I, addressed by the French premier, M. Viviani, to his ambassador in London, Paul Cambon, and meant to convince Sir Edward Grey, or rather to give Sir Edward Grey a means of convincing English opinion . . . from what side the aggression comes ; and it will grasp the very strong reasons we have given to Sir Edward Grey in our demand for the armed interven- tion of England in the interest of the future European equilibrium. The various points of this note may be summarized as follows : I. Germany and Austria are suddenly trying to distort the truth and to throw the responsibility of the war on Russia. The implication is that they should have said so before, if they had really thought so. As The French Yellow Book 223 a matter of fact they did say so. In Number 92, July 29, Jules Cambon reports from Berlin : The Imperial Chancellor asked the British ambassador to come and see him — he assured my colleague of his sincere desire for peace and of the efforts he was making in Vienna, but he added Russia alone had it in her power to maintain peace or to let loose war. The British ambassador was Sir E. Goschen ; his inter- view of July 29 is given in the British Blue Book, Number 75, where the words that Russia alone had it in her power to maintain peace or let loose war are omitted. If Jules Cambon had reference to an interview of July 28, but dated it wrongly in his de- spatch, such an interview is given in the British Blue Book, Number 71. The expression concerning the responsibility of Russia, however, is toned down to read : If war were to result, Russia would be entirely responsible, France and England had constantly counseled moderation in St. Petersburg. 2. This is not the case as appears from Numbers 62 and ^o. Germany and Austria were constantly asking France and England to do this, but both refused. In Number 62, July 27, Germany's desire that the French Government exert all its influence in a sooth- ing manner on the St. Petersburg cabinet is refused. Because, as Martin reports to Viviani, such a French step in St. Petersburg "would have been difficult to explain." On the next day, July 28, Sir Edward Grey refused a similar request (No. 80), saying that he would be much embarrassed in making pacific recommendations in St. Petersburg. 224 Germany's Point of View 3. Sazonof had "pressed Servia to accept the clauses of the ultimatum compatible with her sover- eignty." This can only be meant as a joke; for, from the British Blue Book, Number 6, it appears that Sa- zonof probably wrote the answer himself. Before that, however, on July 21, Servia notified Berlin (Yel- low Book, Number 15) that she would agree to the Austrian ultimatum if no judiciary cooperation were demanded. Austria, probably at Germany's instance, omitted such a request, and when Servia interpreted several passages as amounting to a judiciary coopera- tion, Austria declared (British Blue Book, 64) that this was not her meaning. Italy considered the ulti- matum perfectly acceptable, and advised Servia to accept it, as late as July 27 {Yellow Book, No. 72; Blue Book, No. 57). England had no objections, Sir Edward Grey saying {Blue Book, No. 47) it would be absurd if we were to appear more Servian than the Russians. while Sazonof said {Bhie Book, No. 78) that he *' could not be more Servian than Servia." Yet, no- where is there a record of wholesome, moderating advice given to Servia. What little is given is of the nature as that recorded in Number 26, when the Servian minister asked the French Government for advice, and in response was told by the political direction as a purely personal matter that Servia should try to gain time. 4. Austria began general mobilization, being first to take such action. This is contradicted (a) by Sazonof, who, on July 24, said (British Blue Book, Number 6) that Rus- The French Yellow Book 225 sian mobilization would have to be " carried out," while nobody claims that Austria had begun mobiliza- tion on that day, and (b) by Number 78 of the Rus- sian Orange Book, printed as an appendix to the French Yellow Book, of which the first paragraph reads, in part, as follows : Our mobilization was caused by the enormous responsi- bility which we would have incurred if we had failed to take every measure of precaution at a moment when Austria . . . was bombarding Belgrade and proceeding to a general mobilization. 5. Germany has absolutely forced us to issue today a decree of mobilization. Long before Russian mobilization, on Wednesday last (July 29), as I have already tele- graphed to you, Baron von Schoen announced to me the forthcoming proclamation of the Kriegsgefahrzustand (i. e., preparedness for war). This step has been taken by Germany, and sheltered by this screen, she began her mobilization. (French despatches.) In the first place the despatch here referred to is not given in the Yellow Book. Secondly, the Kriegs- gefahrzustand was announced in Berlin, not on Wednesday, but on Friday, July 31, and reported to Paris by Jules Cambon in Number 116, and on the same day by Sir E. Goschen in London (British Blue Book, Number 112). Thirdly, French mobilization was in progress * a day earlier, July 30 ; for, when the German ambassador in Paris asked about it on that day, it was not denied. This is told in No. 10 1. This same number, finally, which is a despatch from the * It is now known from documents found on the Secretary of the British Legation in Belgium that French mobilization was in progress as early as July 27, 1914. See New York Times, April 14, 1915. 226 Germmiy's Point of View French prime minister to the French ambassador in St. Petersburg, contains this order: Russia should take no immediate steps which might offer to Germany a pretext for the total or partial mobilization of her forces. This proves that Viviani knew perfectly well that Germany had not mobilized, even partially, all excited reports notwithstanding. It also proves how misin- formed Sir E. Goschen was when he telegraphed to London on July 29, as follows (British Blue Book, Number y6) : The German Secretary of State . . . was much troubled by reports of mobilization in Russia and of certain mili- tary measures, which he did not specify, being taken in France. He subsequently spoke of these measures to my French colleague, who informed him that the French Gov- ernment had done nothing more than the German Govern- ment had done, namely, recalled officers on leave. His excellency denied having done this, but as a matter of fact it is true. These five points, every one contrary to fact, were to be transmitted to Sir Edward Grey immediately. Some he may have believed; others he may have deemed exaggerations. There is, however, no record of his questioning any, either in the French or the English documents. It is more than likely that he submitted them in their entirety to the British cabinet. Sir Edward has the reputation of being astute. From the French Yellow Book, however, it would appear that he was entirely duped by Sazonof, and especially by Paul Cambon. The Russian attitude was consistent throughout. It was thoroughly Slav, and may be described in The French Yellow Book 227 Mr. Guechov's words (quoted in Report of the Balkan Wars, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February, 1914, page 65) as the position "of working for war while remaining a partisan of peace." The French Yellow Book is liberally strewn with refer- ences to Sazonof's pacific intentions, but nowhere can an indication be found that he had modified his first stand, which contemplated war unless Russia got exactly what she wanted. He made this perfectly clear to France and England from the first, sending them, on July 25, the following message (British Blue Book, Number 17, French Yellow Book, 52, where the despatch is shortened) : Russia could not allow Austria to crush Servia and be- come the predominant Power in the Balkans, and if she feels secure of the support of France she will face all the risks of war. France gave such assurances almost daily, begin- ning July 24, where we read (British Blue Book, Num- ber 6) : France would fulfil all the obligations entailed by her alliance with Russia if necessity arose, besides supporting Russia strongly in any diplomatic negotiations. To what extent Sir Edward Grey believed later promises of pacific intentions had modified Sazonof's views, it is impossible to state. The English and French positions will be discussed later. It suffices, therefore, to state that in Sazonof's master mind the case appeared very simple, thus : (i) We cannot allow Austria to become the pre- dominant Power in the Balkans; (2) Servia must, therefore, neither humble herself by accepting Aus- 228 Germany's Point of View tria's ultimatum, nor be defeated in war; (3) Unless Servia accepts the ultimatum, Austria will make war on her and defeat her single handed; (4) Russia, therefore, will enter the war, which will mean the entry of Germany, owing to her alliance with Austria ; (5) Russia alone is no match for Germany and Aus- tria; therefore (6) France must join Russia. But while she has promised her support, Russia can be sure of it only under two conditions: (a) if France feels threatened by Germany; (b) if she can be as- sured of England's help; (7) all that is necessary, therefore, to bring about these conditions is to fan France's suspicions of Germany — and how valiantly this was done is seen from the quotations given below. Sazonof knew that Sir Edward Grey and the French ambassador in London, Paul Cambon, were on inti- mate terms. If France could be thoroughly aroused and honestly feel herself in danger, Cambon could be trusted to present the case to Sir Edward in such a light that the latter would feel in honor bound to assist France; (8) one more thing was very desirable, viz., to get as much of a start in mobilization as pos- sible ; Germany could mobilize in a couple of days ; if she felt war was unavoidable, she would mobilize at once, and if she did so, not even the three great Powers, Russia, France, and England combined could withstand her. It is idle to speculate what might have happened. But if Germany had known of Sazonof 's despatch of July 25, quoted above, and expressing his deter- mination "To face all the risks of war" rather than see Austria rehabilitate herself, and if she had known that Russian mobilization was going on as early as The French Yellow Book 229 July 24, and that on the same day France had prom- ised to support Russia, not only diplomatically, but by force of arms (see above), and if she had finally also known of Sir Edward Grey's arrangement of mutual assistance with France, contained in his letter to Paul Cambon of 1912, and first made public in Parliament on August 3, 1914 — if she had known all this and had, therefore, clearly seen the impos- sibility of an understanding unless she sacrificed the interests of her ally, Austria, which she was of course, unwilling to do, the present state of affairs might have been different. If Germany had struck at once, on July 25, most people familiar with military affairs believe she would have defeated France easily before Russia had enough troops ready to harass her eastern frontier; and, with the French channel and Atlantic coasts in her power, English resistance would have been useless. The Belgian horrors and the con- tinued holocausts on the French and Polish battle- fields would have been avoided. Germany has laid a terribly costly sacrifice on the altar of peace, because she delayed her mobilization from July 25 to August 2. If weakness and incompetence had been the cause of this delay, no censure could be too severe. But Germany knows, and in the future the whole world will know, that it was not weakness but the strong and passionate love of peace which determined the course of the Chancellor, and, after his return to Berlin, that of the Emperor. It has already been mentioned above that, according to the French Yellow Book and the British Blue Book, references to a contemplated war were freely spoken of between the representatives of France, Russia, and 230 Germany's Point of View England, but that they were omitted from the conver- sations which these men had with the representatives of Germany, Austria, and Italy. Two very character- istic records of this mode of procedure are found in Numbers 37 and 38 of the Yellow Book, and Number 25 of the British Blue Book. French Number 38 contains a despatch from M. Paleologue, the French ambassador, at St. Petersburg, who reports under date of July 25, in part as follows : M. Sazonof has begged the German ambassador to point out the danger of the situation to his Government. He refrained, however, from alluding to the step which Russia will no doubt be led to take if Servia is threatened. This refers to Russia's declaration that she " will face all the risks of war " rather than see Austria rehabili- tate herself in the Balkans. Here is a bald-faced state- ment that Sazonof intentionally refrained from giving to Germany the whole message, which he had sent to London and Paris. In this connection the French Number 2)7 and Brit- ish Number 25 should be compared. The former is a despatch from the French charge d'affaires in Lon- don, M. de Fleuriau, who reports, July 25, as follows : Sir Edward Grey (speaking to the German ambassador) added this remark, that if war did break out no Power in Europe would be able to remain aloof from it. Since Germany could not possibly have thought that England would fight against France, the French premier, receiving this message, understood it to mean that Germany has been clearly told: "If there is to be a European war, England will join France against you." This is, however, not the message which reached The French Yellow Book 231 Germany, nor is it the wording which Sir Edward Grey put in his Blue Book Number 25 : I concurred in his (the German ambassador's) observa- tion, and said that I felt I had no title to intervene be- tween Austria and Servia, but as soon as the question became one as between Austria and Russia, the peace of Europe was affected, in which we must all take a hand. The German ambassador, and any reader of the whole despatch, can only understand this to mean that while Sir Edward Grey did not wish to " intervene between Austria and Servia," England would have to take her part in the discussions later "between Austria and Russia." This is not the only message given by Sir Edward Grey to the German ambassador in London, which was reported in much stronger, at times even threatening, terms, in Paris. The explanation of such discrepancies will be given in the discussion of the positions of France and England as they appear from the records of the French Yellow Book. As regards the Russian position, a few more de- spatches may be quoted, which show that the Russian representatives cleverly fanned the flame of French suspicion of Germany. In Number 15, July 21, the Russian charge d'affaires in Berlin, tells Jules Cam- bon that it was very astonishing that the German Sec- retary of Foreign Affairs, von Jagow, claimed not to know the contents of the forthcoming Austrian ulti- matum. It is suggested that von Jagow is lying. In Number 27, July 24, the Russian charge d'affaires tells Jules Cambon that there are a great many people in Germany who want war ; and in Number 29 he insinu- ates that the time of the ultimatum has been so fixed that France is caught at a disadvantage, when her 232 Germany's Point of View president and premier are aboard ship on their return from St. Petersburg. The same idea is repeated in Number 29. In Number 32 the Russian ambassador in London tells Paul Cambon, the French ambassador there, that he suspects a surprise on the part of Germany — and that war against Russia would be accepted willingly in Germany. And, to mention only one more instance, in Number 43, the Russian charge d'affaires in Berlin speaks to Jules Cambon in a very pessimistic strain, and omi- nously refers to the '' arrieres pensees" of Germany. It is interesting to note that Russia carefully selected the men for the task of arousing French suspicions. In Berlin these insinuations were always made by the Russian charge d'affaires, Boniewski, who was on inti- mate terms with Jules Cambon. In London, on the other hand, it was the Russian ambassador. Count Benckendorff, whose cordial relations with Paul Cam- bon made him the proper spokesman of those ideas which were meant to fan the suspicions of France. A quotation was given above from the report of the Balkan Wars, published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. People, who wish to under- stand the Servian question and Russia's attitude to- ward it, should read this report, and get an idea of the kind of people, cruel, blood-thirsty, vindictive, false, and headstrong, with whom Austria had to deal on her borders. They should also ponder this sen- tence (p. 41) : The Balkan alliance in its later phase was but a tool em- ployed by local policy encouraged by Russia, and directed. The French Yellow' Book 233 under the inspiration of Russian diplomacy, against Ger- manic pretensions. There are very few people familiar with the Balkans, who believe that the conspiracy, which led to the mur- der of the Archduke and the beloved Countess of Hohenberg, had not drawn some support from "the inspiration of Russian diplomacy." The French attitude toward Germany, in recent years, has been intentionally hostile and suspicious. The French were not willing to be on good terms with Germany, who, on her part, had tried, and was trying, to be friendly with France. The German character is not vindictive, and unlike France, Germany's thoughts were not hypnotized by a wrong suffered in the past. Germany's tremendous growth made her look to the future. The man who is successful in life and con-i stantly grappling with new and interesting problems, has no time to nurse a grudge. The French, however, were a nation whose growth had ceased, who — as one writer puts it — were living on the rich inheritance of their past. The premier, Viviani, therefore, could well say of himself, and all his fellow-citizens, that we have been bearing in silence in our side for half a century, the wound she [Germany] opened. {Yellow Book, Number 159.) The keynote of the French attitude toward Ger- many is expressed in Number i, Annex i, of March 15, 19 13, in a report which the French ambassador, Jules Cambon, forwarded to the Home Office, and where we read : Since we neither wish to be, nor can be, with Germany. 234 Germany's Point of View This was unfortunately the attitude of the French Gov- ernment. There can be no doubt that it was honestly held, but future historians will have no difficulty in appreciating the extreme delicacy, and forbearance, which Germany had to show in order to avoid, under such conditions, an earlier clash. Nor must it be be- lieved that the sentence quoted above was an idle phrase. How very real it was appeared from a little incident, which took place in Harvard, in the fall of 1913- The French exchange professor of 1912 had -been an excellent German scholar and a broad-minded man, who had taken pleasure in attending the gatherings of the Harvard Deutsche Verein (German Club). The Deutsche Verein consists almost entirely of undergrad- uate students, and since there are very few under- graduates from Germany, registered in Harvard, the percentage of Germans in the Verein is negligible. American boys, who have learned German, love to practice it, to conduct a " kneipe'' occasionally, and tO' sing German student songs. Since the French professor of 19 12 had enjoyed these gatherings during the last months of his stay in Cambridge, his successor of 191 3 was invited, together with the German ex- change professor, to the opening meeting of the Verein, October, 19 13. The boys happen to have a very pleasant custom of electing the guests of honor at their first meeting to honorary membership. The president of the Verein announces this at the proper time, and hangs the medal of the Verein, on a black, white, and red ribbon, around the neck of the new member, who then is expected to say a few words be- fore the boys begin to sing. The German professor The French Yellow Book 235 received his medal first and was duly grateful. But when the president turned to his other guest, the Frenchman waved the medal angrily aside, and when the president, to avoid an embarrassing situation, asked the boys to sing a song, and this song was Deutschland, the French exchange professor pushed back his chair and without excusing himself, left the room! Next day he let it be known through his friends that he regretted the incident. Personally he had no objec- tion to the medal on the black, white and red ribbon, or to the song, but he was sent to Harvard by the French Government, and, knowing his Government's attitude toward Germany, he was obliged to act as he did ! Americans who have been told that France was de- sirous of living at peace with Germany, should ponder this incident. If such a thing can happen in America in a company of American students, and the profes- sor — not an ambassador, but an exchange professor — feel obliged to be ruder than he would personally like to be, because the hostile attitude of his Govern- ment towards Germany demands it, then the words quoted above gain a meaning, which few casual read- ers have given them : Since we neither wish to be, nor can be, with Germany. It is quite true that until about ten or fifteen years ago the Franco-German relations had been constantly improving, but King Edward fanned the dying spark of the French desire for revenge into a flame. What had seemed hopeless before, viz., to regain Alsace-Lor- raine, began to appear possible with the help of Eng- land and of Russia. Anti-German writers have tried 236 Germany's Point of View to make it appear that the Morocco incident was the cause of the renewal of strained relations between France and Germany, but this can hardly be the case, for the French, themselves, acknowledge that Germany was badly treated in the Morocco affair. (See Yellow Book /_, Annex i, " All Germans resent our having taken their share in Morocco.") There are constant references throughout the first part of the French Yellow Book to this effect. If it' had not been for the very pacific intentions of the Emperor, war would have broken out in 1906, and again in 191 1. And in both years Germany's chances would have been infinitely better than they were in 1914. Chapter i, of the Yellow Book, makes very interest- ing reading, but it deserves no serious attention. The French Government has chosen to publish there some of the many confidential reports in their possession. Such reports, especially when their source is not given, cannot be used as proofs. Number 2, Annex 2, which was apparently written by an army officer, is clearly shown by its last paragraph to be spurious, for people who know anything of army reports recognize that mat- ters are discussed there on which no army officer would presume to express an opinion. And in Num- ber 5^ July 30, 1913, von Kiderlen is spoken of as planning to make war on France, when as a matter of fact he had been dead for more than six months. The papers had undoubtedly come to the French em- bassy through spies, of whom unfortunately all Gov- ernments have need. In the report of General Ducarme through the Belgian Minister of War, recently pub- lished by the German Government, that general refers The French Yellow Book 237 to the secret information concerning the German army, which the British Lieutenant Colonel Barnardiston had furnished him, and he naively added that he had been very careful not to tell Barnardiston that he did not know whether the Belgian system of spies was in good working order or not. Spies are expensive and uncer- tain, and most Governments, therefore, dispense with their services in the capitals of their own allies. This may explain why neither Germany nor Italy had a previous accurate knowledge of the contents of the Austrian ultimatum to Servia, while France knew them as early as July 19 (see Number jj). Only one other point should be mentioned in con- nection with Chapter i^ because there seems to exist a misunderstanding concerning it in many quarters. Germany increased her army twice within recent years. The first time, as a result of the weakening of Turkey, which strengthened the smaller Balkan States, and consequently in case of war would have made greater demands on the military resources of Austria. What- ever the reports may tell now, nobody in Europe con- sidered this increase unwarranted, or in any way di- rected against France. The latter, nevertheless, in- creased her army enormously by extending the term of service from two to three years. Germany, there- upon, followed suit with her great and recent increase of armaments. Possibly a word may also be in place concerning the centenary celebrations of 181 3. The French Yellow Book tries to represent them as a conscious means re- sorted to by the Government to create a warlike spirit among the people. It is impossible to prove or dis- prove this assertion. It will, however, be remembered 238 Germany's Point of View that there were people also in America, who believed that the Anglo-American preparations for the centen- ary celebration of the Treaty of Ghent had an ulterior motive, while the great mass of the people had no such thought. The same is true of Germany. The cele- brations of the deliverance of Germany from the Na- poleonic yoke in 1813 were largely spontaneous and did not contemplate the creation of enthusiasm for another war. Since the French am.bassador, however, sent different reports to Paris, he undoubtedly be- lieved these reports, and no impartial student can deny that these celebrations may have increased the sus- picions of France. Being suspicious, both the French Foreign Office at Paris, and Jules Cambon in Berlin, permitted them- selves to follow a course in their relations with the German ambassador. Baron von Schoen, and the Ger- man secretary, von Jagow, the rudeness of which made cooperation impossible. In reading the Yellow Book one cannot help feeling that the French officials, in writing up their several interviews, drew somewhat on their imagination ; for it is not at all difficult to imagine, when the other party to a verbal encounter is gone, that one had the better of him. Although it is, therefore, by no means necessary to believe that Martin, Berthelot, and Jules Cambon were as impolite as their writings would make one think, their attitude toward the German officials can not have been cheerful. In Numbers 15 and i1, Cambon cannot refrain from expressing *' his astonishment " that von Jagow should not have any previous knowledge of the Austrian note. The same occurs in Number 30, where Cambon is actually so insulting that von Jagow replies : The French Yellow Book 239 It is only because we are talking personally between our- selves that I allow you to say that to me. From Number 26 it appears that Italy also had no previous knov^ledge of the note. Her word, however, was readily accepted, while the German officials were practically charged with lying. Number 28 describes an interview between Martin and Baron yon Schoen, which is far from cordial. In Number jd Baron von Schoen is practically accused of dishonesty as having himself given out some infor- mation to the press. Numbers ^5, 56, and 57 are full of unworthy suspicions and in part of insulting insinu- ations. The lecture administered to the ambassador by a subordinate of the French ministry, is in a class by itself. Equally unfriendly is the review Number 61 oi Baron von Schoen's actions, and the language which Cambon permitted himself toward von Jagow in Number 74, is most remarkable. The Austrian ambassador is treated much better (Number 75J, while the Italian representatives invariably meet the courtesy which is due their stations. The explanation of the continued lack of courtesy toward the Germans is found in the fact that the French ministers, as previously stated, were suspicious of Germany, and feared that, in this particular case, Germany wanted to " compromise France." (Number 62.) Martin was always ready to speak of his de- sire to work for peace, but when Germany suggested a concerted action, and a notice to that effect in the press, he declined. In his report to Premier Viviani he remarks that he had changed Baron von Schoen's wording. The notice he had given to the press, he said, was harmless, for the 240 Germany's Point of View colorless phrasing avoids appearance of solidarity with Germany. Number 62, July 27. Few of the readers of this article are diplomats, but it takes no training in diplomacy to realize that a helpful understanding between two nations is impossi- ble if one is afraid of taking any steps w^hich might give the " appearance of solidarity " with the other. So far as France, therefore, was concerned, amica- ble cooperation with Germany to bring about an un- derstanding, that would be fair to all, was out of the question. France took her cue from Russia. Call it the loyalty of a good ally — so far as Russia was concerned, or the obstinacy of a jealous and suspicious opponent — so far as Germany was concerned, the re- sult remained the same. From the very first meeting of the French and British Ambassadors with the Rus- sian Premier, Sazonof, on July 24 (British Blue Book, Number 6 — see above). The French task was perfectly simple: (i) Stand firmly by Russia, (2) convince England that she must join Russia and France. Two modes of attack promised success: (a) An appeal to England's own interests, (b) an ap- peal to her chivalry and Sir Edward Grey's implied promise in his letter of November, 1912. His prom- ise was likely to be redeemed, if France could show that she stood in danger of her life by an attack by Germany. There is not one despatch printed in the French Yellow Book incompatible with the premise that this was France's real attitude. The question whether this renders France morally responsible for the war is a much broader one, for it depends on the justifications of her suspicions of Ger- many. In the present generation, when even the most The French Yellow Book 241 impartial students cannot help feeling sympathy for one side or the other, and before the secret archives are opened, it cannot be settled. Nobody, however, will deny that France, in the crisis of 1914, with or without justification, took not a single independent step that might have avoided the calamity of war, ex- cept at the absolute submission of Austria and Ger- many to the will of Russia. CHAPTER XVIII THE FRENCH YELLOW BOOK (Continued) THE attitude of Austria, strangely enough, is only slightly touched upon in the French Yellow Book, and is not much different from that depicted in the British Blue Book. The one notable exception is the Austrian explanation, a note of considerable length, presented to the French Foreign Office on July 2y, 1914. A similar note was presented to Sir Edward Grey, who did not print it in the British Blue Book, but substituted for it (British Blue Book, Number 48) his own brief summary. And to this day England seems to be unaware of the fact that Austria has pre- sented her charges to the world, for Mr. Cecil Chester- ton, in his debate with Mr. Viereck in New York on January 17, based one of his chief arguments on Aus- tria's neglect to do this. The French acting minister for foreign affairs, in forwarding this note, calls it " a positive act of accu- sation against Servia." The note* contains almost 5,000 words and should be read in its entirety by those who would form their own unbiased opinion of the justice of Austria's position. If one believes in the * The note as printed in the Austrian Red Book contains several Annexes. It is not definitely known whether these are later additions, or whether the French Government sup- pressed them in the Yellow Book. 242 The French Yellow Book 243 truth of this accusation, any defence of Servia appears unrighteous. If, however, one beHeves that Austria, who was the vitally interested party, held exaggerated views of Servia's guilt, one can nevertheless not deny her good faith. If this Austrian explanation had been presented in its entirety to Parliament on Au- gust 3, when Sir Edward Grey made his famous speech, it is very doubtful whether English public opinion could have been won for a war which, in its origin, was a defence of Servia ; for all the available evidence, and among it the Balkan Report of the Carnegie Peace Endowment, made it not at all unlikely that Servia had been guilty as Austria charged. If this had been known, it would have been possible to formulate in Parliament definite conditions, under which Great Britain would have promised to remain neutral in a war which Russia had determined to wage in the defence of Servia. Sir Edward Grey, it will be remembered, had refused to formulate such con- ditions on August I. The publication of this Austrian note, therefore, is one of the most important contribu- tions which has been made to the Austro-German cause, not only because of its positive value, but also because all fair-minded people will ask why Sir Ed- ward Grey omitted it from the British Blue Book, If he omitted this important document, are there not perhaps other unpublished papers which may throw a different light on the case? And if this is so, are not all attempts, like that of Hon. Mr. Beck, to close the case before the Supreme Court of Civilization, premature ? But the French Yellow Book presents other evi- dence previously not available in America. 244 Germany's Point of View (i) The less well known Servian press, instead of expressing regret at the murder of the archduke and the innocent Countess of Hohenberg, and sym- pathy for their orphaned children and the aged Em- peror, was "daring, more aggressive, and frequently insulting." (Number 14.) (2) Austria, it would seem, had intended to de- mand in her ultimatum *' judicial participation " in the punishment of the crime. This, von Jagow in Berlin was informed, would be unacceptable to Servia, but if no such '' judicial participation " were demanded, the Servian minister said, "his country would accept Austria's demands." (Number 15.) (3) Germany, thereupon, seems to have requested Austria to modify her demands in this respect. (Num- bers 19 and 20.) At any rate, the final ultimatum contained only a demand for Austrian participation in the investigation, leaving the adjudication solely in the hands of Servia (Number 24). Austria, un- doubtedly, informed Germany that her suggestion had been heeded, for she told France (Number 20) that her " note made it possible to count on a pacific denouement." With Servia's promise, therefore (Number 15), that any other demands which Austria might make would be acceptable, von Jagow felt that the peace of Europe was not endangered. The Ba- varian premier, at any rate, on July 23 believed in a peaceful settlement (Number 21). In this connection it is interesting to note that a judge of the New York State Supreme Court has called attention to the similarity between the action of Austria in demanding participation in the investiga- The French Yellow Book 245 tion of the Serajevo murder, and that of the United States in demanding participation in the investigation of the blowing up of the Maine. The Austrian note was presented on July 23, 1914, and by the " stiffness "of its wording surprised every- body, and, not the least, Germany. Throughout the French Yellow Book, and in part in the British Blue Book, doubt is expressed in the German assertion that Germany had not known the Austrian ultimatum be- fore it was presented. It must be agreed that it seems strange that Austria should present her ultimatum without first showing it to her allies. But Italy states more than once that she had not seen the note before- hand (Numbers 26, 50, et al.), and gives this as the reason why she is not bound to join in the war (Num- bers 50, 51). Nobody doubts that Italy is speaking the truth. Why, then, doubt Germany? For is it more unusual for Austria to make her demarche with- out showing her note to Germany than to Italy ? But, it is claimed, Germany had " cognizance "of the note, for the Bavarian premier had said so before the note was published. (Number 21.) This is true, but it may not have meant more than the previous general knowledge of the contents of the note which Italy had (Number 72, where the French ambassador reports that the Italian premier had been well aware that the note was to be "vigorous and energetic in character"), or which even France had (Num- ber 14, where a full summary of the demands of the note is given several days before it is actually presented). In Number 14, which is an enclosure in the report of the French ambassador in Vienna, and which was 246 Germany's Point of View written on July 20, that is, several days before the note was presented, these memorable words occur: The shifts by which Servia will no doubt wish to delay a direct and clear reply have been taken into account, and that is why a brief delay will be fixed for her to notify her acceptance or refusal. Compare with this Number 26, where the only advice given by France to Servia is that she " should seek to gain time." (Compare also 32.) But Austria knew what that meant. She had, once before, in 1913, endeavored to curb Servian j)lots, and the whole danger threatening her very existence from that quarter. She had, at that time, sounded Italy and Germany before making a demarche, and the result had been that she had been restrained from taking any steps. This whole afifair, while public knowledge for over a year, was announced recently in the press, as if a new secret had been revealed, when Signor Giolitti, ex-premier of Italy, referred to it in the Italian Parliament (see Chapter IX). What assurances Austria received in 1913, if she undertook no punitive expedition against Servia, is not known. It is, however, known that many Austrians blame Ger- many indirectly for the murder of the archduke ; for, if Germany had supported Austria in 1913, and had not represented to her that the Servian propaganda was not so bad as she thought it was, and that she could be patient, and that Servia, on the good advice of Rus- sia, would desist from her plottings ; if, in short, Aus- tria had been permitted in 19 13 to put an end, once and for all, to Servian intrigues, then the tragedy of Serajevo would not have taken place. Nobody can deny the justice of these sentiments. The French Yellow Book 247 and consequently the extreme delicacy which was demanded of Germany in trying to exert once again a moderating influence on Austria. The latter had very clearly stated (British Blue Book, 38) that it was for her a question of life or death. Every de- mand, therefore, of Germany which could appear to Austria to be in the nature of permitting Servia to escape her just punishment, and of preventing Austria from securing peace on her southern border ■ — as she had been prevented from doing a year ago — was sure to be met with the reply, " I yielded to you last year, and you see what was the result. If I yield again today, the result will be not the death of an archduke, but the death of the empire.'* It is on the background of such sentiments that the Austro-Ger- man attitude should be viewed. It is, at first sight, not easy to draw a correct pic- ture of the attitude of Germany from the French Yellow Book, where more than one hundred des- patches and notes have been brought together with the avowed purpose of proving that Germany, and she alone, deserves the opprobrium of having started the great war. People familiar with sifting evidence, however, and those acquainted with the principles of the so-called higher criticism, have no difficulty in separating the expressions of opinion from the state- ments of facts. The former were valuable in revealing the French attitude toward Germany ; the latter, on the other hand, are the only safe grounds on which to reconstruct the position taken by Germany in the momentous days leading up to the war. Up to and including the twenty-ninth of July, Germany did not believe that Russia would go to war. This appears 248 - Germany's Point of View from several despatches, and most especially from Numbers 63 and 96 (Yellow Book). The latter is a despatch from the French ambassador in Rome, M. Barriere, who had an interview with the Italian min- ister of foreign affairs, the Marquis di San Giuliano, whom he quoted as follows : Unfortunately, in this whole affair, it had been and still was the conviction of Austria and Germany that Russia would not march. In this connection he read me a despatch from M. Boliati reporting an interview he had today with Herr von Jagow, in which the latter again repeated that he did not believe that Russia would march. He based this belief upon the fact that the Russian Gov- ernment had just sent an agent to Berlin to deal with certain financial matters. The Austrian ambassador in Berlin had also said to his English colleague that he did not believe in a general war, Russia being neither in the temper nor in a condition to make war. A report of a similar statement by the British am- bassador in Rome is printed in the British Blue Book^ Number 80, July 29: He (the Italian minister of foreign affairs) added that there seemed to be difficulty in making Germany believe that Russia was in earnest. As Germany, however, was really anxious for good relations with ourselves, if she believed that Great Britain would act with Russia and France, he thought that it would have a great effect. Two observations occur at once: (i), Since Sazonof had decided, on July 25, " to run all the risks of war," if he could have the support of France (see above and British Blue Book, 17), his sending a financial agent to Berlin was a clever, some may say conscienceless, ruse in order to gain time for his mobilization before Germany grew suspicious. (2), Since Sir Edward Grey knew of Sazonof 's determination, and was per- The French Yellow Book 249 sonally in honor bound by his letter to Jules Cambon of November, 1912, to secure the support of Parlia- ment for France in the case of war, he had it in his power to enlighten Germany. As appeared above, from a comparison between Yellow Book, Number 66, and Blue Book, Number 47, France was told that Sir Edward had done so, while, as a matter of fact, the message which reached Germany was so weak that it stated only that England would have to take a hand in the mediation, if the difficulties spread. Early in the morning of July 30, Sir Edward seems to have committed himself definitely to the support of France and Russia, and Germany seems to have been informed of this, either directly or by secret agents. At any rate, on July 30, Sir Edward Grey received a message from his ambassador in Rome, stating that Germany now seemed convinced that we should act with France and Russia, and was most anxious to avoid issue with us. (British Blue Book Number 106). Germany's position, therefore, and the actions she took may be clearly divided into two parts: (i). Be- fore July 30, while she was convinced that the Servian difficulty would not result in war, because Russia was not in earnest, and England would not join her, and (2) after July 30, when she knew that Sir Edward Grey had promised to support France and Russia in the defence of Servia. The question of Belgium had not yet arisen. The first reference, before July 30, occurs in a despatch from Berlin, July 4 (Yellow Book, Number 9), which reads, in part: 250 Germany's Point of View [Germany] hoped that Servia would give satisfaction to the demands which Austria might address to her, with a view to the search for and the prosecution of those concerned in the Serajevo crime. He added that he was confident that this would be the case, because if Servia acted otherwise, she would have the opinion of the whole civilized world against her. In Number 15, July 21, Servia informed Germany that she would accept all the Austrian demands except that of judicial cooperation. Germany, thereupon, obtained Austria's modification of this intended de- mand. (See above, and Number 19, *' Germany^ is trying to moderate Austria." ) In Number 16, July 21, Germany is reported as intending to support Austria. In Number 20, July 23, Austria is reported more conciliatory, undoubtedly at the advice of Germany, referred to in Number 19. She even believes that her note makes it possible to count on a specific denoue- ment. The German ambassador in Vienna is quoted as personally in favor of violent measures against Servia, but takes pains to explain that the Chancellor is "not quite with him." In Number 27, July 24, the French ambassador in Vienna reports an interview with the Servian min- ister. The latter does not deny his country's guilt, but adds that Servia, while willing to punish all other criminals, will not punish any army officers.* Number 28, July 24, contains a note presented to the French Foreign Office by Baron von Schoen, the German ambassador, in which the German position is stated. Briefly summarized, it is as follows: * In this refusal one may see the hand of Russia, for in the Balkan Report of the Carnegie Peace Endowment, it is .stated that many Servian officers are in the pay of Russia. The French Yellow Book 251 1. Belgrade is tile active center of the agitation which plans to disrupt the Austro-Hungarian empire, and which has resulted in the murder of the archduke and his wife. 2. Austria has shown *' great self-control and mod- eration," for the agitation goes back a number of years, and has been carried on " under the eyes, or at least with the tacit tolerance, of official Servia." 3. The German Government ardently desires the localization of the conflict, since by natural play of alliances any intervention by another Power would have incalculable consequences. (The whole note should be read.) In Number 29, July 24, Jules Cambon telegraphed from Berlin, as follows : The German Emperor, through a feeling of monarchical solidarity and horror for the crime, is likely to show him- self less conciliatory. It will be remembered that in 191 3, Germany had prevented Austria from taking the punitive measures against Servia, which Austria had deemed necessary for her safety. On the same day, July 24, von Jagow suggested to the French ambassador that Servia's friends should give her good advice (Number 30), but from Num- ber 26 it appears that the only advice that France gave her was "to gain time." The French press, on the other hand, launched an attack against Germany, in articles headed Menace Allemande. Baron von Schoen, therefore, called on Martin, asking him to contradict these statements, and to work together with Germany for peace (Number 36). How M. 252 Germany's Point of View Martin refused this request, for fear of appearing too friendly with Germany, has been told above. Then the general game of blindman's buff began. Germany wished to have the conflict localized, and endeavored to convince the Entente Powers of the justice of the Austrian cause. She told them frankly that Austria beheved her "security and integrity" at stake (Number 25), and that Germany agreed with her. Austria's temper, moreover, was such that to urge her too hard would only make matters worse {Blue Book J Number 107), and, while Austria' ob- jected to any " conference," she would be glad to listen to " friendly counsel " from the Entente Powers (Numbers 70 and 73). Since Russia felt obliged to uphold Servia, France (Number 62) or England (Number 80) should give moderating advice in St. Petersburg. Both refused, for they believed that Ger- many should make stronger presentations in Vienna, or, failing this, four Powers, Germany and Italy, Eng- land and France, should gather in a conference to settle this matter. It is almost impossible to disentangle the multifari- ous suggestions made, none of which were entirely satisfactory, either to Austria or to Russia. Austria believed her existence at stake, and, having been thwarted in 1913, was determined to punish Servia this time, and to make the recurrence of Servian intrigues impossible. Germany, therefore, while un- able to accept any of the proposals made by Sir Edward Grey, continued her pressure on Austria, gently but firmly, in her endeavor to get such assur- ances of moderation that the reasonable objections of Russia would be met. She transmitted Russia's re- The French Yellow Book 253 quest for an extension of time (Number 41), although von Jagow beheved that it could not be granted. Strangely enough, Russia also was convinced that her request could not be granted (Number 45), prov- ing that it was only a feint. This happened on July 25, and on July 26 the French ambassador in Vienna reported that he be- lieved Austria was forced by circumstances to take military action (Number 55). This is one of the few despatches printed in the Yellow Book which are calm in tone and obviously desirous of being just. On the next day, July 27, Germany has succeeded in getting Austria's consent to some kind of a cabinet meeting of the four Powers, and therefore accepts Sir Edward Grey's proposal in principle. The case now stands as follows (Number 72) : Italy suggests that Servia submit to the just demands of Austria, but do so at the request of the four Powers, which would hurt her pride less. Germany was willing, Sir Edward Grey seemed favorable (British Blue Book, Numbers 47 and 78), and, under those conditions, France would have to agree. The case, therefore, was on the way to a settlement, when Sazonof declined to accept Sir Edward's offer. The reason he advanced was another ruse to lull Germany's suspicions, and to gain time. He said that Germany was continuing to exert a friendly influence in Vienna, and that it was unnecessary to take up Sir Edward's suggestion at present (British Blue Book, Number 78). This really was, so far as one can gather from the Yellozv Book, the last time when an amicable settlement was pos- sible. The opportunity had been made by Sir Edward Grey's proposal, Italy's ready acquiescence, and Ger- 254 Germany's Point of View many's counsel, which made Austria willing to accept it. Austria would have gained Servia's consent to her demands, and Russia would have saved Servia from the ignominy of being coerced by her hated neighbor. She would have had the consolation of having yielded, not to Austria, but to four of the great Powers. One must not underrate the sacrifice Austria brought by her consent to this plan, for she had deter- mined to humble Servia, and could hardly claim to have done so when she herself was forced to submit her case to the adjudication of four Powers. The pressure of Germany must have been very great to make her willing to do this. With Sazonof's refusal, matters grew worse. Rus- sia had been, and was still, mobilizing. Austria was taking similar steps, and Germany was forced to warn the Entente Powers (Number 6y) that her engagements with Austria would force her to join Austria, if the latter was attacked. This elicited the reply from France (Number 74) that Germany's engagements with Austria were no closer than her own were with Russia. Once more Germany tried to clear the atmosphere, and, on July 28, Baron von Schoen presented in Paris a straightforward account of Germany's position (Number 78). Germany had not known Austria's ultimatum but, after it had been presented, she had approved of it, because Austria "had need of guar- antees against Servian proceedings." The French newspapers were in error when they stated that Ger- many was urging Austria on. It was impossible to *'pull Austria up too brusquely," and Germany only wanted ''to act with France for the maintenance of The French Yellow Book 255 peace." For fear of displeasing Russia, France was unwilling to accept this invitation. Germany, therefore, feeling more and more con- vinced that Sazonof was the leading spirit in a hostile movement, requested Sir Edward Grey to "make pacific recommendations to the Russian Government." (Number 80.) Unfortunately, also, Sir Edward Grey declined to act, because " he would be much embar- rassed" in doing so, as he told Paul Cambon (Num- ber 80). Having failed in these attempts, von Jagow tried to bring Vienna and St. Petersburg into direct com- munication, and "to disengage Germany." (Num- ber 81.) This "frame of mind" was viewed with favor by Russia (Number 81), who, however, actively continued her mobilizations. And then the thirtieth of July brought the news that Sir Edward Grey had promised his support to France and Russia. Person- ally, he had not yet announced this to Germany, but from now on, Germany's chief aim was to secure a reversion of Sir Edward's decision. (See also the letter from the Belgian Minister in St. Petersburg, Chapter One.) So far as Germany's actions up to July thirtieth are concerned, the French Yellow Book has made it per- fectly clear that she did her share, and perhaps even more than her share, to bring about an amicable set- tlement of the difficulty. Her achievements were four : I, she induced Austria not to demand a judicial par- ticipation in the trial of Servian criminals ; 2, she secured Austria's willingness to have Servia yield to the advice of four Powers, rather than be compelled to yield to Austria ; 3, she succeeded in bringing Aus- 256 Germany's Point of View tria and Russia together for a discussion of the prob- lem; 4, she secured the promise from Austria that Austria would not " aim at territorial aggrandizement, and that she would respect the integrity of Servia." She did all this in spite of the fact that she knew of Russia's mobilization, and was much concerned over it. (Number 6y.) After reading the Yellow Book, therefore, nobody can say henceforth that Germany had done nothing to preserve the peace of Europe. She did more than Russia, infinitely more than France, who did nothing, and, if one were to judge by the Yellow Book alone, more even than Sir Edward Grey, although it was he who brought about a condition which would have solved the difficulties if it had not been for the objec- tion of Sazonof. CHAPTER XIX THE FRENCH YELLOW BOOK (Concluded) GERMANY'S endeavors to preserve the peace after July 30 fall into two parts. There are, in the first part, the telegrams exchanged between the German Emperor and the Czar, and between the Em- peror and King George; and, in the second part, the steps taken by the German Foreign Office, as they appear from the despatches of the Yellow Book. Despatches Numbers 104 and 120, together with the British Blue Book, Numbers 121 and 123, prove that the Chancellor and von Jagow, as well as the Em- peror, were unremitting in their labors to bring Aus- tria and Russia together again after the pourparlers had been interrupted for a while. They succeeded in doing this, in spite of Russia's public announce- ment of partial mobilization (Number 91). Ger- many's request that Russia cease mobilizing (Num- ber 104) was ignored, whereupon the German general stafif urged the Emperor to order mobilization in Germany (Number 105, July 30). But, although neither England (Number 108) nor France (Number loi) denied that they were taking *' military steps," viz., mobilizing, Germany did not order Kriegsgefahr- zustand until July 31, after Russia had given orders for complete mobilization, both on her German and Austrian frontiers. A request that Russia demobilize 257 258 Germany's Point of View was ignored, whereupon Germany mobilized, as of August 2, (Number 128, August i). It was not known before the publication of the Yellow Book that not only Russia was fully mobiliz- ing, but that also England and France had begun to take " military steps " several days before Germany ordered the mobilization of her forces. Under exist- ing European conditions, it was impossible to avoid war when once the several countries were fully mobil- ized. When this had happened it became of second- ary importance where the first blow should be struck, and by whom. Since this is a fact, which is, even today, admitted by all people familiar with Europe, the Yellow Book has practically proved that Germany did not begin the war; for, on the strength of the French documents, it is seen that Germany was forced to mobilize by the mobilization of her three prospect- ive opponents. The despatch, moreover, quoted above (Number loi) proves that the many messages which speak of an earlier German mobilization are included in the Yellow Book for the purpose of misleading the people. The French premier himself did not believe them, for he would not have asked Sazonof to avoid any public step which could offer Germany an excuse for partial or complete mobilization, if he had believed that such mobilization had already taken place in Germany. People unfamiliar with such matters — and most of us were so before the war began — have denied Ger- many's claim that her declaration of war on Russia was defensive, because Russia had given orders of total mobilization, and was aggressive. They should read the remarks on this subject, uttered before the war, The French Yellow Book 259 by the President of the American Society of Inter- national Law, Senator EHhu Root (quoted in the July, 19 14, number of the American Journal of Interna- tional Law) : It is well understood that the exercise of the right of self-protection may and frequently does extend in its effects beyond the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the state exercising it. The strongest example probably would be the mobilization of an army of another Power immediately across the frontier. Every act done by the other Power may be within its own territory. Yet the country threatened by the state of facts is justified in protecting itself by immediate war. If, then, Germany exerted herself in the first place to preserve the peace of Europe, and proceeded to mobilization only when the mobilization of her neigh- bors compelled her to do so, what becomes of the charge implied in the British Blue Book, that she is to blame for the war? Does the French Yellow Book perchance throw new light also on the position of the British Government? It certainly does. England's position appears in an entirely new light in the Yellow Book, and several assertions are made there which contradict the official statements by Sir Edward Grey. On July 24 (Number 32), Paul Cam- bon, writing from London, gives three reasons why the German ambassador had returned to London three weeks before in a pessimistic frame of mind, one of which is the news of a naval understanding between England and Russia. The existence of such an under- standing is not denied by Cambon, as it undoubtedly would have been if no naval arrangements had been made. The general terms of this understanding were given in the Russian press, and were published in 26o Germany's Point of View translation in the Boston Transcript of November 4, 19 14. (See Chapter Four.) The actual wording of the document is unknown. In Russia, people believed it to be such that it bound England to render assistance to Russia by naval operations in the case of a Russo- German war. It is also very significant that a news item in some American papers (see American Reviezv of Reviews, July, 19 14) referred to the signing of such a naval understanding between Russia and England several days before the murder at Serajevo. The first official reference, however, to this naval under- standing is contained in the French Yellow Book. Hereafter, Sir Edward Grey will be unable to content himself with a general denial, as he did in the House of Commons on June 12, 19 14, when he was asked to explain the persistent rumors concerning it. He will also be forced to publish the British ambassador's report as to what transpired in the secret debate of the Duma, May, 19 14, when the relations between Great Britain and Russia were discussed. Until now he has declined to do so. People who do not know the remarkable confidence * Sir Edward Grey was able to inspire in some quarters, will be tempted to condemn him as tricky and dis- * When this was written, the author was honestly desirous of reconciling the discrepancies between the British Blue Book and the French Yellow Book with the assumption that Sir Edward Grey was a man of honor and wished peace. Continued studies along these lines have, however, convinced the author that such an assumption is untenable. The dis- crepancies are too many, and their dishonest purport too apparent. The result of these further studies was presented by the author in an address before the German University League in New York on April 24, 191 5, and have been printed as chapters xxxi and xxxii of this book. See also The European War of 1914, by Professor John W. Burgess. A. C. McClurg & Co. The French Yellow Book 261 honest, because the reports of what he prints as having said to the German ambassador rarely tally with what he told Paul Cambon he had said. There is, how- ever, another explanation which may hit the truth. Sir Edward was desirous of reconciling France and Germany, and, therefore, wished both to look upon him as their friend. Under such circumstances, with the peace of Europe as the great stake before him, he talked now to one, now to the other, always guided, his friends believed, by the desire to keep Germany from acting, by making her feel that England was not bound to take sides, and to keep France satisfied in her belief that he had not gone back on his word to her. If Sir Edward had not been trusted, neither the supposed naval agreement with Russia, nor his letter to Paul Cambon of November, 19 12, would have bound him or his country in any way. But because he was believed to be a man of honor, France knew that he would find a way of redeeming his word, if she succeeded in convincing him that France was in danger. At first Sir Edward Grey may have worked hard for the maintenance of peace, and brought about (as said above) the conditions under which an amicable settle- ment would have been possible, if Sazonof had not ob- jected. After the failure of this plan and under the constant prodding of France he apparently realized that war was inevitable, that his understandings — with France and Russia — would force him to shape public opinion in a way which would enable him to redeem his word, in short that he was committed to war. His only hope was to induce Germany and 262 Germany's Point of View Austria to yield every point, since Russia was adamant. He then sent this impassioned appeal to Berlin : If the peace of Europe can be preserved and the present crisis safely passed, my own endeavor will be to promote some arrangement to which Germany could be a party by which she could be assured that no aggressive or hostile policy would be pursued against her or her allies by France, Russia, and ourselves jointly or separately. I have desired this and worked for it as far as I could through the last Balkan crisis, and Germany having a corresponding object, our relations sensibly improved. The idea had hitherto been too Utopian to form the subject of definite proposals, but if this present crisis, so much more acute than any that Europe has gone through for generations, be safely passed, I am hopeful that the relief and reaction which will follow may make possible some more definite rapprochement be- tween the Powers than has been possible hitherto. (British Blue Book Number loi.) This appeal failed. Nothing but absolute faith, not only in the honesty of the man who made it, but also in his ability to carry it out, could have induced Ger- many to accept Sir Edward's offer. Can Germany be blamed? The very promise that in the future " Germany could be assured that no aggressive or hos- tile policy were to be pursued against her " implies that heretofore she could not have felt sure of this. When even this last appeal failed. Sir Edward was faced by a still greater problem, how to induce the British cabinet, and next the country and Parliament, to help him redeem his word. On this score the Yel- low Book offers abundant evidence. It is here sum- marized without further comment. Circumstances were too strong for Sir Edward Grey. Paul Cambon was the Mephisto and Sazonof the stage director. So far as Great Britain was concerned, the following The French Yellow Book 263 had been, before the publication of the French docu- ments, the known order of events : Aiugust I. Germany's request that England formu- late conditions under which she would remain neutral ; Britain's refusal, because Sir Edward said, " we must keep our hands free." August 2. In the afternoon, assurances of British support in case of war given to France, and not made contingent on any infringement of Belgian neutrality. This official promise was first made public in Parlia- ment August 3. August J. Sir Edward Grey's great speech in Par- liament. Turning now to the Yellow Book, Number 106, July 31, and reading Paul Cambon's report of Sir Edward Grey's statement to him, one finds as follows : 1. The British cabinet, in meeting, have voted that as yet, they cannot guarantee that they will intervene. 2. Personally, however. Sir Edward Grey promises intervention, for he tells Cambon that he told Germany that " if France is involved England will be dragged in." 3. Sir Edward, therefore, gave personal assurances at variance with the decisions of the cabinet. 4. The question of securing guarantees for Bel- gium is now broached for the first time. 5. Cambon's appeal, "will you wait until we are invaded or repeat the mistake of Europe of 1870?" 6. The under secretary of state's confidential assur- ance that Sir Edward would bring the matter before the cabinet again on the next day. 264 Germany's Point of View The next day was August i. The Cabinet met again, but again (Number 126) no intervention in favor of France was voted. Cambon goes on reporting as follows: 1. Sir Edward has refused Germany's request to promise neutrality. 2. Germany's reply concerning Belgium is unsatis- factory. 3. Sir Edward makes his personal promises to Cam- bon that tomorrow he will propose to the Cabinet r— (a) That England will not permit the violation of the neutrality of Belgium. (b) Since the English squadrons are mobilized, etc. [Then followed the guarantee of intervention men- tioned by Sir Edward in Parliament.] This was on August i, and that means that Sir Edward renewed his personal promise of support to Cambon, in spite of a vote of the Cabinet to the con- trary, and that he gave his assurance that he would again ask the Cabinet to ratify it, on the very day on which he told Germany that he could formulate no conditions under which England would remain neutral, because England had to ''keep her hands free." While the Yellozv Book thus casts very serious as- persions on Sir Edward Grey and seems to justify all the bitterness which Germany has felt, it completely exonerates the British Cabinet and the British people. Germany has felt that the Belgian question was merely a pretext. So it was for Sir Edward Grey. For the Cabinet, however, it was the deciding factor. Twice, on July 31, and again on August i, the Cabinet refused The French Yellow Book 265 to promise their armed support to France. They did so in the face of the undoubtedly strong pressure of Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Churchill, who, without authority, had ordered the mobilization of the fleet on July 24 (Number 66). Would the Cabinet have yielded if Germany's promise not to invade Belgium {Blue Book No. 123) had been reported to it? If it had not yielded, Sir Edward Grey would have been obliged to resign. There was no alternative. But would Great Britain have been willing to lose at that most critical time the services of a man whom the people at large considered exceptionally capable and upright, however severely some individuals had criti- cized * his methods ? The result of this remarkable dilemma was that Germany went through Belgium because she knew that England would go to war, thus piling up the odds against her to a terrifying extent. And England went to war against Germany to prevent what only the certainty of her going to war made it necessary for Germany to do. The man who brought this to pass was Sir Edward Grey, not necessarily because he was tricky, but be- cause foreign diplomats trusted him. His mere word, his personal letter to the French ambassador, a mili- tary conversation entered into between British and for- eign general staffs under his direction — these were the ties that fettered his country, because they were incautiously spun by a man who had the reputation] of being honest. They fettered England, in fact, far * For a severe arraignment see G. H. Ferris, Our Foreign Policy and Sir Edward Grey's Failure, London, 1912, and the chapter on World Policies in Germany and the German Emperor, by the same author. 266 Germany's Point of View more firmly than treaties of doubtful phraseology could have done. If Sir Edward Grey should really be innocent, pity, rather than scorn, should be offered him. When he reviews the whole case in the light of the French Yel- low Books and sees what through those nerve- wrecking days Paul Cambon, by his many false and exaggerated reports, tried to keep from him, that Germany was hon- estly anxious for peace, and had been eagerly working for it; when he sees that France had done absolutely nothing, and that Russia had never wavered from her determination to force a war unless Austria yielded every point,* he may well ask himself : Were these people worth the sacrifice of England? Would it not have been better to make a clean breast of it, to in- sist upon the Cabinet's refusing to redeem his prom- ises, and to retire rather than redeem his word under such conditions? But, why were Russia and France so determined to force a war at this time, when it is well known that neither was as well prepared as both expected to be two years hence? Because this was probably the last time they could count on the support of England. As Sir Edward Grey said in his final offer to Germany, Germany and England, separated by mutual jealousy for many years, were nearing a rapprochement. Three years of incessant labor by the German chancellor had not been in vain, the absolute humaneness and honesty * It is often said that Servia agreed to all of Austria's de- mands but one. This is, however, very erroneous, although most American papers have innocently repeated this false- hood. For the facts in the case see the Austrian Red Book, and Austria-Hungary and the War, by Ernest Ludwig, J. S. Ogilvie Publishing Company, 191 5. The French Yellow Book 267 of von Bethmann-Hollweg had begun to tell. Lish- nowsky in London, and von Schoen in Paris, had been sent there, not because they are great diplomats, which some say they are not, but because they were singularly straightforward men. Nature had made them straight. In Paris no success had been scored. In London, how- ever, the feeling that Germany really wished to live in peace with England, had begun to take hold. If it had not. Sir Edward never could have made his final offer, quoted above, coupled with the promise that in the future he would prevent hostile moves against Germany. Fortunately for France, Germany's experi- ence was not such that she felt justified in believing Sir Edward's unguaranteed promise. As for the English people, there are — in spite of Bernard Shaw — few who are not convinced that they are fighting Germany for the sake of Belgium. This can be acknowledged without in the least detracting from the justice of the case of Germany. It should be acknowledged, and should be widely spread, for noth- ing has fanned the English hatred in Germany more than the erroneous belief that the devious course of Sir Edward had been that of the British people. But why, it may be asked, should the Germans abate their hate of England before the English abate their hate of Germany? Because God has laid into the German character, a quality, which many nations lack. They have the gift of perceiving and understanding and liking the good qualities of other people. Shakes- peare is more read and played in Germany than in England and America together. Emerson, Royce, and James have influenced larger numbers of German than American students. English, French, Russian, Italian, 268 Germany's Point of View and other foreign books are more frequently read in Germany than anywhere else. Let the Germans, therefore, understand that not even the British Cabi- net voted to go against them until it was shown that they would go through Belgium, and they will feel convinced that a future understanding with England is not impossible. The French Yellow Book may, therefore, achieve a great many things, although it explicitly disproves the one thing that it was meant to show. It does not exonerate France, unless you call it honor to follow blindly in the tracks of a big ally. But it does exon- erate Germany and it exonerates the British Cabinet and the British people. The present war, after all, is a gigantic struggle between the Anglo-Saxon and the Teutons, because these two peoples believed that they could no longer inhabit the earth together. The French have done their part to foster this erroneous notion, and the Russians have been willing to profit by it. Thanks, therefore, to the French, who in their Yellow Book, have shown the error of this notion, there is no reason why the mutual English-German hatred should not cease, for the Yellow Book has proved that neith- er the Germans nor the English people, as such, are responsible for this war. CHAPTER XX ' GERMAN SCIENTISTS ON THE WAR A BOSTON scientist sent a circular letter to sev- eral German colleagues in November, 19 14, and when he had received their replies turned the entire correspondence over to the writer, with permission to translate and publish such letters as he wished. Lack of space alone prevents the publication of the whole correspondence. The circular letter was dated Boston, November 13, 1914, and read in part as follows : To My German Scientific Friends : It is impossible for anyone in Germany to appreciate the strange attitude of America towards Germany in this great war. An analysis of the situation leads me to think that it is in large part due to the very strong belief in America that Germany committed a frightful crime in violating the neutrality of Belgium. Having lived in Germany for one year as a student in Heidelberg, having the warmest and closest personal friendly relations with so many Germans and Austrians, it is to me obviously impossible to divert my sympathy from Germany to the Allies until more evidence is forth- coming. At the outbreak of hostilities I recognized, as I think few Americans did, that the information we received came wholly through English and French sources, and hence obviously was partisan. The most serious criticism of all is what appears to have been a frightful destruction of a neutral nation, Belgium. . . . I have personally felt, as a warm friend of Germany, that all of the evidence with regard to the German claim 269 270 Germany's Point of View that the violation of the neutrality of Belgium was justi- fiable should be given, if there is any intention to convince Americans that the ground of action against Belgium was justifiable. ... The following reply was received from Dr. Ad. Schmidt, director of the Medical Clinic in Halle, who made a visit to America a year ago : My Dear Colleague : The greatest mistake of our Gov- ernment, we are convinced, was that in times of peace the position of Germany was not sufficiently made known in foreign countries. This mistake was so greaf^ that it can be said to be second only to the failures of our diplomacy. Both, however, are explained by that quality of the German character which is expressed in the proverb, " Lies have short legs, truth will be known." Relying on the justice of his cause and on his achieve- ments, the German rejects with disdain the obligation to fight with words against the calumnies of his opponents. Long before the war we should have taken care to have the world know that definite agreements existed between France, England and Belgium, which would make it im- possible for the latter country to maintain its neutrality. Since we did not do this, the publication of these agree- ments, even though they have been strengthened by the discovery of some of the original documents, give the impression of a belated excuse. There is not a man in Germany who does not charge England with being the ultimate cause of this war. With- out definite assurances of England, neither France nor Russia would have dared to begin the war. If one should wish to make another country morally responsible for the war, then this country is Belgium, which was not willing to defend its neutrality against France as Switzerland has done. You understand that I am speaking of moral re- sponsibilities, for it is perfectly superfluous to discuss the question who gave the final impetus to the war. The powder magazine was ready and the least event capable of producing a spark had to result in an explosion. We had all felt that we should be obliged to fight once more against France, but among all educated people there is today only one feeling, namely of exceeding sorrow German Scientists on the War 271 for the French in their infatuation. We do not hate them, nor do we hate the Belgians, and there is no doubt that we should have given to the latter every possible satis- faction for marching through their country. But then there came the detestable horrors of the franc-tireurs, who were much worse than the public has ever known. Could our officers and soldiers be expected to suffer them without the least retaliation? That we destroyed nothing from the mere lust of destroying is sufficiently proved by the fact that Brussels, Ghent, Liege and other cities have suffered no harm whatsoever, and even in Louvain, the cathedral has been saved because the German soldiers themselves worked hard to keep it from destruction. It was the same with Rheims. I have just read a letter from an army chaplain who was before Rheims and who writes that strict orders had been given not to bom- bard the cathedral, until it appeared that the French, knowing that this would be our course, had established a permanent post of observation on one of the towers of the cathedral and drawn up their batteries in front of the cathedral. Even then, four days elapsed before we finally felt obliged to direct the fire against the church. It was an absolute necessity and the proverb ''Not kennt kein Gehot" has never been so true as in this war, on the result of which our whole existence depends. Every- body in Germany knows instinctively that we should cease for centuries to be a state of civilizing power and world influence if our foes should succeed in striking us to the ground, and these foes are almost the whole world. This explains the grim determination of every soldier, of every single German, to fight to the last drop of Ger- man blood. Our enemies are waging against us a war of destruc- tion, a war of life and death, and not a sporting war such as America carried on against the Cubans and Spaniards. Read the enclosed news item, and will you still expect us to spare our enemies and their monuments? We shall do so nevertheless, for that is the German character, but only so long as it can be done without jeopardizing our safety. Let me tell you just one of my experiences. It speaks volumes. Among the first wounded that came to my hos- pital was a married landwehrmann from near Halle, who 272 Germany's Point of View had a wife and four children at home. He had been in Belgium in the thick of the fight with the franc-tireurs and had been obliged to see Belgian inhabitants treacher- ously attack our soldiers and kill them while they slept. These people were shot. Of one family only a little four- year-old child was left and this child the old landwehr- mann had taken home with him to his wife, and adopted the little waif. Are these the cruel Germans, the bar- barians, the beasts? Your faithful friend, (Signed) Dr. A. D. Schmidt. The second letter was written by Professor Dr. Al- brecht Kossel, professor of physiology in the Univer- sity of Heidelberg, winner of the Nobel prize in medi- cine about three years ago. It reads : Heidelberg, December 21, 1914. Dear Friend: You have given me great pleasure with your letter of November 13. We do not want anything except justice from those in foreign lands, but since we have not received this it is especially satisfying to hear your friendly and cordial views. I heartily thank you for your understanding and for your good will. I have no intention of blaming those Americans whose sympathies are with the English, for I know that these sympathies are very largely determined by blood rela- tionship and are only in part due to one-sided or erro- neous news. I also know that it is very difficult to over- come a prejudice which has been formed as the result of first impressions. Ov/ing to the cutting of the cables your first impressions had to be unfavorable to us. In the first place, America will not appreciate the extreme danger in which Germany has found herself for several decades. In a country like America, whose fron- tiers are threatened by no enemy, no one can imagine the necessity of a fight of desperation, and cannot there- fore understand the actions of a people which is obliged to fight for its existence because it is attacked by an over- powering combination of enemies, some of whom are en- tirely barbarous. Our American critics have almost invariably based their German Scientists on the War 273 judgment on the reports and documents which are con- tained in the English and German White papers. I be- lieve you are right in explaining their respective effect by the fact that the English know better than the Ger- mans how the American mind works and how it can be influenced. The very choice of the documents is of great importance. Even Shaw, who is surely no friend of the Germans, has pointed out that the omission from the official English Blue Book of the dignified and impressive telegrams of the German Emperor to the Czar of Russia was, to say the least, not chivalrous. Those documents, however, which would have influenced the judgment of the American people most definitely were not published by England. I mean the strategic arrangements between England and Belgium. Only a most fortunate accident has made it possible to bring fragments of these arrange- ments to the notice of the public. The Americans, it seems to me, are charging our country with two things : Our starting the world war and our march through Belgium. And yet it is in- credible that our Government should have urged us into a war which could bring us no advantages, but could only result in losses and untold dangers to our existence and the civilization of Germany ! The description of how the war began would fill a book. Everybody knows that Russia was yearning for the possession of Constantinople ; that her way to Con- stantinople would have to go through Vienna, and that the whole of Russia's policy aimed at undermining Austria with the assistance of Servia. Russia intended to deprive Austria of an access to the sea and thus to throttle her. Our fate, however, was identical with that of Austria. Russia had begun her mobilization in the spring,* as is proved by the appearance of Asiatic army corps on our frontier at the very beginning of the war, while it is known that their transportation must have consumed months. There are also other infallible signs to the same effect, for instance the tone of the official Russian organ (Ruski invalid), on the occasion of the visit of the French president. Russia's firm determination to commence the *In substantiation of this assertion see the files of the American press during the Spring months of 1914, and espe- cially the American Review of Reviezvs from April to July, 1914. 274 Germany's Point of View war could not be influenced even by the peaceful en- deavors of the German Emperor, especially since the Eng- lish ambassador in St. Petersburg exerted his influence to the extent that Russia's proposals to Austria should be made even less acceptable* than they had been at first. Our enemies had placed the noose around our neck. We had to tear it before they pulled it taut. When v^ar between Germany and Austria on the one hand and Russia and France on the other had been de- clared, our position regarding Belgium began to be dif- ficult. The strength of the Belgian fortresses was di- rected against us. We knew that French oflicers were in these fortresses and that Belgium had permitted French airmen to fly across her territory. A fairly-large number of French oflicers and men, moreover, who had passed through Belgium in automobiles in order to enter Germany, were captured on the German-Belgium frontier. The English Government in an interview with the Ger- man ambassador had refused to formulate conditions under which England would remain neutral. The Eng- lish Government was hostile to us and its participation in the war seemed to be only a question of time. Those who disapprove of our entrance into Belgium demand that we should have begun our war against France under most threatening conditions, with two enemies in our rear, Belgium and England. The docu- ments which have been found prove what would have happened if we had done this. They show that Belgium had made arrangements with one of the participants of the Triple Entente, with England, to prepare for a war against us. If we should have left our rear toward Bel- gium unprotected we should have been at the mercy of England, who could have fallen into our rear at any moment she chose to go through Belgium, and there is no doubtf that she would have done this. Under such * See French Yellozv Book, Numbers 103 and 113. t In substantiation of this assertion see Lord Roberts' decla- ration of August, 1913, quoted in The Fatherland, March 17, 1915, that in August, 191 1, the British expeditionary force was held "in readiness instantly to embark for Flanders to do its share in maintaining the balance of power in Europe." Lord Roberts does not make the invasion of Belgium de- pendent on a previous infringement of Belgian "neutrality" by Germany. German Scientists on the War 275 conditions the fate of Germany would have been sealed. By this agreement with England Belgium had surrendered its neutral position and had made all the acts of neutrality a scrap of paper. This is our view of the wrong we have done. It is evident that the responsibility for the misfortune of Belgium does not rest with the people but with their Government, who had taken part in the conspiracy against us ; but he who makes a fortress of his house by shooting from its windows must not be astonished if his house is treated like a fortress and is drawn into the whirlpool of war. When Germany is blamed for its militarism such re- proaches appear to us especially unjust. It is a fact that France has spent more money for her army in comparison to her population than Germany, and that Russia has actually spent more than either.* The real seat of Euro- pean militarism is England, who claims control of the sea. The history of the last decades has proved over and over again that the militarism of England aims at con- quests (Transvaal, Egypt, Persia, and Cyprus). Ger- many has been sufficiently taught by her past history that it is necessary for her to be prepared against her neigh- bors. And the ruins of the tower of the Castle of Heidel- berg are not the only sign of the fate which will be ours as soon as we renounce the protection that our army can give us. Germany's militarism is defensive; England's militarism is aggressive. The time when our neighbors overran and despoiled our unprotected country was the time when the French stole from us Strassburg. As a child I often doubted the justice of the order of things in this world because this German land, the seat of our old German civiliza- tion, continued to be in the hands of strangers, and this was the feeling of the whole of Germany. Did we commit an act of injustice when we took back what had been stolen from us and tried to secure its permanent posses- sion by fortifying our frontiers ? The papers of the last days have told us that our enemies are now using the monopoly of the cable com- munications which they possess for spreading false ac- * See the chapter on "Militarism" in the author's What Germany Wants. 276 Germany's Point of View cusations against Germany concerning the bombardment of English coast towns. They claim that these places were unfortified. This is incorrect. Hartlepool is strongly fortified; Scarborough also has a fort and Whitby a coast guard and signal station. The fire of our ships was directed only against this station. Compare with this what has happened in my immediate neighborhood: An open city, situated entirely outside the sphere of war operations, Freiburg, has been hit by bombs thrown from flying machines of the Allies. I suppose you have not read in your papers that on this occasion innocent by- standers were killed and others were wounded. But it is not my intention to deal with the actions of our enemies, which run counter to the conventions of the Hague conference and humanity. I do not care to condemn the Allies; I only wish to explain to you what we have done. Only one thing more I wish to mention, and that is that as the result of English interference with the mail of neutral America, your earlier letters to me have not reached me. Your faithful friend, (Signed) Dr. Albrecht Kossel. The third letter was written by Professor Dr. J. E. Johansson, director of the Karolinska Institute, De- partment of Physiology, University of Stockholm, and is particularly interesting as throwing a light upon what seems to be debatable ground, namely, the attitude of the Swedes. Unlike the other letters it is not a reply to the circular note, but was written earlier. It reads : Stockholm, November 8, 1914. Dear Colleague: Hearty thanks for your friendly greetings. In these times we are warmly grateful for words from our friends in foreign lands. We are not yet surrounded but every day our relations with the outer world are more and more restricted. We have received several letters from Freiburg. The Ger- mans are continuing to be hopeful and to develop a strength which fills us with admiration, but how long will German Scientists on the War 2yy they be able to withstand? If the Germans should be beaten we are afraid that our turn will be next. An English fleet in the Baltic will be very disagreeable for us. We are continuing our work in the laboratory but our young men are being called to the colors one by one, and if the war should be pushed into the Baltic then we should have to protect our coast. What the end will be — what's the use of troubling one's head about that now ? With kind regards, yours, (Signed) J. E. Johansson. The last letter is another communication from Dr. A. D. Schmidt, of Halle, and reads : Halle, December 17, 1914. My Dear Colleague: So far as I can see, we do not claim that Belgium, together with France and England, had planned an invasion of Germany, but that it has had for a long while definite diplomatic and military arrange- ments with England and France while it has never tried to get in touch with Germany, and has certainly never considered how it would be able to maintain its neutrality also against the powers of the West. A neutral State, however, it seems to us, must do one of two things : Either it must arm itself sufficiently — as Switzerland has done — to protect its frontiers against the invasion of any enemy, or it must not make any martial preparations at all, and trust that the great Powers which have guar- anteed its neutrality will respect it. To act as Belgium did, evidently under the strong compulsion of the entente Powers, namely, to enter into definite military arrange- ments with one side only, is not an act of neutrality. It is hypocrisy. It is taking sides secretly and that is much worse than taking sides openly. In this connection you may be interested in the article " New Proofs of Guilt " in Number 586 of the Hallesche Zeitung and in " A Neu- tral Judgment," in Number 603 of the Tdgliche Rundschau. I was especially interested in your view of the German aims when the war began, especially your belief that Germany hoped to be able to extend its influence in the Balkans by restricting the war to Austria and Servia. I can assure you that no man in Germany has thought, or is even today thinking, anything of the kind. Nobody 278 Germany's Point of View in Germany, and least of all the German chancellor, has looked for conquests. All of us feel that this is exclusively a defensive war in which our existence is at stake, thanks to the policy of King Edward vii^ who wished to place an iron ring about us. This accounts for our unanimity, for our grim determination, for our enthusiasm and for the readiness everywhere in Germany to sacrifice every- thing — to an extent even which greatly exceeds what was done in 1814. And from this point of view the war will comprise, however it may result, one of the most inspiring chapters of the history of the world. I can grant to you only this, that all people in Germany who had any knowl- edge of European affairs, were agreed that it was our duty to assist Austria against Russia. Austria is the bulwark of Germanism against Slavism, and if ever there has been a war of the races this is such a one. This, however, is the disgusting part of the whole affair — and no German will ever forget it — that England, our nearest racial relative, took the side of the Slavs in this war, not to prevent the destruction of France but to get rid of an inconvenient rival in the markets of the world, and what is even worse than this, England is calling out against her blood relatives not only her colonies but also the lower races of the world.'*' I fail to understand how the Americans, who are endowed with a very strong sense of justice, can get over these actions of England. We have always seen in America the country which was to bring about the amalgamation of the Eng- lish and the German interests, and I came home from my visit to America with the distinct impression that your country would be able to do this, but now the war may have torn a cleft also in your magnificent national system and may have rendered this amalgamation illusory for a long time to come. This at least is the painful impres- sion which I have gathered from your letters and from those of other American friends. Let this be enough for today. All educated people in Germany regret this terrible war just as much as you * Just as England called the savage Indians to her assistance in the American War of Independence, and set a price on the scalps of the Americans. See B. J. Lossing The Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution, pp. 159, 235, and 239, also " German Viewpoints," Boston Transcript, April 30 and May 5, 1915. German Scientists on the War 279 do and are hoping with you that it may soon be ended. Our wishes are that we may emerge from it not only with honor but also free from the fetters which England wished to impose upon us and our commerce and cultural development. Let me assure you that nobody here thinks of extending his feelings toward England to include also America. On the contrary, we wish to keep our relations with you untarnished in spite of our momentary differ- ences of opinion. Most cordially yours, (Signed) Dr. A. D. Schmidt. CHAPTER XXI THE GERMAN FOOD SUPPLY WHEN England was unable in the South African War to beat the Boers man to man, and accord- ing to the established rules of warfare, she had recourse to an invention of her own : the concentration camps, in which 30,000 women and children died, or, as the finer type of Englishmen used to say, " were mur- dered," because the English disregard of even the ordinary care under which human beings can live was the cause of their death. The great success which Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener had with this novel mode of warfare in South Africa induced the British Government to try it on a bigger scale in the present war, and to make one huge concentration camp of Germany and Aus- tria, in which to starve the non-combatants, women and children. Unable to beat the German and Aus- trian soldiers, whom they greatly outnumber, the Allies hope to reduce them to submission when famine stalks through the country. The horrors incident to a war in which Gurkas, Turkos, and cannibal negroes, seventy thousand American horses, and hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of American munitions of war are allied on the side of England, France, and Russia are to be multiplied a thousand-fold by the thought that at home the dear ones are dying of starvation. 280 The German Food Supply 281 If Germany had planned this war, she would have provided for such a contingency by filling her store- houses with grain and meat to last her through one or even more years. But she did not do this, and since the so-called neutral nations have been unwilling to force England to abide by the established rule that provisions for the civil population of a belligerent are to pass unhindered. Sir Edward Grey has been able to bring about conditions under which any large industrial State like Germany might be expected to starve. Will Germany starve? This was the question of paramount interest during the winter months of 1914- 15. Strange as it may seem, its answer may determine the victor of the war. For, if the English policy seems likely to force Germany to surrender because of lack of food, the Entente will be able to survive the disap- pointments of the first ten months. If, on the other hand, it appears that Germany can subsist for years without the importation of food, then the conviction that her military strength is irrefragable may induce either Russia or France, or both, to look with favor on any proposal which relieves them of a bargain in which their life blood is spilled to maintain England in the position of an aristocrat among the nations — one who claims not only superiority but also supremacy in the world. The importance of this question, therefore, has led to much speculation, in a great deal of which the wish has been father to the thought. Fortunately, however, it has also been investigated by a number of scientists in a perfectly calm spirit, and according to approved laboratory methods. Sixteen men and women joined 282 : Germany's Point of View in this voluntary investigation, a labor of love for the Fatherland. They numbered among them not only experts in science and practical agriculture, but also authorities on the distribution of food, on fertilizers, the manufacture of beer, and alcohol, starch, etc., and the German industries as a whole. After weeks of exhaustive study they published their conclusions in a large pamphlet, which has just reached America. [Die Deutsch Volksermhrung und der Englische Aus- hungerungsplan, The Food Supply of the German People and the English Plan of Starving Them, pub- lished by Paul Eltzbacher, with Vieweg and Son, in Braunschweig.] Starting with the assumption that England's wars are preeminently economic, and that she intends to win the present one by starving her opponents, the following quotation is given from the London maga- zine. The Financier (here re-translated from the German) : 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 oppor- tunity, the complaint of German commercial competition will not again be heard, at least in our lifetime. The British Government, in an endeavor to seize their opportunity, have established in London a sample depot of German wares, with a list where the goods are sold, at what cost, and in what quantities, and with suggestions how this trade can be diverted to England. The German Food Supply 283 It may not be idle to state here, in parenthesis, that the EngHsh objections to an American ship-purchase bill was not so much due to the fear that it might inure to the benefit of Germany, as to England's unwill- ingness to let America or any other country supply the markets from which Germany has been tempo- rarily obliged to withdraw. The German scientists, however, have drawn from England's action merely the conclusion that Germany will have to regard itself as an industrial and com- mercial unit, which is cut off from the rest of the world for the time being. Austria-Hungary is in a somewhat better condition, because it is less densely populated, and because it can, for the present at least, import enough food from Roumania and other Balkan States. Some importations from the Scandinavian countries, and later, if luck favors the Turks, also from Egypt, may alleviate the needs of Germany. Both these sources of supply, however, are uncertain, and it is better to investigate what Germany can do alone, if she should be compelled to rely entirely on her own resources. Nor is it enough to figure on a brief war, because England has always shown great tenacity, and when the odds have been greatest against her, as in the Napoleonic and the Boer wars, has exhibited a won- derful degree of endurance. She has probably never before suffered so severely as at present, because Germany was her best customer, and for some of her industries she can find no substitutes for the goods which she used to import from Germany. Unable to get, by fair means, the German dyestuffs, without which her cloth industry is languishing, and jealous 284 Germany's Point of View of seeing this trade go to America, she has declared that she will confiscate all German exports to America, her excuse being that she wishes to retaliate on Ger- many. But even the most English friendly people may be expected to see through this pretext. The German navy, moreover, has disarranged Eng- lish shipping and hushed the noise of the machinery in many a factory, while the complete absence of any freight to be transshipped to Germany has thrown a good many people out of employment. The number of the recruits to this army of the unemployed is greater than that of the recruits to Kitchener's army ; a fact which adds to her economic difficulties, and would presage an early peace unless she felt obliged to go on playing, or lose the enormous stakes she made when she entered the game. All this makes it incumbent upon Germany to fig- ure on a long war, not to mention the fact that the best means of having a short war is to be prepared for a long one. In preparing, therefore, for an economic existence, in spite of the English plans of starvation, German economists had to readjust their ideas. As long as Germany was an interested member of the economy of the world, production was her chief aim. As soon as England tried to restrict her to her own national resources, consumption had to become her chief con- cern. Instead of asking, as formerly: "What can we produce for sale in the best markets ? " Germany has been compelled to ask today, " What do we need in the Way of food, clothing, heat, and so forth, and how can we satisfy these needs ourselves?" During the first weeks of the war many people in The German Food Supply 285 the German industrial centers were out of work, while farmers, on the other hand, were often without help. Formerly the Government would have tried to alleviate the needs of the unemployed first ; during a war it is more important to supply the lack of help in the coun- try. Ordinarily no investments are made except those which promise good returns ; at present, however, any establishment which serves to increase the food supply — as, for instance, communal plants for the drying of potatoes — should be called into existence. While Germany's industrial life was entwined with that of the world, the individual enjoyed the greatest freedom, and was encouraged to make his own experi- ments. Under altered conditions the state will have to assume greater responsibilities, and regulate the national consumption in the interest of all the people. It will have to place embargoes on the export of any- thing needed, or, by fixing highest or lowest prices, regulate the consumption of any one article. The suc- cess of such measures, however, will depend on the response of the people. In times of need everybody must become somewhat of a Socialist ! The first step in the investigation of whether Ger- many can feed her seventy million people without out- side help is to inquire whether any markets will con- tinue to be at her disposal. From Holland, Germany used to import meat, but- ter, cheese, and fish. Holland, however, was able to export meat and butter only because she imported millions of tons of food for her cattle. During the war her imports will be irregular and much smaller, a fact which will show in a decreased exportation of food to Germany. 286 Germany's Point of View The same is true of Denmark, whose exportation of cattle and other farm products is dependent on an importation of approximately one million tons of grain and fodder. When this importation is cut off by the war the Danish will be obhged to curtail the number of their cattle and milch cows, and will not produce enough to supply their former German markets. Sweden and Norway have always been dependent on the importation of grain, for the former produces only about four-fifths of what she needs, while the latter has never been able to grow more grain than to supply one-eighth of her demand. It is therefore impossible to look to either of these countries for anything beyond the importation of fish. Switzerland used to sell to Germany some cheese, but since her dense population and mountainous soil renders her dependent on the importation of grain and often even of fodder she will need every ounce of her food at home. Italy has rarely had to sell anything but her fruits, for her demand of wheat and corn has generally exceeded her production by one and one-half million tons. Roumania, on the other hand, is a grain exporting country. Unfortunately, however, both the Roumanian and the Hungarian harvests were poor last year, so that Austria will doubtless need every bit of grain that Roumania is able to sell. If Germany, therefore, were dependent on the im- portation of grain, she could receive it only from across the ocean. It is, however, this supply which England has set out to keep from her. Since not only humanity and the precedents on which international law is based, but also the Declarations of Paris and of The German Food Supply 287 London — which latter England signed but failed to 'ratify — explicitly demand free passage for the food supply of all civil populations, England's first step was to divert the foreign shipments of grain to the neutral countries surrounding Germany and to force each one of them to forbid the exportation of grain during the war. Since these countries, as has been seen, are dependent on foreign grain, they had to do the bidding of England, who had it in her power to prevent any grain from reaching them. Having compelled the neutral nations of Europe to lay an embargo on the exportation of grain, which could harm nobody but Germany, England turned her attention to the United States in an endeavor to reconcile the American Government to the use of her naval power. This she has been unable to do, for President Wilson has addressed to England a polite protest. Since Sir Edward Grey, however, felt con- vinced that there was no punch behind it and that the President was determined not to decide on the right or wrong of any question connected with the conduct of the war, he replied to the American note in a courteous way; but, far from altering his course, declared his intention ot treating all foodstuffs as contraband of war. The German scientists were not concerned with the question whether England thereby broke the tenets of international law. The mere fact that this action de- prived Germany of her last possible source of a for- eign grain supply sufficed to prove to them that their calculations had to be made on the basis of the ab- sence of any foreign supply. The reason, however, which England advanced for 288 Germany's Point of View her step is unusually interesting. She claimed that Germany herself had made food contraband of war because her Government had seized the grain supply of the country. It is true that the Government had taken charge of the grain to administer it in the in- terest of all the people. For the time being, there- fore, private ownership had been superseded by public ownership such as the Socialists advocate everywhere. If England's contention is conceded that she has the right to starve the civil population of Germany be- cause they have introduced government ownership, so far as grain is concerned, then no socialistic state, if one should ever be established, need expect anything but a war of starvation at the hand of nations fighting them in the future. Germany's home production also will be consider- ably diminished. There is, in the first place, the sup- ply of fish, which, in 1912-13 amounted to 142,000 tons from the North Sea, and to 37,000 tons from the Baltic. In both seas the danger from mines and hos- tile fleets will diminish the annual catches. Far greater losses, however, are to be expected in farm products, because there is a dearth of skilled labor and horses. Many horses have been requisi- tioned for the war, and the annual importation of about 140,000 horses (largely from Russia) will be unavailable. To compensate for this the smaller farms will have to take their recourse to oxen, and the larger establishments to motor plows. The most serious dearth, however, will exist in fer- tilizers, and it is their scientific use which has raised German agriculture to its present height. Four chem- icals are needed : potash, lime, phosphate and nitro- The German Food Supply 289 gen. Germany has potash and lime in abundance, but is short in phosphates and nitrogen. In years of peace the phosphates used in the German fertihzers consist of about two milHon tons of thomasschlacke , which is a by-product of the iron industry, and one million tons of imported phosphates. During the war the by- products of the iron industry will be fewer and the importations will cease. Belgium, on the other hand, may be able to supply most of the deficit. As to nitrogen, Germany used to fill her demand of one million tons in about equal parts by importing from Chile the so-called Chile saltpetre, and making use of a by-product of the home manufacture of coke. The German farmers will, therefore, have to reckon with a considerable deficit of nitrogen * unless the use of coke assumes far greater proportions than hereto- fore. Every housewife should realize that she is as- sisting the farmers when she burns coke instead of coal as formerly. There is no doubt that to counteract these various deficits somewhat, Germany possesses at present some grain, fodder, and fertilizer in large commercial store- houses. It is, however, impossible to estimate these quantities, which, at best, can only postpone the evil day. And when they are used up it would, indeed, be an evil day, unless Germany were able to adjust * Since the writing of this chapter the German Government has announced the perfection of the marvelous process by which nitrates are drawn from the air. To encourage the investment of private capital in this process a monopoly has been established to last until 1922. From the military point of view this discovery is most important, because Germany had begun to be short of salt- peter, which is needed in the manufacture of powder. Dur- ing February there was not infrequently a shortage in powder. This has now been removed. 290 Germany's Point of View herself to the altered conditions. A proper change in her mode of life can, however, keep her from starv- ing, if the whole people resolutely face the problems which England has propounded for their solution. The Germans today are like unto the man who has had a large income and been accustomed to a luxuri- ous way of living. Suddenly his allowance is greatly curtailed and he has to learn that he must either do with less or starve. Of all the food men eat some is a necessity and the rest a luxury. It becomes, therefore, a duty to en- quire how much food a man needs, and of what qual- ity. Man is like a machine, into whose motor sub- stances are introduced and there transformed by vari- ous processes into energy. The chief difference between a man and a machine is that the latter can be stopped for repairs, while the tissues, etc., of the former which are used up must be rebuilt during the ceaseless process of life. Food, therefore, serves two entirely separate purposes : First, to rebuild worn-out tissues, and secondly, to provide heat and energy. For the former, proteids, salt, and water are needed. The last two substances are con- tained in sufficiently large quantities in the food of all civilized people, so that protein alone need be con- sidered. It may, in short, be said to be the one indis- pensible substance needed for the rebuilding of tissues. The very opposite is the case when protein is par- taken of in food which is meant to supply energy to the human body, for it may then be replaced by either or both of the two other energy-producing substances : the fats and the carbohydrates. The respective values of these substances for the purposes of creating energy The German Food Supply 291 are measured by units called calories; one calorie be- ing the amount of heat needed to increase the warmth of I kilogram (a little over two pounds) by one de- gree centigrade (=1.8° Fahrenheit). Experiments have shown that one gram of fat produces 9.3 calories ; one gram of carbohydrates and one gram of protein each 4.1 calories. It is further known how many cal- ories are needed by people at the various degrees of light, medium, or hard labor, and also how much pro- tein has to be introduced to keep the tissues of the hu- man body replenished. On the strength of these known data and very accurate studies and estimates (which need not be repeated here in detail) the Ger- man scientists have prepared a table which clearly shows the problems which the Germans have to solve if they will fare better in the huge concentration camp which England is trying to make of Germany than did the South African women and children in the Boer War. Cal- Pro- ories in tein Mil- Food Values For Year. Billions, lion Tons. Actually required by the German people. 56.75 1605 Average used in recent years 90.42 2307 Available under present economic con- ditions 67.68 1554 This table shows that the available energy-produc- ing food, while considerably less than what the Ger- mans have been accustomed to eat, is more than what they actually need. In the proteids, however, which are indispensable for the rebuilding of tissues, viz., for keeping the body well, a deficit exists not only in comparison with what 292 Germany's Point of View the Germans used to eat, but also with what they ac- tually need. This is the disquieting conclusion which the German scientists have reached and which would mean victory for the English, if the latter had to do with any other people but the Germans. Fortunately the German scientists have shown how this deficit can be met, and there is little doubt that the wonderful solidarity of the Germans will enable them to put theory into prac- tice, and to frustrate the English plan. The Germans, however, do not overlook the fact that the inhuman attempt has been made to starve to death, not only their soldiers, but also their women and children, and it has filled them with astonishment that America has not raised her voice to frustrate this plan ! CHAPTER XXII THE GERMAN FOOD SUPPLY (Concluded) ARON FISHER, the present British first sea lord of the admiralty, has expressed his views of how the English should fight in these words (quoted from The Great Illusion, by Norman Angell, page 350) : If you rub it in, both at home and abroad, that you are ready for instant war with every unit of your strength in the first line, and waiting to be first in, and hit your enemy in the belly and kick him when he is down, and boil your prisoners in oil (if you take any) and torture their women and children, the people will keep clear of you. And Lord Roberts gave his hearty approval to these words of Major Stewart L. Murray (1905) (In the introduction he wrote to Murray's book, The Peace of the Anglo-Saxons) : The worst of all errors in war is a mistaken spirit of benevolence. ... It was not in such a spirit of weakness that we wrested the command of the sea from the Dutch, that we fought the great struggle against Napoleon, or seized the Danish fleet at Copenhagen in 1807 to avert its possible use against us. Lord Kitchener, finally, was the inventor of the unique torture called a South African concentration camp, in which 30,000 women and children " died " during the Boer war. 293 294 Germany's Point of View Out of the combined efforts of these three types of military scientists the British Government has evolved the gigantic plan of winning the present war by starv- ing her Teutonic allies — men, women, and children. The boldness of this attempt is stupendous, but not more so than the Teutonic reply, which is divided into two parts. In the first place the English people are told that they are to be held responsible as a whole for the kind of warfare their oligarchical government is permitted to wage ; and that people who contemplate the murder by starvation of whole nations have placed themselves outside the pale of humanitarian considerations. The fate of Sodom and Gomorrah was not more terrible than what the English plan, of starving women and children, deserves, and what London and other places may suffer, unless this plan can be frustrated. The second part of the Teutonic reply is found in the attempt to readjust the economic life of Germany, that the Germans may subsist even if they are shut out from the resources of the outside world, Austria, with a smaller population and accessible importations of food from Roumania, is less hard hit. The preliminary investigations on which to base a comprehensive plan were discussed in the previous chapter, where a table was given, prepared by a com- mittee of German scientists, which showed that the greatest deficit in available food existed in the proteids, that is the tissue-building substances, while the supply of energy-producing foodstuffs, measured by calories, appeared to be sufficient. If the Germans, therefore, wish to subsist, a comprehensive readjustment of their mode of life is obligatory. What, in short, must they The German Food Supply 295 do to thwart the English plan? This is answered in the second part of the pamphlet issued by the German scientists (and discussed in the last chapter), whose advice may be summarized as follows : 1. All available food, especially that containing protein, should be stored and, if need be, taken charge of either by the federal government or by the several municipalities. This has since been done so far as the grain supply is concerned. 2. The exportation of all such foodstuffs should be for- bidden. Early in the war an exception had been made in the interest of Switzerland, who is dependent for her supply on the importation of grain. When, however, England decreed that no grain should reach Germany the latter was obliged strictly to enforce her embargo on the exportation of grain. When, therefore, the neutral nations made the mistake of believing that the rights of neutrals are privileges which may be waived, instead of rights which it is their duty to enforce, the Swiss were the first sufferers of an erroneous policy. J. Since ,pigs are men's greatest rivals in eating food that is fit to support human life, and since there is a great loss, especially in proteids, in the transformation of the original food into pork, the number of pigs kept should be greatly reduced as soon as possible. Experi- ments have proved that almost twice as many people can subsist on the food fed to a pig as on the meat of the pig itself. The newly slaughtered pigs, however, should not be thrown on the market. Instead, every farmer should cure, pickle, or otherwise preserve as much pork as pos- sible ; and in the towns and cities large storehouses should buy up the remainder. In this way a sudden drop in prices and the consequent temptation to eat too much meat at present would be avoided. 4. In planning for the harvest of 191 5 every available acre of land should be planted and much attention be given to the crops of largest yield, such as beets and potatoes. The latter are next to grain the most valuable food, and should, therefore, be used very sparingly dur- ing the war for anything but food. This means that the manufacture of starch and its use should be curtailed. Men should do without starched shirts and women without 296 Germany's Point of View starched petticoats, and in everything housewives should reduce the use of starch to a minimum. The manufacture of alcohol, on the other hand, cannot be equally curtailed, because it is one of the substitutes for gasolene, and may be needed for motor-plows which all large estates should introduce. The calculations in this connection are especially interesting because the committee investigated in detail the relative value of oxen and their food and of the food lost to the population by the manufacture of alcohol. Since the balance is in favor of ploughing with motors, the committee recommends it, but urges upon the farmers the strictest economy. 5. Berries and small fruits, especially apples, should be more carefully gathered and be preserved in large quan- tities. They are not only an excellent relish, but for most people the only acceptable means of introducing sugar into the system, and sugar, as will be seen later, must play a prominent part in the German food supply during the war. 6. The manufacture of butter should be very much cur- tailed, because it contains only the fat of the milk, while all the protein is left in the skimmed milk. As previously stated (Chapter xxi) one gram of fat creates 9.3 cal- ories, and one gram of carbohydrates, 4.1 calories. But- ter is fat and sugar carbohydrates. By substituting, there- fore, jam for butter in connection with bread and eating it liberally the same amount of energy-producing food may be obtained, and much more fresh milk be made available for human consumption. It is, however, not necessary to do away with butter altogether, provided the skimmed milk, which used to be fed to the pigs, be made available. The committee recommends the building up of a special trade in skimmed milk, and urges families who do not relish it in its natural state to partake of it in the shape of puddings, milk toasts, or soups. 7. The cooperation of the people is a necessity. Men do not live by the food they put into their stomachs but by that part of it which they assimilate. The more they enjoy it, the greater benefit they derive from it. It would, therefore, be very foolish to alter one's mode of life of a sudden, and without due regard to the peculiar needs of one's physique. There are, however, few people who can not gradually shift from their accustomed food of meats and other substances rich in fat and protein to The German Food Supply 297 one which contains only as much protein as is needed ,for the rebuilding of the tissues, and for the rest consists of the energy-producing substances, the fats and especially the carbohydrates of which Germany has an abundance. To facilitate this change and to make the conclusions of the committee available throughout the country, three popular books have been published : The first is called Food in War Time, and is addressed to "offi- cials, ministers, physicians, teachers, housewives, and all who wish to help." It is sold at four cents, and in larger quantities at two cents, American money. The second is called A Leaflet on the Food Supply, and is distributed free to all societies, clubs, unions, and other labor organizations. The third is The Little War Cookbook, by Hedwig Heyl, which is sold at the nominal price of six cents, and in larger quantities at four cents. It contains' recipes of inexpensive and nourishing dishes such as the former generations used to eat and enjoy, but which a more luxurious age had discarded. In addition there are many recipes of entirely new dishes which will make use of such foodstuffs as in more prosperous times are v/asted. The value of this little book is incalculable, for if the German people learn the lesson which England's plan is forcing upon them, that the expensive dishes are not only not necessary but often even detrimental, they will be that much the better prepared to push ahead when peace has come and resume their victo- rious progress in the world of commerce, science, and industry, which the war had interrupted. To the friends of Germany this is the remarkable fact that the whole world cannot see that Germany 298 Germany's Point of View was the only one of the nations at war who had nothing to gain that a continued peace would not have dropped as a ripe fruit into her lap. France hoped to regain Alsace-Lorraine, Russia had her eyes on Constantinople, Austria wanted to be rid of the intrigues of Servia, and England was smarting under the commercial rivalry of a nation whose progress was about twice her own and who promised to outstrip her completely in less than a generation. Germany, on the other hand, had nothing to gain. Her industries were growing apace and were able to feed each year the increase of her population of about one million souls, and do it more easily every year.* Her emigra- tion had practically ceased. Poverty, in the English sense of destitution, was unknown anywhere in Ger- many. Her finances were in excellent condition, her assets exceeded by far her liabilities. Her army, large as it was, was no longer a burden, because there were each year many more youths of military age than could be used in the army. Her military expenditures were less than those of France, England, or Russia, and her budget for schools very much larger. What had Germany to gain by war? Absolutely nothing. What had a jealous rival to gain? Everything. Ger- many had learned that efficiency and the open door was all she needed to succeed in the world. England wished to maintain her supremacy without efficiency by means of territorial possessions and a monopoly of the sea. It is this "terrible" German efficiency that may yet win against the English '' silver bullets " and the biggest fleet and most numerous allies the world has ever seen. When Asquith heard of the * See the author's What Germany Wants, Chapter Five. The German Food Supply 299 new German order that to conserve the grain supply every German citizen, however rich or poor, receives each week a ticket enabHng him to buy four pounds of bread — no more — and that this rule was cheer- fully accepted by all, he is quoted as having said that it was not the German army he was afraid of, but the " spirit of the German bread-ticket." This same spirit has shown itself in the readiness of the people to comply with the recommendations of the Committee of Scientists. One of their suggestions was that the farmers should keep less stock, because the importation of fodder had ceased, and it had been forbidden to feed to the stock grain or potatoes, or any other food capable of sustaining human life. Is there another country in the world where all the farmers would have complied with this order, as they have done in Germany? Nobody who has not been on German farms, small or large, and has not seen the tender love of the men for their stock, can know how deep their sorrow was, when, in the interest of all, they had to deplete their herds. Years of hard labor may have made it possible for many a farmer to fill his barns with choice cattle at last. Each cow was known by name and many were the recipients of actual love. Now the family had to be broken up. — But what's the use ? People who do not know the Germans will not understand what the farmers feel, and people who do know them need no description. — One thing, however, is sure, every day there grows in every Ger- man heart a deeper resentment against the inhuman plan of the English to starve to death a whole nation. Will the neutral nations never speak up ? Does it mean nothing to them, when they see the German farmer 300 Germany's Point of View read this sentence from the official report: ''Unless another way is found, we must, to conserve our food supply, do away with three million cows." Three million cows is a little more than one quarter of all the cows owned in Germany at the last census. Add to these nine million pigs, which must be killed, and you can get an idea of the change which will have to take place on the German farms. But even this enormous slaughter of animals and the consequent saving of food would not suffice unless a great proportion of the food which under ordinary conditions is wasted or lost can be preserved. This loss is very great with the invaluable potato, and to avoid it communal drying-plants are everywhere intro- duced. It is no longer a question of a remunerative investment of money, but of the preservation of food; and no means promise better results than these drying- plants. Other suggestions have to do with the preservation of fatty substances. Housewives are shown by actual figures how large a percentage of fat they have per- mitted to run into the sewers, and there is probably not a household in Germany today where this tremen- dous waste is not at least somewhat stopped. Tables also have been prepared to show the gradual increase of the per capita consumption of meat in Germany and to prove how unnecessary it is. It will be remembered that a kilogram is slightly more than two English pounds. The consumption was : Year — k. g. Year — k. g. 1816 13.6 1883 29.3 1840 21.6 1892 32.5 1861 23.2 1900 43.4 1873 29.5 1907 46.2 The German Food Supply 301 This shows that the meat consumption today is twice as great as it was fifty years ago. Nobody, however, will deny that the people then were as healthy as they are now. Less meat and more vege- tables, less fat and more carbohydrates is the reply to England's inhuman designs, and with this in view careful suggestions have been made for the planning of the most serviceable vegetables. Another article of food which has not been suffi- ciently appreciated is cheese, for cheese is rich in proteids, and often also in fats. The so-called mager-kdse, moreover, is the best means of preserving skimmed milk. Of some of the other suggestions only a few need be mentioned. The Germans eat annually about four- teen million tons of potatoes, but of this quantity fully fifteen per cent are lost because potatoes are generally peeled before they are cooked. This loss can be entirely avoided by peeling the potatoes after they are cooked. This, however, often leaves a slight flavor of the skin which is avoided if the potatoes, after being peeled, are boiled for three more minutes in salted water. Sugar has been less used in Germany than in either England or America, where its consumption has been about twice as large as that of Germany. The German export of sugar has averaged about one million tons annually. This should now be consumed at home, and to induce the people to consume more of it, the com- mittee has given an exhaustive discussion to its nutri- tive qualities. This sentence is especially interesting: Detailed investigations have proved that the feeling of tired exhaustion is successfully combated if one partakes of from twelve to fifteen grams of sugar every half hour. .302 Germany's Point of View It is impossible to read this report of the voluntary committee of German scientists without being con- vinced that they are right. Germany will not starve. She will cheat the devil. She will come out on top, not because she has an abundance, but because hers is a country of organized liberty. Does anybody think that an autocratic state like Russia could enforce such rules as are outlined above, or that an oligarchical state like England could put them into execution with any prospects of success, or that a democracy oi the French calibre could do anything with them? Every one of these states placed in the position in which Germany finds herself would unquestionably succumb. The reason why Germany will rise victorious is appar- ent to all who know her, and was summed up less than two years ago by Charles W. Eliot, ex-President of Harvard University, when he said at a banquet given by the German Publication Society in New York, that two doctrines have made Germany great: The first, the doctrine of universal education, and the sec- ond, the great doctrine of civil liberty, liberty in industries, in society, in government, liberty with order under law. CHAPTER XXIII NAVAL WAR AND INTERNATIONAL LAW IN the discussion of international complications aris- ing from the conduct of the war on sea, two entirely different and incompatible principles of law are constantly invoked : the written law, i. e., the Dec- larations of Paris and London and the Hague Conven- tions, and the unwritten so-called Law of Nations. This conflict between the written and the unwritten (z. e., the common) law is of far-reaching importance. Germany has gone further than any other country in accepting the principle of the written law as alone binding in her courts. It implies the firm belief that the people of Germany are capable of making their own laws, and that the administration of justice in any one generation is best served when it follows the conscience of the people then living, expressed in the laws passed by their own legislatures. The Germans refuse to worship at the shrine of abstract justice and claim that altered conditions demand new definitions of right and wrong. They do not understand the English view that a principle of justice laid down, say, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and accepted then possibly because it had been followed for several hun- dred years, must be a correct principle today. England's legal faith has turned in the very opposite direction from that of Germany. The very attempt to reduce justice to definite laws seems absurd to the 303 304 Germany's Point of View English jurist, who looks with considerable distrust on every attempt of the people to make their own laws. What does the man in the street, or the laborer, or the clerk, or the shopkeeper, or anybody else but the jurist know about justice? And what will become of the world if the truth of the principle is denied that justice is the same always? If after generations of honest striving a principle of justice has been established it should be maintained for all times. Such a view takes no account of the changes of time, and is, the Ger- mans believe, the cause of the backward conditions of the English masses. England, it is true, has some written or statutory laws, but back of them there always looms as the beacon light of justice the unwritten or common law, as it has been interpreted through centuries by her best legal talent. The legal procedure of America is based on that of England, but every year more independent minds are chafing under the restraint of what may be exquisitely just in the abstract, but works great injustice in the concrete. The American people, however, have rarely been patient enough to enact well-rounded codes of law and the not infrequent injustice of enacted laws has been a powerful weapon in the hands of the reac- tionary worshippers of the common law, who are sure that the American people cannot be trusted with the making of their own laws. The feeling, nevertheless, has latterly been growing in America that it is ridicu- lous to have our ancestors of five, ten, or more genera- tions ago prescribe for us what is just, when we have long discarded their advice in every other realm, especially in those of religion and of art. Naval War and International Law 305 Soon after the beginning of the present war England practically said : " There is an unwritten law of nations concerning the conduct of the war on the sea, and there are some written laws, the Declaration of Paris (1856), The Hague Convention (1907), and the Declaration of London (1909). Since not one of these three laws has been finally accepted by all the belligerents, none of them is binding on us. We shall, therefore, revert to the unwritten law of nations, which, after all, is the only really just guide in the conduct of war. It will be administered by our own courts in the same impartial spirit which has always characterized them." In saying this England was true to herself. Many of her people had been chafing under the restraints of the Declarations of Paris and London and The Hague Conventions, believing them to be unwarranted in- fringements of their sovereign rights. And it is per- fectly conceivable that the English jurists felt gratified when their Government renounced these written laws, and declared that hereafter it would be bound only by the sacred laws of hoary antiquity, under which Eng- land had established her empire. But as conditions have changed in internal affairs and what once was considered just, works harm for many people today, so also in international relations, the principles which England had inherited, and to which all other States used to submit, have grown irk- some for the neutral States, who are no longer willing to acknowledge that England is supreme in anything but name. However natural, therefore, England's course may have been from her own point of view, it could not fail 3o6 Germany's Point of View to arouse resentment in two quarters. Her enemies said that England tore up the only laws there were when she renounced the Declaration of London and all preceding agreements, and since the Teutonic people take no stock in England's worship of an unwritten law, they naturally felt that England had reverted to a state of absolute lawlessness. Since it is an accepted principle of justice that no- body is bound to observe any but the dictates of his heart when he is matched against an opponent who openly refuses obedience to existing laws, Germany has treated England as an outlaw. If England had not renounced the written law of nations, Germany's submarine war against her would be of very doubtful legality. Since Germany, however, does not recognize England's so-called unwritten law as law at all, and considers England's attempt to starve her and to throttle her commerce as monstrous, she feels justified in trying to do the same thing to England with the only means at her disposal — with her submarines. The question naturally arises in regard to this sub- marine war, how about the right of the neutral coun- tries to trade with England ? To this Germany would probably reply something like this : A few months ago it was a question of the right of the neutral coun- tries to trade with Germany. Then the neutral countries, to the great disadvantage of Germany, did not insist upon their rights, treating them as privileges which could be waived in consideration of the "great necessities" of England. There is, therefore, no rea- son why these countries should not now be willing to waive them in the interest of Germany, if they are really neutral. Naval War and International Law 307 Germany has at all times been willing to abide by the established rules, and nothing would have suited her better than a league of all the neutral States, resolved on enforcing the rules. No such league was formed, while the greatest of the neutral States hum- bly submitted to England's attempt to undo at one blow what the best minds of America had worked for over one hundred years to build up. In a recent article in the Boston Herald, ex-Presi- dent Eliot summed up the American aims in these words : Free seas, free interocean canals and straits, the "open door," and free competition in international trade are needed securities for peace. He might have added " and a neutralized merchant marine," for this has been America's great contention for over one hundred years. On land we have long passed the age of piracy, and private property is safe, unless requisitioned for use of the army, when it is paid for in full. On sea, however, all attempts at neu- tralizing the commerce of the world have met with England's unrelenting opposition. It is true that she joined in the Declarations of Paris and London and The Hague Convention, but never so thoroughly that she had to feel bound by them. The whole nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth have been one continual struggle to induce England to renounce her " right " to a kind of warfare which, while it had made her great, was con- trary to the conscience of all the civilized peoples of the world save her own. The struggle began in 1801 when Russia concluded a 3o8 Germany's Point of View convention with Denmark and Sweden-Norway with the intention of estabhshing a new code of maritime law. It was their view that neutral shipping in the future should be inviolate in war. England did not like this and in his speech from the throne in Febru- ary, 1801, the king of England referred to this new code as : inconsistent with the rights and hostile to the interests of this country. ... I have taken the earliest measures to repel the aggression of this hostile confederacy and to support those principles which are essential to the maintenance of our naval strength, and which are grounded on the system of public laws, so long estab- lished and recognized in Europe. (Speeches of William Pitt in the House of Commons, page 221.) These words reflect the British unwillingness to adapt their laws to the growing sense of justice and humaneness of mankind. Pitt himself, speaking on February 2, 1801, amplified the same idea, when he claimed that England should not renounce her " right " to make war on the commerce of the world, neutral or not neutral. "If it should be proved," he said, "' that our greatness, nay our very existence as a nation, and everything that has raised us to the exalted situation which we hold, depends upon our possessing and exercising this [right] — if I say, all this should be proved in the most satisfac- tory manner, still the honorable gentleman [Mr. Grey] is prepared seriously to declare in this House, that such are the circumstances in which we stand, that we ought publicly and explicitly to state to the world that we are unequal to the contest, and that we must quietly give up forever an unquestionable right, and one upon which not only our character, but our very existence as a mari- time Power depends." (Ibid p. 224.) Today another Grey is taking part in English poli- Naval War and International Law 309 tics, and instead of opposing Pitt's doctrine, is its greatest champion. He, too, considers it to be an ''unquestionable right" of England to make war on the commerce of the world, because she is at war with Germany. He would probably give his hearty approval also to the following words of Pitt : I must observe that the honorable gentleman has fallen into the same error which constitutes the great fallacy in the reasoning of the advocates [of the new code of maritime law], namely, that every exception from the gen- eral law by a particular treaty proves the law to be as it is stated in that treaty, whereas the very circumstance of making an exception of treaty proves what the general law of nations would be if no such treaty were made to modify or alter it." (Ibid, p. 227.) Such reasoning carried ad absurdum means that the very fact that we pass a law forbidding unfair com- petition means that the general unwritten law of peo- ple allows unfair competition ; and the signing of any convention forbidding the war on neutral shipping implies that the unwritten law of nations decrees such a war. To reason like this is monstrous, for it sur- rounds with a halo every abuse that time has per- mitted to grow up. It is, however, the reasoning of all who thrive by special privilege and hate progress. It is, and always has been, the reasoning of political England ; and it is one of the marvels of the age that so many Americans do not see this. Those who in America have fastened their grip on the masses whom they exploit will naturally sympathize with Pitt's doc- trine, but that men like ex-President Eliot do not see that England is fighting to maintain such outworn doctrines, while Germany is giving her heart's blood to break them down, is incomprehensible. 3IO Germany's Point of View While Pitt placed his objection to the new code exclusively on the high moral ground of adherence to the sanctity of the unwritten law of nations, which he did not wish to see altered by written conventions, Charles Fox was perfectly willing to make his appeal also to " common sense," that is, to the British pocketbook. He said: If the commerce of a Power at war could be legally car- ried on by a neutral, the benefit of maritime preponder- ance would be wholly lost — a thing as much at variance with common sense as it would be repugnant to reason {Speeches of the Rt. Hon. Charles James Fox in the House of Commons, vol. vi., p. 428). This whole idea struck terror to the heart of the English, for if their " right " to make war on neutral commerce were taken away from them, they might be obliged to join with the other nations in an efficiency test of competition. What would then become of their divine right of superiority? Would such a code not level all distinctions? Was it not, therefore, a sacred duty to fight against it ? For, as Pitt said : Shall we voluntarily give up our maritime consequence, and expose ourselves to scorn, to derision, and contempt? . . . Will you silently stand by and, acknowledging these monstrous and unheard-of principles of neutrality, ensure your enemy against the effects of your hostility? Fctur nations have leagued to produce a new code of maritime laws, in defiance of the established law of nations. . . . What is this but the same Jacobin principle which pro- claimed the Rights of Man. ... It is in violation of the rights of England, and imperiously calls upon Englishrnen to resist it even to the last shilling. (Speeches of William Pitt in the House of Commvns, p. 264.) Has ever man more truly expressed what has ailed Naval War and International Law 311 England for more than one hundred years? The Rights of Man are in violation of the Rights of Eng- land! The great lesson of the French Revolution and the American Declaration of Independence has' passed England by. This is why Ireland hates her, and why the spectre of dire poverty stalks through the land at the same time that an idle aristocracy and a greedy oligarchy are sucking the country dry. The Rights of Man in violation of the rights of England ! This was said in 1801, and it is as true today as then. England does not know equality and equal opportunity at home, and does not want them among the nations. Her claim to " supremacy " is not an idle boast. She believes she is first, and whoever approaches that exalted position must be quelched. She acted on this principle with Spain, France, Holland, and the United States, all of whom she deprived of their merchant marines. Today she is trying to do the same thing with Germany. But she has tried it once too often. This time she will have to acknowledge the Rights of Man, for after the war there will be no aristocracy of nations. They will all be on an equal footing. In 1801, however, Pitt's "last shilling," the proto- type of Lloyd George's " silver bullet," averted the danger and the northern powers withdrew their mari- time code. A new convention was signed with Russia which met with the high approval of Lord Nelson, who was glad that it had put an end to the principle . . . that free ships made free goods — a proposition so monstrous in itself, so con- trary to the law of nations, and so injurious to the mari- time rights of this country that if it had been persisted in, England should not have made peace {Parliamentary History, vol. 36, p. 262). 312 Germany's Point of View After this the EngHsh, who had been badly scared, had some years of undisturbed enjoyment of their " rights " until one of their ministers was so rash as to join with other nations in the Declaration of Paris (1856). This declaration contains four points: 1. Privateering is and remains abolished. 2. The neutral flag covers enemy's merchandise, with the exception of contraband of war. 5. Neutral merchandise, with the exception of contra- band of war, is not capturable under the enemy's flag. ^. Blockades, in order to be obligatory, must be effec- tive; that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient to really prevent access to the coast of the enemy. It was a first step in advance, albeit such a halting one that the United States refused to ratify it, claim- ing that privateering and the capture of the enemy's, as well as neutral's, private property on the sea, should be abolished at the same time. The English, however, were greatly exercised, and the Earl of Derby actually said on May 22, 1856: I look upon this act ... as cutting off the right arm, as it were, of the country. I look upon it as depriving her of those natural advantages which her great maritime power has given her in war, and of the exercise of that superiority and those belligerent rights without which she is nothing. {Parliamentary Debates, vol. 142, p. 535.) Pitt had said that the Rights of Man were in viola- tion of the rights of England, and Lord Derby said that without these rights England was nothing ! From the testimony of England's own statesmen, therefore, it appears that England is "lost" as soon as she is forced to set her house in order according to the prin- ciples accepted by all other civilized nations — princi- ples which are based on the Rights of Man. But Eng- Naval War and International Law 313 land does not want to set her house to rights, and, leaving conditions at home as they are, England is "lost," if the war lasts long, unless she can find a means of breaking every restriction on her "rights." This was clearly felt and succintly stated by J. Stuart Mill, who, on August 5, 1867, {Parliamentary Debates, volume 189, p. 877), spoke in reference to the accept- ance of the Declaration of Paris by Great Britain as follows : We have put away the natural weapon of a maritime nation. . . . Sir, I venture to call the renunciation of the right of seizing enemy's property at sea a national blunder. Happily it is not an irretrievable one. The Declaration of 1856 is not a treaty. It has never been ratified. ... It is not a permanent engagement between nations; it is but a joint declaration of present inten- tion. . . . Suppose that we were at war with any Power which is a party to the Declaration of Paris. If our cargoes would be safe in neutral bottoms, but unsafe in our own, then if the war was of any duration our whole export and import trade would pass to the neutral flags, most of our merchant shipping would be thrown out of employment, and would be sold to neutral countries, as happened to so much of the shipping of the United States from the pressure of two or three, it mJght almost be; said of a single cruiser. ... A protracted war on such terms must end in national disaster. Does this mean anything if not that it was all right for England to capture the American trade, but that it would be all wrong if America were permitted to return the compliment? Every thoughtful English- man in politics, moreover, realized, after the accept- ance of the Declaration of London of 1909 that Eng- land's greatness was based on her " right " to wage war according to principles which the rest of the civilized world had grown to deem barbarous. The Declaration 314 Germany's Point of Viezv of Paris (1856) for the first time established the prin- ciple that there are other rights besides those of Eng- land — the rights of neutrals and the rights of hu- manity. England — not the intellectual and religious England, but the political England — fought tooth and nail against the Declaration of Paris until she found a way which made it possible for her to avoid its obli- gations. Then there followed The Hague Convention of 1907 and the Declaration of London of 1909, which met with violent public opposition in England. Today she has torn all these agreements into threads, and, to avoid " national disaster," has fallen back on her own unwritten Law of Nations. This " law " is a survival of the past, when humanity had no rights, when neu- trals had no rights, and when the " rights "of England were supreme. What will the world do about it ? What will Amer- ica do about it? Will not her acquiescence be a be- trayal of every principle to which the United States confessed allegiance at The Hague in 1907, and in London in 1909? If America decides not to acquiesce, has she any means, short of war, to enforce her demands? She certainly has! CHAPTER XXIV THE DECLARATION OF LONDON WHEN William Pitt said in Parliament on March 25, 1801, that England would never surrender her naval " rights " in favor of a new maritime law, which recognized as paramount the rights of neutrals and of humanity, he explained his opposition in these memorable words: A new code of maritime laws. . . . What is this but the same Jacobin principle which proclaimed the Rights of Man ! . , . It is in violation of the rights of England. This has been the keynote of the opposition which political England has been waging for more than a century against all attempts of the civilized world to establish by codified law the rights of humanity. It has been the battle-cry of all who have fought against the ratification of the Hague Convention and the Declaration, of London, and is given a prominent place in the writings of the protagonist of the '' rights " of England, T. Gibson Bowles, M. P., whose Sea Law and Sea Power (London, John Murray, 19 10), beat the Naval Prize Bill, without which ratification of the essential conventions of the second Hague Conference and the Declaration of London became impossible. Since Mr. Bowles was the leader of the British movement, whose vote against the proposal prevailed in Parliament, he may be quoted with the assurance 315 3i6 Germany's Point of View that in so doing one does not misrepresent England's official attitude; for he spoke with the authority of a man who had long been in Parliament (from 1892 to 1906, and again in 1910), and who, when the test came, could enforce his views by a majority vote of his colleagues. To him, England is the world, and England alone has the right to say what the law shall be. The assumption of the rest of mankind to take part in the deliberations of The Hague conferences fills him with contemptuous wrath, for in his eyes the delegates there represented nothing but a "cosmopolitan mob" (page 143). The results of The Hague conference and the Declaration of London he summed up in this crisp sentence: Great Britain had been hustled out of her prize jurisdic- tion by the forty-five of The Hague conference; she was now to be hustled into a new law of nations by the ten of the London conference — as was in the end duly done, (p. 144.) When will the world, and America in particular, learn that all the fair words of the literary England count for nothing, so long as the political England, that is the oligarchy of cold-blooded money kings, who are in league with a useless aristocracy, controls the action of the empire. England was "hustled out" of her naval " rights " at the second Hague Conference in favor of the rights of humanity and neutral freedom, although "the merest attention will show, as all his- tory proves, that . . . belligerent rights and neutral freedom are opposed to and mutually destructive each of the other" (p. 172). Since this is the case, the only thing for England to do is to refuse to ratify The The Declaration of London 317 Hague Convention and the Declaration of London, and having done this noble deed, go even farther back, and " by denouncing the Declaration of Paris, resume those powers already waived" (p. 224). This is exactly what England has done. As has been pointed out, she has declared what in practice amounts to this, that she considers herself no longer bound by any but her own unwritten law, the blessed law that through 800 years, as Bowles says, has secured for her and guaranteed to her the supremacy of thq world. At last she feels the sceptre slipping from her hands, and unable to maintain her position as the sole mistress of the sea, she is calling the world to her side. She does not say: ''Help me to maintain my supremacy." On the contrary, she today denies ever having had such aspirations, and claims that she is fighting for the freedom of mankind, because " Ger- many," she says, " is reaching for the mastery of the universe." And in support of her claim she refers America to Treitschke, Bernhardi, and Nietzsche! Even Viscount Bryce blows in the same trumpet, and though President Hadley of Yale has punctured the Treitschke bubble, and France herself has shown up the Nietzsche nonsense by sending M. Henri Lichten- burger as exchange professor to Harvard to teach American youths the nobilty of the philosophy which Germany had rejected, and although it is an established fact that Bernhardi was practically unknown in Ger- many before the war, England goes on trying to fool America and to frighten her with a bogey. Is it really conceivable that Germany should have aspired after world dominion, and the world not have known it be- fore this ! 3i8 Germany's Point of View Germany does not want the dominion of the world, and anybody who takes the least pains in studying the real Germany of the last two decades will have no difficulty in discovering this for himself. But why then, it will be asked, did she plan for war? And that she so planned we have on the excellent authority of Sir Edward Grey himself, whom the American press quoted as recently as March 22 as saying: We now know that Germany had prepared for war, and only those who have planned for war can prepare for it. If Sir Edward wants to know why Germany pre- pared for war let him read the concluding page of T. Gibson Bowles's book mentioned above and pub- lished in 19 10. The page is headed : " Keep the Sword Sharp," and reads in part as follows : And now one last word. Despite all fair words spoken, the deeds done during the last fifty years throughout the world show that we are no nearer universal peace but farther from it; that if peace is cried more loudly, war is more constantly and secretly prepared, and more sud- denly sprung; that ambition stalks the earth no less pre- datory than ever, but only smoother spoken, and that force is but more completely cloaked in fraud. Any day we, too, with little or no warning, may have to fight for our own. In that day what alone will avail us will be our sea power and our maritime rights; what alone will check our enemy, their full exercise. As they sufficed before, even against all Europe, so they would still suf- fice [that is, if the Hague Convention and the Declara- tion of London were not ratified, and the Declaration of Paris be abrogated]. In that day it will avail us nothing that we have the most powerful fleets, if by our' own folly we have in advance suffered them to be protocolized and declared out of their effectual powers [that is, by acknowledging that not only England but also humanity and neutrals have rights]. The Declaration of London 319 Is that day so remote that we need now and henceforth think only of our neutral profits in peace, and not at all of our risks, rights, and powers in war? If so, why all these dreadnoughts? Why this present concentration in the North Sea of British fleets recalled from all quarters of the globe? Is that day so far off? Is it not rather quite mani- festly believed by those who know most and are most responsible, to be near at hand? If it be, then to part with any, even the least portion of that sea power whereon alone we can rely for our defence, would be to prepare our own ruin. Not now. Not now. Not yet. This is no time for putting off any of our harness — rather for girding it on. With these words T. Gibson Bowles won his fight. The Government was beaten, and Parliament rejected the naval prize bill, and thereby made impossible the ratification of the most important Hague convention and the Declaration of London. " For only those who had planned for war can prepare for it," says Sir Edward Grey. Was this eloquent appeal of a member of Parliament, was the acceptance of his views by a majority of Parliament, was the ready acquiescence of the Government, not in substance a call to arms, a preparation for war? And if it was, who planned the war? Should Ger- many see England tear up the recent agreements of the nations as to what is right and wrong among men, that in the war, which she was planning, she could make wrong "right" again, as she proudly claimed she had done for eight hundred years until a " cosmo- politan mob " had bidden her to heed at least some of the "Rights of Man" — should Germany see all this, and hear the leader of the parliamentary majority warn his country to "keep the sword sharp," and 320 Germany's Point of View should she herself listen to the siren voice of a "smooth-spoken" EngHsh Secretary of Foreign Af- fairs, and let her own sword grow dull ? Let anybody read Mr. Bowles's book and, knowing the anti-German feeling fanned daily by the London Times and other conscienceless sheets, ask himself whether the whole book is not directed against Ger- many, And if it is, what was the whole purpose of the agitation against the Declaration of London except the following plea, which is the substance of everything Mr. Bowles wrote? We English have grown strong by the unscrupulous use of our sea-power. Our Government thought we were so strong now that the unfair means of former centuries could be discarded, and that we could make allowances also to the rights of humanity and the free- dom of neutrals, without forfeiting our exclusive posi- tion in the world. We, therefore, signed the Declara- tion of Paris in 1856, and our ministers even accepted an International Prize Court at the Hague, and estab- lished a code of laws for the guidance of this court. They believed that we were strong enough to permit ourselves this luxury. They were mistaken. A nation has arisen recently so strong that we must crush her before it is too late. Every time we take two steps in advance she takes three* in commercial development. We dare not set our house in order as she has done, for that would dethrone our divinely established oli- garchy ; nor do we wish to work as hard as she, but if we do not, we are hopelessly outclassed by her effi- ciency. In this dilemma there is only one way out. * See the author's What Germany Wants, Chapter Five. The Declaration of London 321 Already she is so strong and the man who steers her course is so just and peace loving, that Russia and France do not dare to attack her alone. England, there- fore, will have to join in the fight.* But we know very well that in such a fight we are lost, if we wage it ac- cording to the notions of the civilized world, which is strangely affected by the principle of the Rights of Man. Therefore, proud sons of Albion, rise in your might, denounce every shred of concession you have made to the *' cosmopolitan mob" at the Hague, take the law in your own hands, assert your privileges, and since you will never be able to down Germany by fair means, revert to the wrongs of centuries ago which under the hallowed title of the Common Law of Na- tions you have proclaimed as the English right. This was Mr. Bowles' plea in Parliament, this the rallying cry of his enthusiastic friends, and this the explanation of the recent action of the British Govern- ment. In justice to Mr. Bowles, however, it must be said that, judging by his books, he would be the first to condemn the underhanded way in which the British government presumes to declare a blockade without calling it a blockade in the accepted sense of the word, or to renounce the Declaration of London without acknowledging that it has done so, or to disregard the Declaration of Paris when England is in honor bound by it. On this latter point Mr. Bowles is m.ost ex- plicit. Condemning it in unmeasured terms as an infringement of the " rights " of England, and a perver- * See G. K. Chesterton quoted in The Fatherland, April 14, 1915, P- 9. 322 Germany's Point of View sion of the (English) Law of Nations, he calls for its abrogation. In order to effect this it is necessary that the Declaration should be openly denounced and repudiated; for until it is repudiated it must be held as binding. Its falsity and the want of previous authority and subsequent sanction are not sufficient to be simply disregarded in time of war ; they are more than sufficient to invite its denunciation and repudiation in time of peace. (T. G. Bowles : The Decla- ration of Paris, p. 210). Mr. Bowles may be savage, but he is honest He calls a spade a spade ; and after wading through reams of explanations by international lawyers, it is refresh- ing to read his simple and clear statement of those three documents, the Declarations of Paris and Lon- don, and the Hague Convention. Briefly it is, this: The Declaration of Paris was the first curb on the arbitrary exercise of the sea-power of England. Then came the Hague Convention of 1907, which established an International Prize Court as a Court of Appeals from the decisions of the courts of the several countries. There were, however, no codified laws to guide the judges of this proposed international court, and to remedy this defect the British Govern- ment invited the ten largest nations to a conference in London. There the so-called Declaration of London of 1909 was agreed upon as expressing the highest principles of right and wrong in maritime war on which the nations could agree. Sir Edward Grey claimed in Parliament that by the signature of His Majesty's Government, plenipoten- tiary Great Britain had become committed to the decla- ration, and that the authority of Parliament was not needed. The Hague convention, however, could not be The Declaration of London 323 ratified until Parliament had changed the law of the land, because it established an appeal from the courts of England which the existing law did not acknowl- edge. The Naval Prize Bill intended to do this. When Bowles and his followers beat this bill their claim was this : The Declaration of London made laws for the International Prize Court, which was provided for by the Hague Conference. When the establishment of this court was made impossible by Parliament, so far as England is concerned, the laws of the Declaration of London also fell by the wayside. They have no binding force on the courts of England; and as a matter of fact the English judges are not paying any attention to them today. Why, then, one may ask, keep alive the fiction of the Declaration of London? Probably for two reasons. First, few people have the leisure or the training which enable them to go through a mass of legal technicalities to rock bottom. They will, therefore, be easily misled by such clever lawyers as, for instance, Mr. Frederic R. Coudert, to believe that there are excuses for every glaring infringement of the Declaration. If England succeeds in carrying this war through without being obliged openly to renounce the Declaration, she may in a future war, in which she happens to be a neutral, derive all the benefits which the Declaration guarantees to neutrals. By disregarding it when she is at war, and insisting on its observance when she is a neutral, she will play the fine old game " heads I win, tails you lose." She has, moreover, the conviction that the only nation which could call her blufif is America, and that America will not do it. As Viscount Bryce says (the Boston Herald, March 22, 1915), the American press 324 Germany's Point of View is pro-British, there is nothing to fear. This is at the present moment the unfortunate, nay even the dis- astrous, state of affairs that a number of people are so strongly swayed by their sympathies with Eng- land, France, Russia, Servia, or Belgium, that they are not even willing to investigate on their own account the enormous harm which England and America are doing to the advance of honest international relations by the former's reversion, to her own antiquated law of nations, and by the latter's acquiescence injt. The second reason why Sir Edward Grey does not openly renounce the Declaration of London, although he has actually done so, and the British Courts have indeed openly renounced it, is this: The Declaration of London, Mr. Bowles believed, legalized the traffic in arms. Renounce the Declaration of London, and what do we find? Mr. Bowles has covered this point at length on pages 147, et seq. of his book. Sea Law and Sea Power. This is what he says : Great Britain has always denied that neutrals have or could have any right to supply, either to one or to both belligerents, that assistance in the war which is provided by furnishing either with such means of resistance or offence as are called " contraband." She has always de- clared the law of nations to be — as, in fact, it is — that for a friend of both belligerents to place in the hands of one of them arms against the other is an abandonment of the neutrality which forbids such an assistance to either. This law, Mr. Bowles claims, is altered by the Declaration of London, and, taking Sir Edward Grey to task for it, he says : It would be interesting to know whether Sir Edward would apply to individuals the same principle as to nations The Declaration of London 325 — whether, seeing two men locked in a deadly struggle, he would sympathetically consider and actively support a friend of both who should furtively hand a knife to one of them. Thus Mr. Bowles! And what is America doing about it ? There is no doubt that England is no longer governed by the Declaration of London, and that this is resulting in enormous damage to America. Unless relief comes soon all the American textile mills and leather factories, for instance, will have to curtail their work and eventually stop. As a huge bribe England is placing in this country orders for hundreds of mil- lions of dollars worth of ammunition for herself and her allies. Why then does America^ if she is unwilling to stop the nefarious traffic in arms for moral reasons, not face the question from a pui;-ely legal standpoint and say to England : 1. If you are governed and wish us to be governed by the principles of the Declaration of London, which per- mits the exportation of arms and ammunition, then live up to its stipulations, and open the sea to neutral traffic. We do not want to go to war with you on this question, but unless you obey the law agreed upon as binding in the Declaration of London we shall force you to do so by laying an embargo on arms. 2. If, however, you prefer to follow the reasoning of your Parliament, and wish to declare the Declaration of London null and void so far as you are concerned because your Parliament refused you the ratification of The Hague Convention, then we regret your step, but we cannot deny you a certain justification. In that case, however, your own Law of Nations, as recently 326 Germany's Point of View enunciated, by the leader of your parliamentary major- ity, forbids us to export arms and ammunition to you, if we wish to remain neutral. And since we are re- solved to remain neutral, we shall lay an embargo on the ammunition of arms. Why does the American Government not send one or the other of these answers to the British Govern- ment? Why does the President delay? Sympathies have nothing to do with the case. It is a question of right and wrong. Will America, the nation that has prided herself on being the champion of right, calmly submit to seeing her commerce and her trade spoiled and the rights of all neutrals trampled under foot, because the men in power happen to prefer the English cause, and because they may believe that an embargo on arms would stop the war within a few weeks, in the interest of Germany? Has America fallen so low that it must count consequences before it does what is right ? Or is it a political game, and do the leaders believe that a majority of the voters are anti-German, because the press says so? If they do, they are terribly mis- taken. When the vote was taken in the Massachusetts Legislature recently on the question of substituting the minority report for the majority report of the Com- mittee on Federal Relations, which had been against petitioning Congress to lay an embargo on arms, a change of only six votes would have carried the ques- tion. Six votes ! and that in the Massachusetts Legis- lature and in spite of an ardently pro-English press. Truth is the daughter of Time; and Truth will dawn sometimes also on the men in charge of the The Declaration of London 327 news columns of the American newspapers, as it has begun to dawn on most of the editorial writers. Eng- land is no saint. America will commit no unforgive- able sin if she dares to speak up and boldly insists on her rights. To insist on her rights, moreover, is her duty, for she cannot be neutral if she waives her rights in the interest of one of the belligerents. Nor can she be neutral if she permits England to revert to her own "laws of nations," and yet — to speak with Mr. Bowles — "seeing two men locked in a deadly struggle . . . furtively hands a knife to one of them." CHAPTER XXV BISMARCK WHEN Bismarck celebrated his eightieth birthday and several thousand students had gathered in Friedrichsruh to pay him homage, he addressed to them, together with his thanks, a brief word of advice, in the course of which he said: For man cannot create or direct the stream of time. He can sail on it and steer his craft with more or less skill. He may be stranded and shipwrecked, or make a favorable port. The man who today looks back over the life of Bismarck and, knowing all the marvelous details of his career, wishes to value it rightly, will hardly be able to sum up its lesson in a crisper sentence than that just quoted. With all his strength and resource- fulness, Bismarck never forgot that he was a man, and that it was not given to mortals to create or direct the stream of time. He was thus saved the needless labor of those who are dissatisfied with the world in which they live and who, in their great eagerness to improve it, forget the truth of the old maxim : " Do as much good as you can, but take care that in so doing you do no harm." Bismarck realized, as perhaps no one so clearly before him, that there is no today without a yesterday, nor a tomorrow without a today. A turbulent past does not go over into a peaceful future without an 328 Bismarck 329 intervening period of mixed security. Social injustice today, if ingrained in the thoughts of the people, can- not be transformed into the millennium by the passage of laws which as yet run counter to the stream of time. Let each man do his day's work as the days come along, untroubled by the thought that tomorrow's work might be more congenial or more expressive of his hopes for the advance of humanity. Custom has hallowed the centenary observances of the births of great men, and even if no great war were engaging the nations of Europe the German people throughout the world would be celebrating the hun- dredth birthday of Bismarck. In America, too, where many millions of Germans are living, Bismarck fes- tivities would have taken place, and the Americans of German descent, warming their hearts by the radiance of his strength and energy, his loyalty and readiness to do his duty at whatever cost, would have turned to the task of deserving in the future even more fully than in the past the praise, often bestowed on them, of being among the best citizens of the land. There is something truly Bismarckian in the thought of taking conditions as they are, and working day by day, nay, hour by hour, with a well-defined purpose, for the benefit of one's country. Nor is there any reason why a study of Bismarck and his character, which cannot help strengthening the patriotism of all who are capable of this finest of human emotions, should be influenced by the high passions which the war has aroused. A Bismarck celebration, focussed on the events of the moment, is of passing value, while a thoughtful survey of the qualities which made Bis- marck great will kindle convictions which, translated 330 Germany's Point of View into deeds, may result in inestimable benefits to the country in which countless Germans have found a new home. And nothing could have pleased Bismarck better than this, for he once said to a company of Americans of German descent who had gone from Chicago to visit him : I should dearly like to see the United States of America, which of all foreign countries is the one we intuitively like best. To judge from the information which I have received from former immigrants, they find themselves comfortable and feel at home there. This cannot be said of those who emigrate to other countries. I will ask you to give three cheers for your new country, the United States, and to combine with them one for your own father- land. The two have nothing to quarrel about. * The reason why Bismarck possessed an appreciative understanding of America was because he was a thorough-going democrat. This may sound strange to those who remember that he was the son of a family of the nobility, and that his ancestors had been land- holders in Pomerania. He was, therefore, a member of the "Junker" class, whose ideals have been repre- sented as reactionary. There are many definitions of democracy, but as a working creed none is perhaps better than the conviction which Bismarck held through life, and which he expressed, almost on the first page of his Reflections and Reminiscences in these words : " Birth is no substitute for ability." This may prop- erly be called one of the chief doctrines of his life, from which no considerations could swerve him. His common sense, however, induced him to put by its side the other doctrine, which many so-called demo- crats have forgotten, that " Since birth is no substitute Bismarck 331 for ability, it should also be no stumbling block in the path of a man who wishes to place his ability in the service of the State." People who do not know Germany have often said that the rise of a man of lowly birth was impossible there. They have, however, forgotten that Alfred Krupp, the founder of the largest steel industry, and in his time the richest man of Germany, was born of very lowly parents. In the commercial and industrial world there are countless instances of poor boys who have risen to the foremost positions in the empire. But also in the official world the highest positions are not so hermetically sealed to " outsiders " as foreigners have assumed. Heinrich Stephan, the great postmas- ter general under Bismarck and founder of the World's Postal Union, was the son of a poor cobbler in Stolp, the beautiful little town in Pomerania. There is no better instance than the career of Stephan to prove that Bismarck knew how to translate his maxim, " Birth is no substitute for ability," into practice ; and to this day not only Germany but the whole world is the debtor of Bismarck for calling Stephan to the position of power which enabled him to transform the postal service of his country and of all other civilized countries as well. Ability counted for more in Bismarck's eyes than anything else, but he knew that one can rarely count on the whole of a man's ability ; for if you wish to gauge a man's value to the state, you must deduct from his ability his vanity and count only on the balance. There is in human beings, unfortunately, so much vanity, that the available balance of serviceability is often ridiculously small. To say that Bismarck pos- 332 Germany's Point of View sessed no vanity at all, would be stretching a point, but even critical observers will not be able to detect many instances where his vanity influenced his actions. This, in fact, is one of the remarkable points of his career that his decisions in momentous questions were wholly impersonal. Their bearing on himself and his fortunes had no interest for Bismarck. From his letters we know the warmth of his emotions, his love for his family and his home, and his thorough enjoyment of the pleasures of a care-free life. Yet in his official career, those who knew him and those who today read his speeches and the records of his achieve- ments cannot detect a single instance where a personal wish had been paramount with him. This was due to the fact that Bismarck realized that it is ideas and not men that rule the world. No man, even the greatest, can serve his state well, unless he has placed his whole strength in the service of an idea, and is willing to go wherever the idea leads. Men who hold such views are able to steer a straight course. They have a never-failing compass to guide them. Storms and sunny weather are all the same to them, and even if the clouds shut down, and there is no outlook ahead of them, they need not stop or fear, for their compass is true. The great idea, to the service of which Bismarck had consecrated his life, was the welfare of Germany. He said in the Reichstag on February 24, 1881 : I have ever had one compass only, one lode-star by which I have steered: Sains Publico, the welfare of the state. Possibly I have often acted rashly and hastily since I first began my career, but whenever I had time to think I have always acted according to one question: What is useful, advantageous, and right for my father- Bismarck 333 land and for the German nation? ... Of the structure of the German Empire and the union of the German nation I demand that they be free and unassailable. ... I have given to its creation and growth my entire strength from the very beginning. And if you point to a single moment v^hen I have not steered by this direction of the compass- needle, you may perhaps prove that I have erred, but you cannot prove that I have for one moment lost sight of the national goal. Bismarck could not have steered his straight and happy course if he had not had implicit faith in his compass. All big men are men of faith, and therefore in the truest sense of the word religious. Bismarck was a Protestant by training and adhered to this church through life, but he had no quarrel to find with those who looked at heaven from a different angle. His long continued struggle against the pope was in no way a fight against Catholicism, but only a revolt against the political encroachment on the functions of the state by one of the prominent sects. The Germans fully realized this, even the Catholics after a while, and his few public references to the Deity were under- stood by all as reverent utterances of a devout soul. "We Germans fear God, naught else in the world," struck a responsive chord in every German heart, and has in dark hours given renewed strength and faith to countless numbers of his fellow-citizens. No truly religious man can be obstinate, for in weighty matters he is too deeply conscious of his own personal fallibility. He is, therefore, ever ready to learn and consequently not afraid of changing his mind. In the speech quoted above Bismarck went on to say : If a man tells me, "Twenty years ago you held the same -views as I ; I still hold them, but you have changed 334 Germany's Point of View yours," I reply : " You see, my friend, I was as clever as you are today, twenty years ago. Today I know more, for I have learned things in these twenty years." And, gentlemen, there is justice in the remark that the man who does not learn fails to progress and cannot keep abreast of his time. If people keep rooted in the posi- tions once occupied they are falling behind. Bismarck never remained rooted in one spot, he always progressed, and, keeping abreast of his time, fortunately did not try to outrun it. From this danger, which has beset so many enthusiasts, he was preserved by the accuracy of his studies and his marvelous mem- ory. Even a casual glance through his speeches and letters reveals a stupendous knowledge of history, not only of Germany but also of the other important coun- tries. Nor was this knowledge merely scientific, for he spoke and quoted with ease English, French, and Russian, and showed that he had penetrated to the spirit of these several countries. Greek and Latin, especially the latter, were always at his tongue's end, and the appropriateness of his quotations from ancient and modern literature revealed the wide range of his thoughts. It may, in fact, be truly said of him that he knew mankind. This knowledge preserved him from making the mistake which has been characteristic of men since the world began, of believing that a thing is easy because at first glance it seems easy. He once expressed this in a beautiful simile when a learned professor of polit- ical science had urged a course upon him in the Reichstag which he considered impossible. The conception which the previous speaker has of the politics of Europe [Bismarck said, December 21, 1863] reminds me of a man from the plains who is on his Bismarck 335 first journey to the mountains. When he sees a huge elevation loom up before him, nothing seems easier than to climb it. He does not even think that he v^ill need a guide, for the mountain is in plain sight, and the road to it apparently without obstacles. But v^hen he starts, he soon comes upon ravines and crevasses which not even the best of speeches will help him to cross. Bismarck always saw the obstacles in his path, and while he well knew that they could not be overcome by good intentions alone, he never permitted them to alter his aims. He was an indefatigable student of nature, and knew that in nature big things are not created big, but grow from little things. " The child must be born small," he once said, " if it is to be born at all." This . was his reply to a few enthusiastic friends of the Gov- ernment who found fault with the modest demands of the exchequer of the empire which Bismarck made in introducing the first of that wonderful welfare legis- lation which swept poverty from the country, and has since grown to be a tree of such grandeur that in its shade the whole world is listening for advice. The whole world is not quite correct, for the Massa- ^ chusetts Legislature has only recently rejected the old-age pension bill by a vote of 97 to 121, and con- sidered the wonderful message of Bismarck's prac- tical Christianity far too advanced for Massachusetts. In Germany, however, Bismarck introduced the first of these laws thirty-four years ago, on March 2, 1881. At first he met violent opposition on the part of the Liberal party, which represented the business men of Germany. They pointed with pride to the flourishing industries of England, and quoted endlessly from Eng- lish economic writers. Finally Bismarck replied to one of. their spokesmen as follows: 336 Germany's Point of View The representative has called attention to the responsi- bility of the State for everything it does in the field on which it is entering today. Well, gentlemen, I feel that the State may become responsible also for the things it does not do. I do not believe that the laissez faire, laisses allez theory, and the unadulterated political theories of Manchester, such as " let each one do as he chooses, and see how he fares," or " who is not strong enough to stand, let him be crushed," or " he who has will receive, and he who has not, from him let us take," can be prac- ticed in any State. . . . On the contrary, I believe that those who shudder at the State exerting its influence for the protection of the weaker brethren, themselves intend to capitalize their strength — be it financial, rhetorical, or what not — that they may gain a following, or oppress the rest, or smooth their own way to party control. The loathing which swept over Germany for those who fought tooth and nail against the introduction of even the modest beginning of the German welfare legislation, and who defended every inch of the ground, which they saw slipping from under them, with Eng- lish arguments, is doubtless partly to blame for the readiness with which hatred of England and her merci- less ways has sprung up in German hearts. For the leaders of modern Germany were boys in those days when hardly a self-respecting family from Memel to the Rhine and from the Baltic to the Bavarian Alps did not shudder at the inhuman doctrines of Manches- ter, which every daily paper quoted as having been advanced in the Riechstag against the bill. The old Emperor William i, moreover, it was known, had set his heart on this legislation. Bismarck defended it with titanic eloquence. And Bismarck won. His arguments were largely two; first, it is the happy privilege of a state which can afford it to aid "the weaker brethren," for Bismarck 337 we are filled with satisfaction at the thought that we may be able to do something in the legislature for the less for- tunate classes, and to wrest them, if you will grant the money, from the evil influences of place-hunters whose eloquence is too much for their intelligence. His second and most forceful argument, however, was that it is the duty of the state to provide ade- quately for its poor. He said: Our present poor laws keep the injured laboring man from starvation . . . According to the law, at least, no- body need starve. Whether in reality this never happens, I do not know. But this is not enough to let the men look contentedly into the future, and to their own old age. The present bill intends to keep the sense of human dignity alive which even the poorest German should enjoy! ... I am, therefore, of the opinion that a State . . . which possesses among its citizens an overwhelming majority of sincere adherents of the Christian religion, should do for the poor, the weak, and the old much more than this bill demands — as much as I hope to be able to ask of you next year. And such a State, especially when it wishes to demonstrate its practical Christianity, should not refuse our demands — for its own sake and for the sake of the poor ! It was characteristic of Bismarck that he based his main argument in this great parliamentary struggle on the German sense of duty. He had perceived the truths of life more accurately than many of his con- temporaries. No serious student of Bismarck's life and achievements can fail to learn from them lessons for the guidance of his own life. There is, however, one star in Bismarck's career which shines with a brighter and steadier light than all the rest, and this is his sense of duty. The finer lessons of his life can- not be learned by all, but there is not a man who cannot resolve to adopt for himself Bismarck's own motto : " I am doing my duty, let come what may ! " CHAPTER XXVI BULGARIA WHEN Bulgaria, Greece, and Servia combined forces in the first Balkan war they forgot, over the prospect of gain, that they really hated each other worse than any of them hated the Turks, and when they felt cheated, the ones by the others, at the treaty of peace, and began to fight each other in the second Balkan war, they merely reverted to their natural state of mutual hate and suspicion. This condition exists today. To assume that the Bulgars would fight for the Servs or the Russians for love and because they are all said to be Slavs, is about as reasonable as to count on a grand alliance of cats and dogs because they are all quadrupeds. The Bulgars are a Tartar race, mixed, to be sure, with the Slavs of the country they conquered. They lost in this process their original language and adopted that of their victims, which is akin to the Servian tongue. But though they took the speech of the people they conquered, they never forgot that the Bulgars were the victors and the resident Slavs their slaves. To this day the Bulgars deem it an arrant assumption if the Servians claim equality with them. For the justice of their view, they point to their own well-regu- lated state and the loosely knit community, called Servia, where murderers and pirates go unpunished and even the highest officials are openly in the pay of foreign sovereigns. 338 Bulgaria 339 The racial contempt, moreover, which the Bulgars feel for the Servians is intensified by the difference in the religion of the two people ; a difference which ex- ists less in the dogma than in the administration of the church. The Bulgarian church is independent, with its separate pope, the so-called exarch, while the Ser- vians have never been able to free themselves from the authority of the Greek patriarch. Dogmatically, both churches are what is called Greek orthodox ; that is, adherents of the eastern wing of the Christian church, which was divided when the split came, and the western part received the name of Roman Catholic. When the Turks captured Constantinople, and the whole eastern part of the Roman Empire, they decided to deal with their Christian subjects, in matters spirit- ual, through one authority only, and since their Greek subjects happened to be most prominent, they decided on the chief pope of the Greeks, the so-called patriarch. In spiritual matters his word was supreme throughout the East until the Russians, who profess the same faith, cut this bond and vested their highest ecclesias- tical office in the Czar : In Turkey, however, Bulgars, Servs, Greeks, and all other Christians remained sub- ject to the Greek patriarch. An analogous development took place in the west of Europe, for theoretically the whole West remained one state, the Holy Roman Empire of German nation- ality. Only England stood outside this union, and when she renounced the spiritual sovereignty of the pope she merely did what Russia had done, she nation- alized her church. There is much justification for the contention of those priests of the Anglican High Church who hold that their church is still catholic. 340 Germany's Point of View In the East the Turkish yoke suppressed all the national aspirations of the several races which made up the Ottoman Empire, while in the West the un- wieldy state was broken up into individual nations largely with the help of the spiritual head of the church in Rome. The secular rulers were, in the long run, not the equals of the popes. As a result, the pow- ers of the emperors were restricted, while those of the popes were extended. The willingness with which the several nations submitted to the spiritual powers of a chief bishop, who had no connection with them nationally, testifies both to the intensity of the west- ern spiritual life and to the bigness of the men who guided it. It was very different in the East, where the Turkish Dominion had not only repressed all forceful nation- alistic instincts, but where also the spiritual authority dreaded every manifestation of these instincts. The patriarchs, unlike the popes, were continually inferior to the secular rulers,' and realized that their sphere of influence would be lessened as soon as one or the other of the subjugated nationalities should establish its independence. The spirit of nationality, however, cannot be killed. In primitive people it may be repressed for a time, but unless history lies it dies only in effete individuals of an artificially high civilization. The three big Chris- tian nations, therefore, which were contained in the Turkish Empire, the Greeks, the Bulgars, and the Servs, never entirely forgot their dreams, or, as occa- sional leaders called it, the goal of their existence. The Greeks were the strongest, and had a great advantage because they supplied the spiritual leaders Bulgaria 341 through whom alone the Turks deigned to communi- cate with their Christian subjects. Many of these Greek patriarchs were undoubtedly noble administra- tors of their trust, but all of them together could not resist the temptation of forcing their own language upon the Christians under their charge. The few schools which existed were ecclesiastical schools, and it is a marvel of histpry that neither the Bulgars nor the Servs lost the remnants of their individuality, ground as they were between the upper millstone of Turkish rule and the nether stone of Greek spiritual authority. It was, perhaps, the hopelessness of a re- volt against the Turks which drove all their latent feel- ings of nationality into the one endeavor to preserve their language against the Greek influences of their church. So long as the three races were equally oppressed by the Turks the common bond of misery prevented ex- cesses, but when Greece had won her political inde- pendence, early in the nineteenth century, conditions became intolerable, especially for the prouder of the remaining victims — the Bulgars. In consequence the various Bulgarian-speaking parishes established closer relations between themselves, without at first aiming at a spiritual independence from the Greek patriarch. The earliest union of Bulgarian parishes* took place in Ueskiib in 1833. In the next year Weles and Samakow joined the movement, and in 1840 Wid- din, Tirnowo, and Philippopel were added to the list. The beginning was thus made of a distinctively na- * This account of the history of Bulgaria is based on Rich- ard von Mach's Der Machthereich des bulgarischcn exarchats in der Tiirkei, Leipzig, 1906. English translation, London, T. Fisher Unwin. 342 Germany's Point of View tionalistic movement, and when the successes of Rus- sia against Turkey opened the eyes of the more far- seeing leaders to the possibiHty of a future state, ever more parishes were asked to join and gladly accepted the invitation. The movement spread, therefore, far beyond the limits of those parts where only Bulgarians live to the provinces of Thrace and Macedonia, where Bulgarian, Greek, and Servian parishes were found side by side, and where often in individual parishes, not the number of communicants but the zeal of one or the other fraction made it a Bulgarian or a Servian or a Greek parish. In disputed cases, of course, the Greek patriarch was apt to rule in favor of his own people, and to decree that the parish was Greek, and that the church services should be conducted, and the children be taught, in Greek. This aroused much bit- terness, and finally resulted in a petition to the sultan that a special head of the Bulgarian parishes should be appointed. This bishop of the Bulgars was to be sub- ject to the patriarch. In his own province, however, he should be supreme. In the meanwhile, however, the Greek patriarch, whose official residence had continued to be Constan- tinople, had grown much too strong for the liking of the sultan, for he had drawn added strength not only from his own independent country, but also from the backers of that country, especially England. The Turkish maxim for the preservation of a comfortable peace at home had always been to play off the next strongest party against the strongest. On March ii, 1870, therefore, the sultan issued his firman establish- ing the Bulgarian Exarchate, comprising about six- teen dioceses, and decreeing that other parishes might Bulgaria 343 join, "if all or at least two-thirds of all the orthodox inhabitants " of a village or city should so vote. Roughly speaking, the dioceses mentioned in the firman comprise the whole of the original principality of Bulgaria, East Roumelia, and the districts of Nish and Pirot. In these latter a considerable number of the inhabitants are Servians. The latter, therefore, felt deeply aggrieved, and since the firman had been issued under the influence of Russia, saw in it an evi- dence of Russian hostility toward themselves and favoritism shown to Bulgaria. In the treaty of Ber- lin, however, these two districts in their entirety were unjustly added to Servia. The patriarch himself openly declared that he refused to recognize the Bulgarian Exarchate, and nothing could have been more advantageous for the Bulgarians, for the obstinacy of the patriarch led to a complete break between himself and the Bulgarian bishops, which resulted in the independence of their church. At first it had not occurred to them that a complete separation from the Greek Church was meant or even possible. After the several eparchies, that is, dioceses, had been organized, three of the Bulgarian bishops went to Constantinople to pay their respects to the patriarch and to ask his permission to conduct divine service in the Bulgarian church in the city. The patriarch refused to receive them and forbade the service. Trusting to the promises of the government, the bishops nevertheless conducted the service in their church, whereupon the patriarch requested the sultan to banish the bishops and to close the church. This the sultan actually did, possibly because he did not 344 Germany's Point of View wish to have the Bulgarians grow too strong, possibly because he habitually followed a zig-zag policy. At any rate, he soon changed his mind again, recalled the bishops, and even commanded them to proceed to the election of the first exarch. This was in 1872. The choice fell on Antim, Bishop of Widdin, whose election was ratified by the sultan on February 26. A few weeks later he arrived in Constantinople, where not only the Prime Minister, but the sultan himself, received him with marks of great distinction, on April II. The Bulgarian Church had thus been established, but its head was still subject to the Greek patriarch. The new exarch, therefore, called on his superior, who, however, refused to receive him, although he repeated his call three times. The patriarch in his turn made two categoric demands ; first, that the exarch drop his title and call himself Bishop of Widdin ; and, secondly, that the exarchate be not called the Bul- garian but the Hamos Exarchate. Both demands were declined, and when the patriarch remained obdurate, the exarch conducted divine service in the Bulgarian church, without permission, on April 22,, and on May II read a proclamation to the people decreeing the independence of the Bulgarian Church. It is very doubtful whether the Bulgarian people as a whole, who had been brought up to see in the patriarch their spiritual leader, would have followed the exarch in his bold course of national independ- ence, if the patriarch had not committed his final blunder and excommunicated every member of the exarchate, and declared the whole Bulgarian clergy and laity heretics, on September 16, 1872. Bulgaria 345 This is the state of the Bulgarian Church today so far as the patriarch and the Greek Church, to which the Servs also belong, is concerned. Eastern people take their religion seriously. The Bulgars deny the right of the patriarch to excommunicate them, because he had no further authority over them after the decree of separation, but they feel excessively bitter at his having taken this step. The Greeks and Servs, however, look upon the Bulgarians as heretics and justly excommunicated. One must have lived in Catholic countries to know what this means. A man who is excommunicated is unclean and despicable, and nobody owes him a duty. Perhaps this thought eased the conscience of the Greeks and the Servs, when they cheated the Bulgarians after the first Balkan war out of those portions of Macedonia which had been agreed upon as their share of the booty. The systematic way in which this was done is portrayed in the report on the Balkan wars issued by the international com- mission of the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace (1914). When the Servians entered Macedonia they compelled the Bulgarian parishes to sign a paper like the following : * In order that once for all the question of our national feeling may be firmly established, and that a serious error may at the same time be wholly refuted, we, Slavs of Bitolia, hitherto attached to the exarchy, do today, being assembled in the Orthodox church of St. Wedelia, state as follows : First, that we are familiar from history that we have been Servians since ancient times, and that the Turks conquered the countries which we now inhabit from the Servians five and a half centuries ago. Second, that there is no difference either in nationality or in faith, or in lan- * International Commission to Enquire Into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars. Report, 1914, p. 176, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 346 Germany's Point of View guage, or in customs between us and the Servians, as is proved by many remembrances and by the Servian schools, which were the only ones in existence in these lands up to the time of the Turco-Servian war of 1876-78. Third, that our ancestors were, and that we are, called Servians, but that under the recent influence of Bulgarian propa- ganda, and above all under the terror caused by the Comi- tadjis, we have, in quite recent times, begun to turn our eyes to the Bulgarians, in the hope that, thanks to their preponderance in what was once the Turkish kingdom, they would be better able than the Servians to free us from our servitude. Fourth, that in the last war with the Turks, the Bulgarians instead of assisting and freeing us, appropriated Thrace and liberated non-Slav populations. Fifth, that the Servians have, by superhuman efforts and enormous sacrifices, taken these lands unassisted and so put an end to our servitude. Sixth, that both before and after the war the Servians treated us really as their brothers, while on the contrary the Bulgarians were at pains to separate us from our liberators. Seventh, that on the seventeenth of last month the Bulgarians attacked the Servian army, which shed its blood for them before Adrianople; an attack for which the whole civilized world condemns them. Eighth, that the Bulgarians desired to expose the people of these countries to new misfortunes and to destruction by their attempt at sending hither bands of brigands to burn the villages and pillage the people. Wherefore, we declare our entire solidarity with our Servian brothers and liberators; with them we will work in the future, shoulder to shoulder, to strengthen our coun- try — Greater Servia. People who refused to sign such declarations v^ere subjected to physical suffering and expelled from the country, as were also all the bishops and teachers of the Bulgarian Exarchate. All the Bulgarian schools were closed and parents forced to send their children to the Servian schools, while strict orders were issued that children should not be sent out of the country to be educated elsewhere. The pages of the Carnegie Report are open to all, Bulgaria 347 and it is not necessary to repeat the many instances of inhuman cruelty with which the Servians perse- cuted every Bulgar in the newly conquered provinces. The result was, on paper, a loyal population of ardent believers in Greater Servia ; in fact, however, a smoul- dering hate and contempt for the Servs in every Bulgar heart. Nor are the Bulgars whitewashed in the report by any means. They, too, were guilty, it seems, of a conduct that shocked the gentlemanly investigators; but that, stripped of many exaggerations, was no surprise to those who knew the Balkans. The Greeks, however, whose closer contact with the more civilized nations in recent years had established the presumption that they had completely outgrown the savage tendencies which characterize the Servians, sur- prised the world by a ferocity and hatred of the Bul- gars such as only the religious conflicts of centuries ago exhibit. Quoting from documents in its posses- sion, the Carnegie committee asserts* that the Greeks killed their Bulgarian prisoners, by official order, "that the dirty Bulgarian race may not spring up again." Nothing, however, can bring home to the average reader the intensity of hate which the schism between the Patriarchical (Greek) and the Exarchical (Bul- gar) churches has created, than the popular Greek war poster of a year ago, which is reprinted in the reportf and is described on the next page as follows : It shows a Greek highlander holding a living Bulgarian soldier with both hands, while he gnaws the face of his * Carnegie Report, p. 148. t Carnegie Report, p. 96. 34^ Germany's Point of View victim with his teeth, like some beast of prey. It is en- titled the Bulgar-eater, and is adorned with the following verses : " The sea of fire which boils in my breast, And calls for vengeance with the savage waves of my soul, Will be quenched when the monsters of Sofia are still, And thy life blood extinguishes my hate." This hate is returned in kind by the Bulgars, albeit with that moderation which characterizes the superior race, and that the Bulgars as a nation are superior to the Greeks and vastly superior to the Servs, nobody who has visited the three countries can doubt. It is, therefore, humanly impossible to assume that in the present European war Bulgaria should voluntarily fight on the side of Servia or of Greece ; and every contrary report may be dismissed as fantastic. Nor does Bulgaria harbor any feelings of gratitude toward Russia. Her establishment as a nation, while seemingly the result of the Russo-Turkish war of 1877, was in fact only the culmination of her religious independence won by herself and secured by the firman of the Sultan in 1870. The subsequent favors shown her by Russia have been balanced, in her mind, by the many instances when Russian support has failed her. She has fully realized that Russia has never had a real interest in any of the Balkan States, but has been using them as pawns in her political game. Germany and Bulgaria have always been good friends, for it was Germany who taught her how to govern herself. The bloodless revolution which turned out Prince Alexander and all his high officials of German blood was not a hostile demonstration, but a declaration that the time had come when Bulgaria had learned her lesson and could manage her own affairs. Bulgaria 349 The Austro-Bulgarian relations used to be less cor- dial, because Austria was intimate with Milan, the king of the despised Servs. When the royal regime in Servia changed, and Austria too had to suffer from the Servs, a bond of sympathy, as it were, drew Aus- tria and Bulgaria more closely together. The Bulgars, however, are not the people to haul the chestnuts out of the fire for anybody. They have the perfectly justifiable desire of deserving the name of a civilized nation, and, proud of the settled conditions in their own country, when everything about them is chaos, they are not going to enter this war unless necessity forces them into it. Since an overwhelming victory of the Servians is out of the question, there appear at present only three contingencies which might induce the Bulgars to run once more the risks of war. With their great hopes of a national future, they cannot calmly watch Russia take Constantinople and settle to the south of them. If it should, therefore, appear that Constantinople is in imminent danger and that Bulgaria's help could save it, she might enter the war. The second contingency is if she should be attacked. This could not be directly, but only through Roumania, and, since the latter has given no signs whatsoever of any such intentions, this danger is remote. If Rou- mania, however, as has been suggested, should attack Austria-Hungary with a view to making conquests, this might be construed by Bulgaria as an indirect attack upon her future ; for no state can see his neighbor grow overstrong by conquest without seeing his own prospects jeopardized. Those who know Rou- mania, however, claim that she is far too honorable to attack Austria-Hungary now, when the Dual Monarchy 350 Germany's Point of View is fighting for its life, for any territory snatched from Austria under such conditions is tainted property. The last contingency is that, in a time when passions are high everywhere, Bulgaria's own hatred of the Servs and all adherents of the Patriarchal Church may prove too great for her common sense. Her self- possession in having kept out of the war thus long is commendable, but if England should succeed in forc- ing Greece to do her bidding and assist the allied fleet before the Dardanelles by landing troops on the pen- insula of Gallipoli, it will be hard, if not impossible, for the government to restrain the people. For there is not a loyal Bulgar anywhere who does not feel it his pleasant and sacred duty to honor his church by' taking vengeance on the Servs and on the Greeks. CHAPTER XXVII THE EXPORTATION OF ARMS THE assumption that an embargo on the export of arms might inure to the benefit of Germany is not the reason why an embargo is demanded. On the contrary, it is a reason why many shrink from asking for it pubHcly, for they dishke to appear as the defenders of a cause the fruition of which would result in material benefits to themselves or to their friends. In the thoughts of most advocates of the embargo this whole question is of little consequence. The reason why it has been here mentioned is because of the wish that no misunderstanding should prevail. The advocates of the embargo say very frankly: If you chose to think meanly of us and believe that we have an ulterior motive, and wish to help Germany while we shout for neutrality, we know what you have in mind, and we are not afraid to state it. But you are mistaken. Our reasons are of an entirely different sort, springing directly from our hearts. In order to understand this the reader should picture a little group of men gathered recently in a committee room in Boston. They were all American citizens, some of them born in this country, and yet there was not a man there who had not a brother, cousin, uncle, or more distant relatives on the firing line. One, a merchant long established in Boston, has two brothers and ten cousins at the front; while another had re- 351 352 Germany s Point of View cently heard of the death of five sons of one family of friends. All the men present in that room had received letters in which the American cartridges and shrapnels had been spoken of as more deadly than those of French manufacture previously used by the Allies. A brief note was alread read from a captain in the German flying corps — up to last summer the manager of one of the big shipping interests in Boston — who wrote : The American shrapnels have arrived, watch the death lists ; they will be longer hereafter. Suddenly one of the men jumped up, crying: I can stand it no longer. It is terrible to think that should die. I could be reconciled with the thought that he should be killed on the field of honor, but to think that he should die by a bullet made in x\merica, in a factory built perhaps with my own money, loaned by one of our banks, this is too much ! We have no quarrel with Ger- many, and yet we are killing her sons. This is the reason why from Maine to California and from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico, Americans of German descent have risen like one man demanding that the traffic in arms should be stopped. Their chorus of voices is swelling louder and louder: Cease the export of arms; cease killing our brother; cease talking neutrality, when you know that in fact we are not neutral. The old fairy tale that the Government is not responsible for what the individual citizens are doing was all right when the people and the Government were distinct. In America, however, the people are the Government, and the Government should be the people. We should be governed by what we know and feel is right, and not by the commercial privileges held out to con- scienceless traders by the socalled law of nations — that remnant of the outworn order of things with which our republic broke definitely in 1776. The Exportation of Arms 353 There can be no doubt that these sentiments" are honest and that the men and women who utter them feel them deeply. Is not a big republic like the United States based on the readiness of the majority to con- sider the sacredness of the feelings of their fellow citizens? Why have the pro-Allies been so unwilling to understand those who think differently? Why this uncompromising attitude of scorn and vilification? A possible answer is found in the remarkable fact that the leaders of the bitter anti-German movement are exceedingly old men, probably incapable of grasping new ideas when their minds are made up. When the history of this war is written, in so far as it affects America, people will marvel at the excedingly old age of this leadership. Of the four men in the first rank, only one is on the sunny side of seventy, while alto- gether they average over seventy-five years of age ! There is no parallel in the history of the world for this phenomenon, that a majority of the most highly educated people of a big nation should follow the lead and hang on the words of men of such extreme old age! These men cannot hear the grumble of discontent and feel the heartaches of millions of their fellow citizens. If one were to believe that this leadership would last, one might well despair of the future of the country. But it cannot last. So young and vigor- ous, so joyous and courageous a nation as the United States will not for long endure the autocratic guidance of octogenarians. There is, moreover, perceptible everywhere a quick- ened sense of moral responsibility against the expor- tation of arms, although many people whose natural 354 Germany's Point of View sympathies are with one or all of the Allies are troubled by the thought, zealously suggested to them, that America could not stop the exportation of arms with- out thereby committing an unneutral, if not a dis- tinctly unfriendly, act towards Great Britain. This, the advocates of the embargo believe, is a very erro- neous suggestion. In the first place. Great Britain has forced several neutral nations since the war began to decree embargoes against Germany. She would surely not maintain before the world that she had forced these nations to commit unneutral acts. But if the laying of an embargo during the progress of the war at the behest of England is not unneutral, America need not fear to be unneutral if she decrees an embargo at the behest of her own sense of humaneness. Such a decree can only be issued on the authority of Congress, unless perchance some existing law should give such an authority to the President. In either case it can be done, under present conditions, only at the demand of the people at large. For this reason the advocates of the measure are endeavoring to persuade their fellow citizens to agree with them that the American standard of morality demands such a course. There is nothing un-American in this en- deavor, and when Mr. C. R. Miller and the New York Times call this a foreign propaganda it would seem that their real arguments are not strong enough to stand the light of day. But it is claimed that the whole movement is perni- cious because it contraverts international law. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. International law is nothing but the usage of centuries, often forced The Exportation of Arms 355 on unwilling nations. In the eighteenth century sev- eral countries revolted against the English interpreta- tion of what was right or wrong in war; and nothing was more natural than that America should have stood up boldly, from the very first, for a more liberal inter- pretation. Roughly speaking, England claimed that in war, when the interests of the belligerents and of the neutrals clash, those of the former are paramount, while America urged that those of the latter have the precedence. If America's contention, which was first advanced more than one hundred years ago, had been adopted, it would have resulted in the absolute freedom of the sea, and the neutral commerce with both belligerents would have been as assured in war as in peace. Since there would not have been any interference with the commerce of a neutral, con- traband trade, too, would have been safe from in- terruption. The American contention came only once near being accepted by other nations, when, at the second Hague Conference, the "American idea," in a slightly modified form, was presented to the conference by Joseph Choate on June 24, 1907, and voted upon July 17. It received twenty-one of the thirty-three votes present; among them those of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, the Scandinavian countries, Turkey, and China. Eleven countries voted against it, France, Russia, and Japan rallying to the support of Great Britain, who wanted to beat it. Chile abstained from voting, and several unimportant countries had not been repre- sented. When England saw herself beaten she added up the number of inhabitants in the countries that had supported her and in her own numerous colonies 356 Germany's Point of View and those of her friends, and announced that really her side had won, for her eleven votes represented 729,000,000 of people, while the twenty-one votes which had carried the motion represented 804,000,000 of people, "400,000,000 of whom were Chinese." Mr. Choate saw the English point that Chinese are not " people " in the sense of Englishmen or Gurkas, and, although his proposal had won an over- whelming majority of the votes, gracefully yielded to England and withdrew the American proposal. It is the same Mr. Choate who today is one of the bitterest old men leaders against Germany. It was Germany who supported the "American idea" throughout, and whom Mr. Choate deserted in the conference to please England. Possibly this act of treachery explains his present animosity, for one hates nobody so badly as him whom one remembers having cheated. With this one exception, when the "American idea '* came near being made part of the written law of nations, America has not met with much success in having other countries accept her views of the proper conduct of naval warfare. If, however, she had been successful, she would now have been able to export munitions of war as safely to Germany as to the Allies. If under such conditions public opinion should have spoken against the nefarious traffic in death-dealing weapons, she could have stopped it without fear of being unneutral, because both belligerents would have suffered equally. As a matter of fact, the "American idea" has not been accepted, although it has been eloquently stated by many American statesmen. To quote from them today in favor of the export of arms, and to disregard The Exportation of Arms 357 the fact that their contentions have never been accepted in toto, is misleading. The conventions of The Hague of 1907 and the Declaration of London of 1909, were attempts at an agreement between the diametrically opposed views of the paramount rights of the belligerents and the independent rights of the neutrals. On several points no agreements could be reached; in others, separate treaties into which America had entered with one state or another offered valuable suggestions. On the whole, it would seem fair to say that the Declaration of London represented the highest moral standard on which all the nations were able to agree. It was signed by the delegate of Great Britain, an act which Sir Edward Grey declared was sufficient to bind the country. Parliament, under the leadership of Mr. T. Gibson Bowles, was of another opinion and refused its formal ratification. On the strength of this, Eng- land has now felt at liberty to alter it, and practically to disregard it. In other words, she has allowed herself to follow a lower standard than the one to which her Government had acceded. Does that mean that America should follow suit and herself be no longer willing to be guided by principles the correct- ness of which have remained undisputed, although England has claimed her " necessity " as an excuse for disregarding them? Unfortunately, this is exactly what our Government has done by permitting England to set her own standard. In so doing, many people believe that America was not only not true to herself, but that she did so with a distinct preference of one of the belligerents, thus endangering her strict neutrality. 358 Germany's Point of View But having done so, it is incumbent upon her to shape her actions impartially according to the new — or rather old — standard which she has been willing to accept. The old standard has been variously interpreted, and it is possible to cite numerous writers on almost any phase of the subject. The most recent interpre- tation of it was given by Mr. T. Gibson Bowles. What is the use of referring to legal writers long dead, when the success of Mr. Bowles in Parliament* proves that he represents the present working majority of the British people? It was he who advised his colleagues to beat the Declaration of London and to revert to the good old standard, which he interpreted for them — with little opposition. He calls the export of arms to one or both belligerents monstrous, unneutral, and contrary to the law of nations. To deal with England in everything affecting her interests according to the standard of Mr. Bowles' choice, and to return to the entirely different standard of the "American idea " when the actions of individual citizens which hurt Germany are concerned, is not in keeping with the American standards of honest morality. Another thing also should not be forgotten. The present export trade in munitions of war is not a natural one, for it is not only the established factories which are selling their products. An entirely new and artificially stimulated industry has been created. Everywhere new factories are being built, or existing * Mr. Bowles was not re-elected to the last Parliament, and although the House voted against his views the Lords sus- tained him, and the Government acquiesced in the decision. The Exportation of Arms 359 buildings remodeled to enable their owners to get their share of the Judas money. Suppose America were at war and every available house and factory in Canada should be turned into a gun factory and arms and munitions of war be sold to America's enemies in proportions of thousand and more percent of the natural output of the coun- try: would America not feel that Canada was in fact fighting against her, however many authorities should be quoted to prove that legally Canada was neutral ? It has never been denied that until an embargo is laid on the export of munitions of war the individual manufacturer is legally unassailable. What is claimed is that he is morally wrong. Nor is this a view held only by men of German extraction, for a number of manufacturers have declined the English orders. To spread the high moral sense of these men among all Americans is the aim of the advocates of an embargo. President Cleveland held much the same view, for he said in his annual message, December 2, 1895, in reference to Cuba : The plain duty of their [the citizens of the United States] Government is to observe in good faith the recog- nized obligations of international relationship. The per- formance of this duty should not be made more difficult by a disregard on the part of our citizens of the obliga- tions growing out of their allegiance to their country which should restrain them from violating as individuals the neutrality which the nation of which they are mem- bers is bound to observe in its relations to friendly sov- ereign States. These words are unmistakable. President Cleveland asks his fellow citizens to refrain from doing as indi- 360 Germany's Point of View viduals what the State as such is prevented from doing if it wishes to remain neutral. Not even the most ardent advocates of the export of arms claim that the United States as such can export arms and be neutral. If one, therefore, asks the Americans to desist from the exportation of arms, one follows the advice of President Cleveland, an undoubtedly patriotic American. But if this was Cleveland's advice in regard to Cuba, when only few people of Cuban blood were residents of America, how much more would he have counselled such abstinence in the present war, when millions of Americans are hit in their own flesh and blood by every bullet sent from these shores ! And more, the men of Germanic stock in this coun- try are loyal to the Stars and Stripes, however dear the Fatherland is to them. They, therefore, see with growing anxiety the anger of the Germans at what appears to them to be the unneutral attitude of America. Germany is in no position to make war upon America, but so much more scrupulous should the United States be in its observance of true neutral- ity, for no other course is compatible with its high sense of morality. What is sauce to the goose is sauce for the gander. During the Mexican war the United States asserted that a bona fide neutrality and the export of arms are incompatible, and declared the latter to be a casus belli. And in case he [the officer in command] should after- wards at any time discover that under the guise of neu- trality the Yucatanese are carrying on a contraband trade and furnishing Mexico with arms and munitions of war, he will be instructed without further orders from his Gov- ernment to recommence hostile operations. The Exportation of Arms 361 These words were written by Mr. Buchanan, Secre- tary of State, February 22, 1847; while Mr. Seward wrote on August 7, 1865 • British subjects who intervene in our Civil War in the manner . . . mentioned {i. e., by selling munitions of war] are by the law of nations liable to be treated by this Government as enemies of the United States, having no lawful claim to be protected by Her Majesty's Gov- ernment. Applying this doctrine at the present time, it means that there are thousands of people in America today whom Germany is justified in considering as enemies. Under the American form of government this is an anomaly, as appears from a decision of the United States Supreme Court,* which says: The intercourse of this country with foreign nations and its policy in regard to them are placed by the Con- stitution of the United States in the hands of the Govern- ment, and its decisions upon these subjects are obligatory upon every citizen of the Union. He is bound to be at war with the nation against which the war-making power has declared war, and equally bound to commit no act of hostility against a nation with which the Government is in amity and friendship. This principle is universally acknowledged. ... It is, however, more emphatically true of citizens of the United States. For as the sovereignty resides in the people, every citizen is a portion of it and is himself per- sonally bound by the laws which the representatives of the sovereignty may pass, or the treaties into which they may enter. . . . The compact is made by the Depart- ment of the Government upon which he himself has agreed to confer the power. It is his own personal com- pact as a portion of the sovereignty. This decision was quoted by Mr. Olney as Secretary of State on June 18, 1895, in his reply to Mr. Massey, * Kennet vs. Chambers 14 How. 38, 49. 362 Germany's Point of View who had asked whether he would be legally and morally right if his bank acted as a depository for the funds of the insurgents in Cuba. Mr. Olney replied that Mr. Massey might possibly be within his legal rights, but that his ''moral duty in the premises does not admit of the least question." To act as a depository for the insurgents would be a hostile act against Spain, with whom the United States was at peace. Morally, there- fore, Mr. Massey could not undertake the trust. If this was so in Mr. Massey 's case, how much more is it so in the case of the present exportation of arms, which has grown to such proportions that it amounts to "an important aid of the war," in which case it is no longer neutral, according to a recent decision.* There can be no doubt that, whatever the legal aspect of the case is, the American much-inflated traffic in arms is morally wrong. It is deeply felt to be so by millions of American citizens. Is it worthy of America to continue a practice which cannot be defended as morally correct, and which brings deep sorrow, shame, and suffering to a great part if not actually a majority of the people, merely because it pays? * See Moore's Digest, vii., 960. CHAPTER XXVIII THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS THERE are no rights without duties, no privileges without obHgations. And it is largely from this point of view that Mr. Bryan's Easter gift to Eng- land, in the shape of his note to Sir Edward Grey, deserves condemnation. He assured his august friend of his faith in England, and expressed his hope that the British Order-in-Council, which forbade neutral nations to trade with Germany, did not mean exactly what it said, and that it could be explained as not an infringement of the rights of neutrals. Public opinion in this country is so sharply divided between pro-Ally and pro-German that a purely Amer- ican discussion is rendered difficult. Fortunately, a safe escape from this dilemma is offered by the com- parison of the actions of the American Government with those of other neutral States. The note of the Dutch Government in reply to the same British Order- in-Council has just come to hand and deserves careful perusal. The note translated reads as follows : The Dutch Government does not wish to pass judgment on the rectitude of the measures taken by the belligerents, but it is the duty of the Netherlands, as a neutral Power, to raise its voice when these measures infringe ac- knowledged principles concerning the rights of neutral States. At the very beginning of the war the Dutch Govern- ment protested against every curtailment by the bel- ligerents of the rights of neutrals, and did so in the in- 363 364 Germany's Point of View terest both of the rights of Holland as a neutral Power and of the law of nations. The Dutch attitude cannot be other now in view of the measures taken [by the Allies], since they ignore the great principle of the Declaration of Paris, according to which neutral and hostile property, except contraband, is in- violate so long as it is protected by a neutral flag. In abolishing this principle the British Order-in-Council has decreed that the British fleet should put into execution arbitrary measures of force not only against the private property of the enemy, even if it is not contraband, but also against the property of neutrals if there is a sus- picion that this property is of enemy origin or destination. The instructors of the British Government hold out promises that these measures will be applied rather leniently where neutral property is concerned, but no definite rules have been issued, as a guide, to protect the interests of shipping and commerce. Article 8 leaves the possibility of moderating the in- structions of the Order-in-Council, so far as the ships of countries are concerned which declare that no transporta- tion of goods to and from Germany or of goods owned by Germans will take place under their flags. It is, however, my duty to state with much emphasis that, under the existing conditions, the Dutch Government has no right to make such a declaration, for, as they under- stand their duties as neutrals, the exact fulfilment of them precludes their assuming any such obligation. Your excellency informed me, even before the publica- tion of the British Order-in-Council, that the interests of the Netherlands and their transoceanic possessions would receive careful attention. But, even so, and however mod- erate the application of the Order-in-Council may be, it is impossible for the Dutch Government to remain silent in the face of this serious infringement of the funda- mental principle of the law of nations, guaranteed by all the Powers for more than half a century. The most important part of this note is the realiza- tion of the Netherlands that neutrals have not only privileges but also obligations, and that it is their duty to insist upon their rights. This duty is threefold — first, to themselves, their self-respect, and their inter- The Rights and Duties of Neutrals 365 ests; secondly, to the law of nations, which they are bound to uphold with all their strength ; and, thirdly, to their relations with the belligerents. Holland is completely at the mercy of England. She has no big navy to defend her communications with her colonies ; her army is small, and throwing her lot in with Germany would not greatly inconvenience England, who in that event would joy to possess her- self of the Dutch transoceanic properties. England promised her — actually by her responsible minister, and inferentially by Article 8 of the Order-in-Council — that she should not suffer in her own vital interests if she would connive in England's misdeeds and boy- cott Germany. Holland's privileges, in other words, were guaranteed. But with the courage that in such cases should distinguish every country, Holland de- clared that she could not do this and remain silent, in view of England's " serious infringement of the law of nations." And the reason why she could not keep silent is given earlier by her declaration that she had to protest in the interest of the law itself. This consideration does not seem to have occurred to Mr. Bryan at all. His gentle protest states the rights of America to trade with whom she pleases. Rights, however, may be waived when our sympathies make this desirable. Duties cannot be waived. If it is only the right of America to trade with Germany, nobody can find fault with the existing government if it is willing to surrender its rights, provided it correctly interprets the wishes of the people. If it is, however, the duty of every country to insist upon its rights, not only for the sake of its own self-respect and material prosperity, but also for the sake of the law itself and 366 Germany's Point of View the obligations towards both parties of the contestants which its privileges as a neutral entail, then the protest must be made with the necessary resoluteness. In such a case it is immaterial where the sympathies of the individual citizens or officials are. Holland is reputed to be anything but pro-German, but she dared to give voice to her indignation in a way which by comparison will drive the blood of shame to the faces of those Americans who, when the war is over, will re-read Mr. Bryan's weak and irresolute note. ^ What has Mr. Bryan's assertion that England has always stood up before the world as a law-abiding nation to do with the case? Did he not write such flattering paragraphs to throw sand in the eyes of the American people? Or is he really ignorant of Eng- land's record? Would justice not have compelled him rather to quote the description of the British Govern- ment given by Jefferson in his letter to Thomas Leiper on June 12, 1815? — We concur in considering the Government of England as totally without morality, insolent beyond bearing, in- flated with vanity and ambition, aiming at the exclusive dominion of the seas, lost in corruption and deep-rooted hatred toward us, hostile to liberty wherever it endeavors to show its head, and the eternal disturber of the peace of the world. And should Mr. Bryan not have added to this pas- sage the remark that a careful search through history had failed to reveal any change of heart on the part of the British Government? China, India, Egypt, Africa, all attest that the ruthless spirit of official England has not changed. In reality, however, neither Mr. Bryan's false esti- mate of England nor England's historically true The Rights and Duties of Neutrals 367 character have anything to do with the protest against the Order-in-Council which it was America's duty to make effective. Mr. Bryan is more of a Hterary man than a historian, and has confused the deeds of the British Government with the unquestionably sincere professions of EngHsh scholars and litterateurs. Such a mistake, however, is unpardonable in a man who is called upon to guide the destinies of his fellow citizens. It may, however, very appropriately be asked how America could have made her protest effective without threatening to go to war. The fates themselves have placed a peaceful, albeit most effective, weapon into her hands. All she had to do was to speak the one word, "Embargo." Holland had no such lever to enforce her protest. America had, but forebore to use it. Looked at solely from the American point of view, is there any reason why President Wilson's Government should not have said to England : You are breaking the fundamental principle of inter- national law. You command us to cease trading with Ger- many. You have forbidden us part of our trade, and while we do not wish to see in this a hostile act, we trust you too will see no hostility in our reply, which is, that we forbid you to trade with us, until you have rescinded your lawless Order-in-Council. Such a reply would have brought England to book immediately, for she and her allies are dependent on American food and munitions of war. An embargo on the latter, while strongly urged for months by the advocates of a strict American neutrality, has never been so necessary as it is at the present time. Whatever view may be taken of the wording of the note of protest presented by the German ambassador recently, nobody who stops to look at this question 368 Germany's Point of View from the German point of view can deny that the Germans have cause for resentment. The editor of The Fatherland, April 21, 19 15, put the case succinctly thus: German men are willing to die from American bullets, so long as we do not aid England in starving their wives and their children. German women are willing to feel the pinch of starva- tion so long as we do not ship bullets to kill their men. But the German nation is justly indignant if we insist upon both murdering their men and starving their ^women and children. If America claims the right to ship munitions of war to the Allies, she has also the right to ship food to Germany. Munitions of war are contraband, and the precedent of centuries has given permission to that one of the belligerents who is the stronger on the sea to prevent them from reaching his opponent. Food for the civil populations is not contraband of war, and the precedent of generations, as well as the principles of humanity, which America has ever defended, for- bid interference with its shipment. America is faith- less to her principles if she does not insist upon her right, especially since in this, as in every other case, a right implies a duty. She would, therefore, be acting within her legitimate province if she declared an embargo on the exportation of foodstuffs to England so long as England prohibited similar shipments from reaching Germany. There can be no doubt that such a step would result in the immediate freedom of the sea, at least for non- contraband goods. Incidentally, it would also render the whole Belgian relief work unnecessary. Open the sea for the shipment of food, and Germany will be The Rights and Duties of Neutrals 369 only too glad to buy all that is needed, not only for her own civilian population, but also for the inhabit- ants of Belgium and Poland, the two countries under German military occupation. Many Americans have blamed Germany for allowing outsiders to ship food to Belgium instead of feeding the people herself. A little thought should convince them that America and not Germany is to blame ; for if America had done her duty and had insisted upon her right to ship foodstuffs to whoever wished to buy any, there would not have been the scarcity in Europe which made Belgium dependent on charity. Nor should it be forgotten that Germany is in a state of amity with America, and that also for this reason it is the duty of America to refuse submission to England's infraction of international law by which she wished to starve Germany. America's own interests, too, are said to demand an embargo on the exportation of wheat. This position has been taken by Congressman Gallivan, of Boston, and other popular leaders who have watched with growing alarm the rise of the prices of wheat, flour, and bread. Should we starve our own people, they have said, for the sake of the madness of the European belligerents? The swollen profits of the inflated prices go into the pockets of a few speculators, with the exception of a certain rake-off which is diverted into the coffers of a group of pro-Ally bankers. The per- centage of these profits thus diverted has not been published, but it has been publicly asserted and printed, and has remained uncontradicted, that the banking house of J. P. Morgan & Company and his allies receive fifteen per cent of the purchase price 370 Germany's Point of View of all munitions of war shipped from this country, to the Allies. J. P. Morgan, the father, wrecked the New Haven and the Boston & Maine railroads, while J. P. Morgan, the son, has set out, in his infatuation for England and the all-mighty dollar, to wreck not only the prosperity of what officially is still his coun- try, but also to strangle the good name of America among the nations. Is there an American so dull that he does not see the contempt which the weak submission of the American Government engenders among worth-while Britishers. A man who cheerfully connives in the breaking of the law, hoping thereby to benefit his friend, may win a curt "thank you," but loses the respect and consequently the friendship of the other, irretrievably. Where will America stand when this war is over? Despised by England and her allies, conscious of hav- ing deeply hurt Germany and Austria-Hungary, sus- pected by the whole world as always ready to propound noble principles but unwilling to insist upon their observation — a truly enviable reputation! But it is still time. In America the Government is more than anywhere else susceptible to the wishes of the people. Let the people speak, vociferously, unanimously ! Let them drop the pro-Ally and pro-German battle-cries, and let them see whether it is not possible even at this late hour to retrieve the honor of the nation. Honor without duty is impossible. The people should stop asking, "What may we do, what are our rights? " and ask instead, " What must we do, what are our duties ? " There should be no quibbling, no search through dusty books, no rejuvenation of antiquated laws. All they The Rights and Duties of Neutrals 371 need is to look into their hearts like men, resolved not to be swayed by their sympathies, but to act according to their duty. Let America take a leaf from the courageous diplomacy of Holland; call a spade a spade ; and when she has truly understood the " in- fringement of the fundamental principle of the law of nations " of which England and her allies have been guilty, let her not connive in it ! Let her do something. Just what should be done must depend on the consensus of public opinion, uttered so unmistakably that our government will be forced to put it into execution. The most drastic means would be the complete cessation of commercial dealings with the Allies so long as the obnoxious Order-in-Council remained in force. Less comprehensive but possibly equally effective would be the embargo on certain commodities, either on munitions of war or on foodstuffs. There are many arguments in favor of forbidding the exportation of arms, which in itself appears to most people to be a singularly nefarious traffic and one which will leave scars long after the war in the memories of those whose friends and relatives have been murdered by American bullets. The high price of wheat speaks loudest in favor of an embargo on the exportation of grain. Few people realize to what extent this country has been drained of this necessity. According to Bradstreet's of Feb- ruary 2y, 191 5, the British importation of wheat from American and Canadian ports from January 14 to February 25, 1915, was as follows, compared with the same period in 19 14 : 372 Germany's Point of View Million Bushels of Wheat Week Ending — 191S. 1914. Jan. 21 8.3 3.8 " 28 8.6 2,.7 Feb. 4 9.8 Z'7 " 10 9.7 4.0 " 18 10.2 3.1 " 25 7.2, 2.9 Together 53.9 21.2 In six weeks, therefore, the English importation of wheat grew 32,700,000 bushels over the importation during the corresponding six weeks last year. Can any thoughtful American, interested in the welfare of his country, view these figures without alarm? When Congressman Gallivan first announced, months ago, that an embargo should be laid on the exportation of wheat, many people were inclined to ridicule his idea. Today there are thousands who believe that the needs of our own people render this step obligatory. The above table is interesting also from another point of view. It shows the effect of the German sub- marine blockade, which began on February 18, and resulted in a decrease in importation of almost three million bushels, or the approximate equivalent of the average weekly importation in times of peace. If, however, neither a complete cessation of com- mercial dealings with England nor the declaration of an embargo on the exportation of either the munitions of war or wheat seems desirable, America has another means by which she can uphold the law so far as she is concerned. She can declare that she refuses to submit to the British Order-in-Council and that she will continue to trade with Germany. Such a decla- The Rights and Duties of Neutrals 373 ration will, however, only be respected if America announces that she will send convoys with the ships bound for Germany. This will settle once for all the question, "Is the high sea free, or is it not?" For more than one hundred years America has proclaimed this principle. Does she mean it ? In 1907, at the second Hague Conference, the principle was accepted by twenty-one votes against eleven, Germany, Austria, and Italy giving their strong support to America, while France, Russia, and Japan rallied to America's opponent, England. When the victory was won by a majority of almost two to one, the American delegate broke faith with his country and those who had supported him, and withdrew his motion, out of love for England. And today the supreme test has come. America can win respect for the principle proclaimed as true by her leading men ever since the nation was born. She can show whether she means what she has so often said, that the high sea shall be free to all. Will she do so, or will she turn traitor to her own principles, for the love of England ? Perhaps it is not quite true to say " for the love of England," for while such sentiments may have swayed Mr. Bryan himself, the great masses of the people are deterred from action not so much by love of England as by the feeling that no action should be taken that could, even in the remotest degree, advance the Ger- man chances of victory. Germany is still believed by many to be fighting an unrighteous war, and her success, therefore, to represent the conquest of wrong over right. England knew this, and that is why she cut the 374 Germany's Point of View cables and got a start of more than a fortnight in her campaign of Hes and viHfication. There are today official records on file in the State Department in Washington which exonerate Germany from the charge of having committed atrocities in Belgium. If they were published, the bottom would be knocked out from the anti-German propaganda. No American paper would dare to print any more of the dastardly lies besmirching the honor of Germany. There are admirals in the navy and officers in the army whose mouths are sealed, but who know that no nation facing the conditions like those met by Germany in Belgium would have shown the forbear- ance that Germany exhibited. There are official reports in the files of the several departments in Washington which relate the marvel- ous success of Germany's reconstruction of Belgium. Thousands of women and children have been freed from the slavery in the mines, and some of the German welfare legislation has been introduced. The school system has been improved and all children have been forced to attend school. This will wipe out the terrible illiteracy still prevalent in the country. The census of 1910 revealed that of every one thousand people over fifty-five years of age, only six hundred and eighty-nine could read and write. And that in the richest little country of the world ! All this will be changed in the future, for even though Germany evacuate the country- no government will be able to send the little children to the mines again instead of to the schools, and will dare to deprive the laborers in their old age and in sickness of the pensions granted them by Germany. These are facts, but America does not know them; The Rights and Duties of Neutrals 375 The voices of individuals are helpless, but when the people as a whole demand it the President cannot refuse. Let the people rise and demand the truth that their officials are keeping from them ! Let them force the publication of the official documents, let them request the President to unseal the lips of those officers who know the truth. But it is argued : " We know the truth. We have read everything. We know who started the war. Our minds are made up." This was the belief also of many Englishmen, who yet have changed their views. How many Americans know that at two recent meetings of the tutors of Oxford University these words were spoken : " One thing we must insist on over here is that this sinister liar, Grey, who forever has peace on his lips, and war in his heart, should go" ? And again the prophecy that before long Sir Edward Grey would be tried for high treason, because of his lies to the Cabinet and Parliament, and that the English people will " send him to the gallows " ? When such words can fall from the lips of a scholar like Dr. Frederic Cornwallis Conybeare, there may be some truth hidden v/hich also Americans have not yet found. " In August and September and October," Dr. Conybeare says, I felt so sure that England had all the right on her side and Germany all the wrong that I hardly troubled to read the diplomatic documents. His awakening began in November. It is never too late to seek the truth. And to refuse to ask for the publication of the official documents in Washington because one's mind is made up is un-American. 376 Germany's Point of View There is, however, another objection. People say, " We do not care much for official reports ; what our friends have seen and told us counts for more. They have seen the poor victims of German atrocity in Belgium, and that is enough for us." So far as Boston is concerned there are hundreds of people who were informed by Mr. William Firth that his daughter, Mrs. Haworth, had seen little Bel- gian " children, one with one hand off, and some have had both cut off." After the publication of the British official report that no such cases existed in England,* Mr. Firth has been forced to acknowledge that he and his daughter were wrong and that she had not seen any such cases. The writer has in his possession the proof of Mr. Firth's first assertion and also of his subsequent confession. The latter is several weeks old, but Mr. Firth has not yet seen fit to publish his denial. In this connection, and as an indication of the fact that Belgium, except in a few districts, is not nearly so badly off as America has been made to believe, it is interesting to note that Mr. Firth's collections no longer go exclusively to Belgium. It is, of course, impossible at this distance to dis- prove every slanderous story about Germany, but a sufficient number of sworn affidavits is available to impair the credibility of all such accounts. England knew what she was about when she ma- ligned the Germans, their aims, and their conduct of the war, for just so long as the Germans would appear to the Americans to be doers of evil and wish- ers of ill, just so long she knew that the American sense of justice would prevent America from doing * See New York World, January 28, 1915. The Rights and Duties of Neutrals 2^77 her duty at this momentous juncture of the world's history. Everything hinges on the truth. Germany alone of all the contestants is not afraid of the truth. English, French, Greek, American, and other papers are as freely sold and read in Berlin today as ever. The Government is not afraid to let the people read the false battle reports and accounts of home affairs pub- lished anywhere in the world, because the people know the truth. This has also been the glorious inspiration of those whose faith in Germany has never wavered, and espe- cially of those who at the same time have been swayed by faith in the sense of justice inherent in America. These people have spoken, not because Germany needed any defence, but because America needed in- formation. A public opinion which is based on false- hoods may ruin a nation. And all Americans wish to see their country thrive. CHAPTER XXIX HOW ENGLAND AND FRANCE WAGE WAR DURING the American War of Independence the English Government offered rewards of eight dollars each for the scalps of white Americans. And in 1782 the governor of Canada is said to have re- ceived 1,062 such scalps delivered to him. Most American textbooks suppress this sanguinary fact, and few people seem to find the time to read larger his- tories. These figures are quoted from England and the Peoples of the World, by Paul Dehn and Albert Zimmermann, Part I, page 5. But greater details of the English-Indian agreement are conveniently gath- ered in The Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution, by Benson J. Lossing, Harper & Brother, i860, and in Frank Moore's Diary of the Revolution. Stone's Life of Brant, the Indian chieftain, and the Life of Mary Jennison, published by James D. Bemis in 1823, are also illuminating. Moore's Diary contains contemporary records of events, and volume II, page 75, under date of July 4, 1778, states that the enemy, consisting of 1,300 Tories and about 300 Indians, delivered 196 scalps. A little further the following account is given of how the English and their Indian allies treated their prisoners : They stripped Captain Bedlock, tied him to a tree, and stuck him full of sharp splinters of pine knots. Then piling a heap of pine knots round him, they set all on fire; 378 How England and France Wage War 379 put Durpee and Ranson into the fire and held them down with pitchforks. An account of a scalping party of 1781 is thus de- scribed, volume II, page 420: The men . . . fell a sacrifice to savage Indians and Tories and experienced that torture in death which noth- ing but British and savage cruelty could inflict. It was this unholy alliance between the English and the colored savages which greatly incensed the fathers of the Revolution and induced them to give it as one of their reasons why America henceforth could have no connection with England. The Declaration of Independence says: [The King of England] has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished de- struction of all ages, sexes, and conditions. The same rule of warfare is characteristic of the Gourkas and other savage tribes whom England is today employing in her fight against her own kinsmen. How can Americans, except those who no longer understand the spirit of the Declaration of Independ- ence, condone this barbarous English custom? And especially in Boston, where the memory of the English cruelty should not be forgotten, for the invitation ex- tended to the Indians by the representatives of the British Government was couched in these terms : That they should assemble "to eat the flesh and drink the blood of a Bostonian." After the conference, in which the Indians had promised to war on the Americans, to each Indian were then presented a brass kettle, a suit of clothes, a gun, a tomahawk and scalping knife, a piece 380 Germany's Point of View of gold, a quantity of ammunition, and a promise of a bounty upon every scalp he should bring in.* This was one hundred and thirty-three years ago, and since then the manners of men have softened. The British Government, too, would consider it be- neath its dignity today to buy the scalp of an enemy for eight dollars. Human life has risen in value, and, as the letter from English Minister Findlay, printed below, indicates, £5,000 is the current price for the head of an enemy. British Legation Christiania Norway On behalf of the British Government I promise that if, through information given by Adler Christensen, Sir Roger Casement be captured either with or without his com- panions, the said Adler Christensen is to receive from the British Government the sum of £5,000, to be paid as he may desire. Adler Christensen is also to enjoy personal immunity and to be given a passage to the United States, should he desire it. M. DE C. Findlay, H. B. M. Minister. Sir Roger Casement, whom his servant was asked to sell at this figure, has exposed the whole plot in a letter addressed to Sir Edward Grey. The letter reads as follows: Berlin, ist February, 1915. The Right Honourable Sir E. Grey, Bart, K. G, M. P., London : Sir — I observe that some discussion has taken place in the House of Lords on the subject of the pension I volun- tarily ceased to draw when I set out to learn what might be the intentions of the German Government in regard to Ireland. * See Life of Mary Jennison. How England and France Wage War 381 In the course of that discussion I understand Lord Crewe observed that " Sir Roger Casement's action merited a sensible punishment." The question raised thus as to my action and your pub- licly suggested punishment of same, I propose discussing here and now, since the final proof of the actual punish- ment you sought in secret to inflict upon me is, at length, in my possession. It is true I was aware of your intention from the first day I set foot in Norway three months ago; but it has taken time to compel your agent there to furnish the writ- ten proof of the conspiracy then set on foot against me by his majesty's Government. Let me first briefly define my action, before proceeding to contrast it with your own. The question between the British Government and my- self has never been, as you are fully aware, a matter of a pension, of a reward, a decoration. I served the British Government faithfully and loyally as long as it was possible for me to do so, and when it became impossible, I resigned. When later it became im- possible for me to use the pension assigned me by law I voluntarily abandoned that income as I had previously re- signed the post from which it was derived, and as I now proceed to divest myself of the honours and distinctions that at various times have been conferred upon me by his majesty's Government. I came to Europe from the United States last October, ifti order to make sure that whatever might be the course of this war, my own country, Ireland, should suffer from it the minimum of harm. The view I held was made sufficiently clear in an open letter I wrote on the 17th September last in New York, and sent to Ireland for public distribution among my coun- trymen. I append a printed copy of that letter. It defines my personal standpoint clearly enough and expresses the views I held, and hold, on an Irishman's duty to his coun- try in this crisis of world affairs. Soon after writing that letter I set out for Europe. To save Ireland from some of the calamities of war was worth the loss to myself of pension and honours and was even worth the commission of an act of technical " treason." I decided to take all the risks and to accept all the pen- alties the law might attach to my action. I did not, how- 382 Germany's Point of View ever, bargain for risks and penalties that lay outside the law as far as my own action lay outside the field of moral turpitude. In other words, while I reckoned with British law and legal penalties and accepted the sacrifice of income, posi- tion, and reputation as prices I must pay, I did not reckon with the British Government. I was prepared to face charges in a court of law; I was not prepared to meet waylaying, kidnapping, suborning of dependents or " knocking on the head" — in fine, all the expedients your representative in a neutral country invoked when he became aware of my presence there. For the criminal conspiracy that Mr. M. de C. Eindlay, H. B. M. Minister to the Court of Norway, entered into on the 30th October last, in the British Legation at Christiania, with the Norwegian subject, my dependent, Evind Adler Christensen, involved all these things and more. It involved not merely a lawless attack upon my- self, for which the British minister promised my follower the sum of £5,000, but it involved a breach of international law as well as of common law, for which the British min- ister in Norway promised this Norwegian subject full im- munity. On the 29th October, last year, I landed at Christiania, coming from America. Within a few hours of my landing the man I had en- gaged and in whom I reposed trust, was accosted by one of the secret service agents of the British minister and carried off, in a private motor car, to the British Lega- tion, when the first attempt was made on his honour to induce him to be false to me. Your agent in the legation that afternoon professed ignorance of who I was and sought, as he put it, merely to find out my identity and movements. Failing in this, the first attempt to obtain satisfaction, Adler Christensen was assailed the next day, the 30th October, by a fresh agent and received an invitation to again visit the British Legation, " where he would hear something good." This, the second interview, held in the early forenoon, was with the minister himself. Mr. Findlay came quickly to the point. The ignorance, assumed or actual, of the previous day, as to my identity, was now discarded. He confessed that he knew me, but How England and France Wage War 383 that he did not know where I was going to, what I in- tended doing, or what might be the specific end I had in view. It was enough for him that I was an Irish Nationalist. He admitted that the British Government had no evi- dence of anything wrong done, or contemplated by me, that empowered them either morally or lawfully to inter- fere with my movements. But he was bent on doing so. Therefore, he boldly invoked lawless methods, and sug- gested to my dependent that were I to " disappear " it would be " a very good thing for whoever brought it about." He was careful to point out that nothing could happen to the perpetrator of the crime, since my presence in Christiania was known only to the British Government, and that Government would screen and provide for those responsible for my " disappearance." He indicated quite plainly the method to be employed, by assuring Adler Christensen that whoever " knocked him on the head need not do any work for the rest of his life " and proceeded to apply the moral by asking Christen- sen : " I suppose you would not mind having an easy time of it for the rest of your days? " My faithful follower concealed the anger he felt at this suggestion and continued the conversation in order to become more fully aware of the plot that might be devised against my safety. He pointed out that I had not only been very kind to him but that I " trusted him inplicitly." It was on this " implicit trust " Mr. Findlay then pro- ceeded to build the whole framework of his conspiracy against my life, my liberty, the public law of Norway, and the happiness of the young man he sought to tempt by monstrous bribes to the commission of a dastardly crime against his admitted benefactor. If I could be intercepted, cut off, " disappear," no one would know and no question could be asked, since there was no Government save the British Government knew of my presence in Norway and there was no authority I could appeal to for help, while that Government would shield the individual implicated and provide handsomely for his future. Such, in Mr. Findlay's words (recorded by me) was the proposition put by his majesty's minister before the young man who had been enticed for this pur- pose into the British Legation. 384 Germany's Point of View That this man was faithful to me and the law of his country, was a triumph of Norwegian integrity over the ignoble inducement proffered him by the richest and most powerful Government in the world to be false to both. Having thus outlined his project, Mr. Findlay invited Christensen to " think the matter over and return at three o'clock if you are disposed to go on with it." He handed him in Norwegian paper money twenty-five Kroner "just to pay your taxi-cab fares," and dismissed him. Feeling a not unnatural interest in these proposals as to how I should be disposed of, I instructed the jnan it was thus sought to bribe, to return to the British Legation at three o'clock and to seemingly fall in with the wishes of your envoy extraordinary. I advised him, however, for the sake of appearances, to " sell me dear " and to secure the promise of a very re- spectable sum for so very disreputable an act, Christensen, who has been a sailor and naturally has seen some strange company, assured me he was perfectly at home with his majesty's representative. He returned to the legation at three o'clock and remained closeted with Mr. Findlay until nearly 5 P. M. The full record of their conversation will be laid before you, and others, in due course. My follower pretended to fall in with the British min- ister's projects, only stipulating for a good sum to be paid in return for his treachery. Mr. Findlay promised in his "word of honour" (such was the quaint phraseology em- ployed to guarantee this transaction), that Christensen should receive £5,000 whenever he could deliver me into the hands of the British authorities. H in the course of this kidnaping process I should come to harm or personal injury be done me, then no question would be asked and full immunity guaranteed the kid- naper. My follower pointed out that as I was leaving that even- ing for Copenhagen, having already booked my compart- ment in the mail train, he would not have any immediate chance of executing the commission. Mr. Findlay agreed that it would be necessary to defer the attempt until some favorable opportunity offered of decoying me down to the coast " anywhere on the How England and France Wage War 385 Skagerack or North Sea," where British warships might be in waiting to seize me. He entrusted my dependent with the further commis- sion of purloining my correspondence with my supposed associates in America and Ireland, particularly in Ireland, so that they, too, might participate in the "sensible pun- ishment" being devised for me. He ordained a system of secret correspondence with himself Christensen should employ, and wrote out the confidential address in Christiania to which he was to communicate the results of his efforts to purloin my papers and to report on my plans. This address in Christiania was written down by Mr. Findlay on a halfsheet of legation notepaper in printed characters. This precaution was adopted, he said, " so as to prevent the handwriting being traced." This document, along with one hundred crowns in Nor- wegian paper money given by Mr. Findlay as an earnest of more to follow was at once brought to me with an account of the proceedings. As I was clearly in a position of some danger, I changed my plans and instead of proceeding to Copen- hagen, as I had intended doing, I decided to alter my procedure and route. It was then, with this secret knowledge of the full extent of the crime plotted by your representative in Nor- way against me, that I left Christiania on the 30th October. The rest of the story need not take so long in the telling. You are fully aware of most of the details, as you were in constant touch with your agent both by cable and despatch. You are also aware of the declaration of the Imperial German Government, issued on 20th November last, in reply to the inquiry I addressed to them. The British Government, both by press reports and by direct agents, had charged Germany, throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, with the commission of atrocious crimes in Belgium and had warned the Irish people that their fate would be the same, did Germany win this war. Your Government sought to frighten Irishmen into a predatory raid upon a people who had never injured them and to persuade them by false charges that this was their duty. 386 Germany's Point of View I sought not only a guarantee of German goodwill to Ireland, but to relieve my countrymen from the appre- hension this campaign of calumny was designed to pro- voke and so far as was possible to dissuade them from embarking in an immoral conflict against a people who had never wronged Ireland. That declaration of the Ger- man Government, issued, as I know, in all sincerity, is the justification for my treason. The justification of the con- spiracy of the British Government and its minister at Christiania, begun before I had set foot on German soil, in a country where I had a perfect right to be and con- ducted by means of the lowest forms of attempted bribery and corruption, I leave you, sir, to discover. . ^ You will not discover it in the many interviews Mr. Findlay had, during the months of November and Decem- ber last, at his own seeking, with my faithful follower. The correspondence between them, in the cypher the min- ister had arranged tells its own story. These interviews furnished matter which in due course I shall make public. What passed between your agent and mine on these occasions you are fully aware of, for you were the directing power throughout the whole proceeding. Your object, as Mr. Findlay frankly avowed to the man he thought he had bought, was to take my life with public indignity — mine was to expose your design and to do so through the very agent you had yourselves singled out for the purpose and had sought to corrupt to an act of singular infamy. On one occasion, in response to my follower's pretended dissatisfaction with the amount offered for betraying me, you authorized your agent to increase the sum to £10,000. I have a full record of the conversations held and of the pledges proffered in your name. On two occasions, during these prolonged bargainings, your minister gave Adler Christensen gifts of " earnest money." Once it was five hundred crowns in Norwegian currency; the next time a similar sum, partly in Nor- wegian money and partly in English gold. On one of these occasions, to be precise, on the 7th December last, Mr. Findlay handed Adler Christensen the key of the back entrance of the British Legation, so that he might go and come unobserved and at all hours. I propose returning this key in person to the donor and How England and France Wage War 387 along with it the various sums so anxiously bestowed upon my follower. The stories told Mr. Findlay at these interviews should not have deceived a schoolboy. All the pretended evi- dence of my plans and intentions Adler Christensen pro- duced, the bogus letters, fictitious maps and charts and other incitements to Mr. Findlay's appetite for the in- credible were part of my necessary plan of self-defense to lay bare the conspiracy you were engaged in and to secure that convincing proof of it I now hold. It was not until the 3d ultimo that Mr. Findlay com- mitted himself to give my protector the duly signed and formal pledge of reward and immunity, in the name of the British Government, for the crime he was being in- stigated to commit, that is row in my possession. I transmit you herewith a photograph of this document. At a date compatible with my own security against the clandestine guarantees and immunities of the British min- ister in Norway, I shall proceed to lay before the legitimate authorities in that country the original document and the evidence in my possession that throws light on the pro- ceedings of his majesty's Government. To that Government, through you, sir, I now beg to return the insignia of the Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. George, the Coronation Medal of his majesty King George v.^ and any other medal, honour or distinction conferred upon me by his majesty's Govern- ment, of which it is possible for me to divest myself. I am, sir, your most obedient, humble servent, (Signed) Roger Casement. This chapter of British dealings with those whom their Government fears, deserves to be placed in his- tory by the side of the 1,062 scalps of white Americans delivered to the governor of Canada in 1782. Posterity will, no doubt, pass judgment on the instigator of this attempted murder, Sir Edward Grey, and on his tool, his majesty's minister, Mr. Findlay; while the defend- ers of England in the present war, who have claimed that Sir Edward Grey stood for humanity and justice, will need some time to think matters over. 388 Germany's Point of View The same advice may -be given to those who have condemned the Germans for their reported use of asphyxiating bombs in recent days. It has been touch- ing to read the indignation of the editorial writers since the German success near Ypres and to compare their present volubiHty with their silence in September, and whenever since the use of asphyxiating bombs by the French has been reported. Lest it appear that such reports had emanated from German sources, it may be well to quote a few paragraphs from the Pall Mall Gazette, London, September 16, 1914, page three, column five. The article begins : DEALERS OF DEATH The Secret of French " Hell-Producers " " TURPINITE " Shells That Paralyse Organs of the Body Mr. A. A. Roberts, the well-known analytical chemist, writes to the Pall Mall Gazette: An evening paper of Thursday last is responsible for the following : " One wonders what kind of shells the French must have been using to cause a regiment of German infantry to die in their trenches standing bolt upright, and still holding their rifles in firing attitude? " There is no longer necessity for further preserving privacy, as to that which is an open secret, for not during this colossal struggle could the enemy hope to exercise its clever imitative propensities in the direction of * Turpinite.' "The manufacture of this latest hell producer gave the French authorities at much food for reflection." The article then goes on to state that these bombs bring *' death to every living thing within its reach," because they produce " complete paralysis of certain organs of the body." The French have used such asphyxiating bombs ever since, and the Germans have complained over and over How England and France Wage War 389 again, and sent their proofs ; and the State Depart- ment in Washington has quietly pigeon-holed them and the press has refused to arouse the moral indig- nation of the country against this glaring infraction of the stipulations of the Hague Convention. Only last week Germany announced that she might be forced to take recriminatory measures if the French continued to use asphyxiating bombs. If, therefore, the patience of the Germans broke at last, and they had recourse to such bombs — which as yet is not proved — they are free from guilt. English " murder-conspiracies " and French " hell- producers !" The time will come when every honest American will turn from such manifestations of " hu- manity" and when he will call to account the men whose suppression of all official accounts on the con- duct of the war has prevented American public opin- ion from exciting its tremendous moral weight for righteousness in the world. Truth is always right, and to suppress it for fear of being unneutral because it might help Germany is a course which will find its condemnation — in the next generation at any rate! CHAPTER XXX SIR EDWARD GREY WHEN Sir Edward Grey authorized the British minister to Norway to set a price of £5,000 on the head of Sir Roger Casement he followed a precedent from the American War of Independence, for the English Government offered at that time to pay to the Indians a stated price for every scalp of an American. It is useless to claim in extenuation of such English behavior that it conformed to the spirit of the times ; for this would be a slander on Washington and the other leaders of the Revolution. Nor is it possible to say that the English have altered their methods since, because they have shown the same ruthlessness wherever they have fought during the intervening one hundred and thirty or forty years. Their own writers confess this, and every page of their military history — in China, India, Egypt, and the Transvaal — is filled with such inhumanity that it has to be expurgated for school use. During all this time, however, England has pro- duced so many splendid specimens of humanity that the world at large has been led to believe that they and not their cruel officials represent the real England. And so they do, but unfortunately they have never been able to force their own government to apply the high principles of humanity which they themselves 390 ^'^V Edward Grey 391 are preaching. Lossing put his finger on the right spot when he said,* speaking of the price the English commanders placed on the scalps of Americans : Their feelings of humanity doubtless revolted when coalescing with the savages of the forest to butcher their brethren, but with them principle too often yielded to expediency. This has been the English failing right along. Eng- lishmen have professed greater perfection and con- doned more imperfection in their public men than any other people in the world, because with them political morality has meant success. Sir Edward Grey is the man who has led England into this war. He has claimed to have done it for the sake of honor after all his endeavors to preserve the peace had failed. Sir Edward Grey has been believed. Does he deserve it? Has he spoken the truth? Are his documents honest? Or has with him, too, prin- ciple yielded to expediency? These are momentous questions, for if it should be found that his words were false and some of the documents of his Blue Book forged, a revaluation of the causes of the people at war will become necessary. Ever since the publication of the French Yellow Book, doubts in the trustworthiness of Sir Edward Grey have appeared, for the French and the English sources of information were often incompatible with each other. This led to a systematic study of Sir Edward's evidence, the results of which are now ready for publication. Entirely independent of these investigations, an English scholar. Dr. Frederic Cornwallis Conybeare, "^ The -Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution, Vol I, p. 235. 392 Germany's Point of View of Oxford University, has studied the records avail- able to him, which were not so many as were ob- tainable in America, and has summed up his conclu- sions in a letter to an American friend who gave per- mission for its publication in the Vital Issue, New York, April 17, 191 5. The editor of the Vital Issue personally vouches for the genuineness of the letter and has published a facsimile of three pages of it, written in Dr. Cony- beare's own hand, in the Vital Issue of April 24. The letter reads as follows: Oxford, March 5, '15. My Dear — Many thanks for your last letter. I will come to that presently, for your own attitude and the treatment of the Poles in Prussia and much else we have written to each other about are things on the fringe of the vital questions I want to treat of in this letter. I feel that I owe it to you to write this, for I know that you will understand my feelings. In August and September and October I felt so sure that England had all the right on her side and Germany all the wrong, that I hardly troubled to read the diplomatic documents given in the English, German, French, and Russian books. At the beginning of October my attention was first drawn to the emperor's correspondence with the Czar, and I realized then that he had made a sincere effort for peace in the days of July 28-31, and you perhaps saw my ac- knowledgment of the same in the Nezv York Nation. I am not the man to see clearly a point in favor of the enemy and to conceal it. Next I got M. P. Price's Diplomatic History of the War, which gives all the diplomatic despatches, and correlates them with one another and with contemporary events so far as these were ascertainable from Reuter's telegrams, newspaper correspondents abroad, etc. The book is tem- perately written, without bias or flag-waving, and I com- mend it to your notice. The points that are driven into me by a perusal of it and of all the documents are these: I. That in the days 23-28 July, Berlin made a great mistake in not obliging Franz Joseph to withdraw, or Sir Edward Grey 393 rather moderate, his note to Servia. I quite realize what a testy, obstinate, autoritaire, and somewhat senile old gentlemen your foreign office had to deal with in him, and I know how mistaken our press is in supposing that he consults Berlin before he acts. On this occasion he took the bit in his teeth, probably aided by that arch-oppressor, the Magyar Tisza. On the other hand, I recognize the provocation under which Austria was. The murdered Grandduke was a sensible fellow, whose ambition, I be- lieve, was to conciliate the small Slav nations of Austria- Hungary. He would have grouped the Slovaks with Moravia and Bohemia and have been crowned their King at Prague. He would also have grouped Bosnia and Herzegovina with Croatia, and have been crowned at Agram, The dual monarchy would thus have become a quadruple one. The Germans in Hungary would, as far as possible, have been like other nationalities rescued from the Magyar and incorporated with Vienna. Roumania v/ould have been drawn inside the Austrian Bund and the Roumanians of Hungary added to her. She could not have continued to stand alone, and as her trade with Germany is great, and her natural antipathy to Russia equally great, she would have formed a permanent alliance with the great group system on her western side. Just because he was a constructive statesman, the Archduke was murdered, for his accession to the throne would have been the death knell of Pan-Slav ambitions in Austria-Hungary, Pos- sibly Bulgaria and Servia would have joined on same terms. If Germany wins in this war she will, I hope, con- strain Austria-Hungary to reform themselves in some such way as I have sketched out, for it is vital to Germany to keep Austria-Hungary together, and to keep her together you must put the Magyar into his place. If she wins she will also have to group Polish Galicia and Russian Poland and East Posen together and give them some home rule show of their own ; the Poles are so thoroughly Latinized that their sympathies would always lie with Vienna and South Germany, rather than with Russia. The German Empire on the west of this great congeries would act as a centre of gravity to it, and I am not sure that the whole might not have been drawn into the German customs union. It is then, in my opinion, a terrible pity the Arch- duke was murdered, certainly if my idea of his policy is correct. 394 Germany's Point of View 2. Sir Edward Grey had, behind our backs, mortgaged our fleet, our only serious arm, to France unconditionally. I believe only Asquith and two or three other members of the cabinet were in this secret. The public knew, in a vague way, of the Triple Entente, but no one suspected that Grey's diplomacy had left us no choice of our quar- rels, and that we were, by it, as much lashed to Russia's chariot wheels as France. 3. In spite of the affinity of Servian language and re- ligion to Russia, I do not believe Petersburgh cared for Servia, save as a lever with which to disintegrate Austria. Bulgaria is as close to Russia in these ways, yet was cynically sacrificed by Russia after the war with Turkey, partly because she came out of it stronger than Russia liked, and partly because she did not serve so well as a lever against Austria. To go a step further back, Austria courted risk in this danger in 1908 by not getting consent of signatory powers of Berlin treaty of 1878, before she threw off the suzerainty of Turkey, and the Kaiser, like a foolish fellow, went and crowed over Russia when she had climbed down in a case where for once she was not wrong. 4. When the crisis began on July 24, Sazonof and Cam- bon at once set to work to drag Grey by his heels into " complete solidarity " with Russia and France in the com- ing conflict. Had Grey only followed the advice of Buchanan, our ambassador in Russia, we would not have gone in, for the latter told Sazonof straight out that " England's interests in Servia were nil, and a war on behalf of that country would never be sanctioned by British public opinion." Instead of adhering to this advice, sen- sible in itself and truly reflecting the feelings of most of our cabinet, of our Parliament and electorate. Grey set himself to follow Sazonof, who has had him in his waist- coat pocket for a long time past. I gave him credit for having wanted peace, but Sazonof worked on this side of him and got him to believe that Germany would back down if he assured Lichnowsky (as he did on July 29, see White Book, 89) that England, if the war spread, would go in with France and Russia. The stupid ass could not see that Sazonof, once assured of English support, of Eng- lish money and fleet, would steam straight ahead and set himself to provoke the Kaiser to declare war. Thus, in- Sir Edward Grey 395 stead of securing peace as he hoped, he took the very Hne that must lead to war. 5. Germany was quite ready to take on France and ■ Russia if they gave her a chance, but did not want to take on us as well ; and that is why Bethmann-Hollweg, on the afternoon of July 29, as soon as he heard of the hostile attitude Grey had taken up to Lichnowsky (see our White Book, 89) sent in hot haste to Goschen at 11 P. M. to make a bid for our neutrality {White Book, 85), and the same night at 2 A. M. to Sazonof (ibid. 97). That Count Pourtales, a man whom, from all I have read about him, I should dearly like to meet, " completely broke down " in this interview and " appealed to Sazonof to make some suggestion which he could telegraph to the German Gov- ernment as a last hope," proves how anxious Germany was to keep the peace at this time. But Sazonof already knew from Paul Cambon of Grey's virtual ultimatum (ibid. 89) to Lichnowsky, and was inexorable. The more Germany yielded, the more provocative and imperious he became. 6. Germany's one aim now was to avoid a war in which England would almost certainly join, "drawn in," as Grey puts it, by his secret agreement with France and through France with Russia. Accordingly Germany accepted any terms from Sazonof, and urged Austria to accept them. Sazonof (ibid. 133) admits to de Etter that Austria ac- cepted them and had done so already when he mobilized against Germany, I believe with the express intention of provoking the Kaiser to war, in which (with the help of the war party in Berlin) he succeeded. 7. Meanwhile Grey had great difficulty with the calDinet, a majority of whom flatly refused to go to war with Germany over Servia and preferred to throw over Grey's naval and other agreements with France (which on July 30 Cambon urged Grey to execute without delay, see White Book, 105). Grey threatened to resign, but on July 31 agreed to stay on until it was known if Germany would respect or not Belgian neutrality, as to which, on July 29 {White Book, 85), the German Chancellor had spoken ambiguously. If he really feared that France would violate it he should have demanded of us an as- surance that we would defend it vi et armis against France. We could not have refused such an assurance. But Bel- gian neutrality was the only thing the majority in our cabinet really cared about, and unless it — a small country 39^ Germany's Point of View — was violated by Germany, a big one — the English people could not be relied upon to join in any war. Noth- ing else appealed to them in the least, and not a soul had any idea that Germany had already offered to respect Bel- gium. Accordingly on the afternoon of July 31 Goschen sounded Von Jagow about Belgium, and he could not answer without consulting the Kaiser and the Chancellor. The Kaiser, ever anxious to keep us out (and probably aware also that Russia would retire across the golden bridge he had built as soon as ever she learned that we were going to be neutral and not help her in her designs) ordered Lichnowsky to offer to respect Belgium and also to guarantee integrity of France and of French colonies, to offer, in short, any conditions in order to keep us out. Our cabinet in its turn anxious only to get from Germany a favorable answer about Belgium and to be able to keep the peace with Germany, met early on August i and drew up a memorandum about it, which Grey was to submit to Lichnowsky. There was perhaps someone in the cabinet who pointed out that to challenge Germany to respect Belgium, after signifying our intention of supporting France anyhow, was a work of supererogation. It was in effect to say : " I am going to war anyhow with you," and at the same time : " I will go to war with you if you touch Belgium." The Germans would probably answer, " We may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, and if we are, anyhow, to fight you, why should we forego the military advantages of going through Belgium ? " In our White Book, No. 123, may be read Grey's own abstract of his conversation with Lichnowsky. At about 1 130, on August I, Lichnowsky freely offered to respect Belgium and also to guarantee the integrity of France, and of her colonies, although France (who really needed a straight waistcoat to keep her out of a quarrel which was not hers) could not complain, if she was beaten, of Germany helping herself to some of her colonies. Grey might have said to Lichnowsky that he could not barter our neutrality against an undertaking by Germany to re- spect Belgium, seeing that it was anyhow Germany's duty to respect Belgium. However, our cabinet was in a bartering mood, and they only wanted an excuse for not going to war with Germany. Lichnowsky therefore adopted the bartering tone and so did Grey. Grey evi- dently expected Lichnowsky to offer no sort of terms, and Sir Edward Grey 397 when Lichnowsky made the proposals as he did, and fur- thermore besought him to formulate any conditions on which England would consent to be neutral, Grey refused all on the pretext of keeping his hands free (see No. 123). Lichnowsky must have gone away with the conviction that Grey anyhow wanted war. Now our cabinet plainly expected Grey to report to them at once any disposition to yield, if Germany showed signs of it. He knew that if he reported Lichnowsky's proposals, the cabinet would jump at them, and then he would be unable to execute his secret bond to France and Russia. What did he do? He told none of his col- leagues of them on August i, and when the cabinet met next morning, August 2, he concealed them from the entire cabinet, as he did from the House of Commons next day, August 3. By doing so he precipitated us into this war; I say he tricked us into war; us, a generous people (who — except for a few rabid chauvinists on the Tory side — were averse to war with Germany, with whom we were for the first time since Agadir on cordial terms) into war with you. Take my word for it, Grey will, in good time, be running for his life over this sinister business. Bismarck, in 1870, modified a telegram in order to pro- voke that owl Louis Napoleon into a declaration of war; Grey deliberately concealed from his colleagues and from Parliament overtures made by Lichnowsky, which would have been accepted at once ; but for Grey's action Belgium would not have been turned into a shambles, and in all probability Russia would have professed her satisfaction that Austria had accepted -her terms (dictated by Sazonof to Pourtales at 2 A. M. on July 30) and have shut up. I consider that Grey acted more criminally than Bismarck ever did. 8. Mark the sequel. War ensued over Belgium, and weeks of it ensued before anyone knew of the interview given in White Book, 123. As soon, however, as Par- liament met on August 27, Keir Hardie, who spotted it, asked Grey whether he had submitted Lichnowsky's pro- posals to the cabinet and why they had not been made the basis of peace with Germany. Grey in his answer acknowledged that he had disclosed it to no one at the time, and excused himself on the ground that Lichnowsky in No. 123 was speaking de suo and without authority from Berlin. He acknowledged that Lichnowsky was actuated 398 Germany's Point of View in making these proposals by a sincere desire for peace with us, but declared that Berlin in the background was as sincerely working for war. And yet he must have been well aware that Lichnowsky was acting on instructions from Berlin, as Lichnowsky's three despatches sent to Berlin about that interview at 1:15 P. M., 5:30 P. M. and 8 130 P. M. on August i sufficiently prove. Moreover, had Grey not known that Lichnowsky's proposals were authoritative and bound the German Government he would never have wired them at once to Goschen, lest the latter should get at cross purposes with our Foreign Office in the matter. All Grey's answers to Keir Hardie on August 2y are thus a model of hard lying, suppression veri and sug- gestio falsi. Naturally the House of Commons, having been utterly hoodwinked by him, applauded. Presently they will send him to the gallows. I doubt if even Asquith knew of this crime, for on August 6 he based his whole argument on White Book, 85, but if he really Vvas Grey's accomplice, he will swing too. I fancy Lloyd George — a plastic tool in Grey's hands — begins to smell a rat, for he is going about the country now protesting loudly that he and the English democracy could and would never have been induced to go to war except by the aggression on Belgium. And that was certainly so. Look at last Sat- urday's Economist, edited by that decent fellow Hirst, and you will read how the whole business community in London and elsewhere suddenly swing round in favor of war on August 5, having till then abhorred the idea of war with Germany. 9. And this shows what a calamitous error it was for Germany to invade through Belgium. It was bad enough for the Kaiser to send his ultimatum on August i, instead of waiting to see if Russia would not send him one, as she might very likely have done, though I doubt if without being fairly certain of us she would have done so, cer- tainly not had we declared our neutrality in time. The Belgian populace were sure to assail the invading army; that led to terrible excesses; and the wringing of large fines out of the poor starving population has accumulated in Italy — of which I read in the papers — and in America a bitterness against Germany which a more generous and humane treatment of Belgium would have avoided. Of course I do not believe all the atrocities retailed in our papers. Allowing one apache for every 500 soldiers that Sir Edward Grey 399 went through Belgium you would get 2,000 of them, and that would explain as much of the stories as is likely to be true. You cannot avoid a sprinkling of apaches in every army, and the remarks of the authors of the History of the Boer War, compiled for the German general staff about the atrocities our men were accused of in the Trans- vaal (not only abroad but in England) are sound and full of common sense. 10. I trust that Germany will respect the " positively formal assurance (made on August 4 in London) that, even in the case of armed conflict with Belgium, Germany will, under no pretence whatever, annex Belgian ter- ritory." I believe on that basis and on an undertaking of Germany to evacuate France, Wilson could restore peace between our two countries tomorrow, and put an end to all this useless murder. One thing we must insist on over here is that this sin- ister liar. Grey, who forever has peace on his lips and war in his heart, should go. We cannot trust him and his ac- complice Sazonof to make peace for England. 11. I have said nothing of another side of the whole wretched matter, that is of the wicked press campaign which for years preceded this war in both countries. Too many, even sensible, Englishmen had derived from it the feeling that Germany wanted to attack us, and for that reason were ready to condone our attacking her, in case France was at war with her. I am not surprised if the suspicions Germans entertained of our desire to " down " Germany at the first opportunity seem to them to have been verified by this war. In point of fact that was upper- most in English minds all through, and what has poured over two millions of our youth into the army was very respectable wrath at the treatment of Belgium. Nothing else would have rallied the nation to the Government. Grey had respeatedly assured the country that our entente with Russia and France was in no way directed against Germany. 12. I don't know if you sent me Bernstein's fac-similes of sundry " military conversations " between our military attache at Brussels and the Belgian generals. The first is an outline of a conversation, at the end of it the word fin (preceding name of month) only implies that it was held at that date. The printed copy turns fin into fini, and this is translated concluded, making it appear to be 400 Germany's Point of View a diplomatic instrument or treaty, with binding power, which it was not. It is a mere ehauche, as is also the next document. Fini could anyhow in French not mean con- cluded or ratified as Bernstein seems to think, but only the explicit you put at end of a book. No doubt in the sec- ond document our military attache proposes to land Eng- lish troops to defend Belgium in case she were invaded whether Belgium asked for them or not, but there is no evidence that any agreement in that sense was reached by our Foreign Office. I much doubt it and our Foreign Office denies it. It is a pity that the Belgians did not follow the advice of Leopold ii, given twenty-five years ago, and put up an army like Switzerland, suitable'to their population and means ; for then the German staff would never have planned forcing the Meuse, defended as it would have been by 100,000 men, at the outset of a cam- paign. They knew quite well that we as guarantors of their country's neutrality were in the position of a man who, having £5, backs a bill for a million sterling. And now I have said not all it was in my mind to say, but as much as you will want to read. You are free to show this letter to anyone you like and even print it if you like. I do not see that any harm could result from my opinions being known, and I air them very freely here, already at two meetings of university tutors and the other night before the Fabians. I am writing a pamphlet on Grey for the Labor League. Meanwhile we must go on fighting it out, but I hope not for long. Ever yours sincerely, (Signed) F. C. Conybeare. CHAPTER XXXI SIR EDWARD S EVIDENCE D R. CONYBEARE'S letter, given in the preceding chapter, contains these significant words: In August and September and October I felt so sure that England had all the right on her side and Germany- all the wrong that I hardly troubled to read the diplomatic documents. Then a certain event made him hesitate and ask whether it was possible that England, or at least her leading man, Sir Edward Grey, might be in error. He studied the evidence, and as the result of his studies reached the conclusion that before long Eng- land would find Sir Edward Grey guilty of treason and send him to the gallows, for it was Grey's trea- sonable lies, he thought, that had rushed England into the war. How the English will choose to deal with Sir Ed- ward Grey is their own affair, but it is the affair of the whole world to enquire whether Dr. Conybeare's conclusions concerning Sir Edward's reliability are correct. There can be no doubt that in America Sir Edward's evidence has been generally credited as true. Pro- fessor Samuel Plarden Church, President of the Car- negie Institute, Pittsburg, and author of The Life of Cromwell, may be cited as a typical American, un- willing to form a rash judgment, and, therefore, eager to study the evidence. He has published his conclu- 401 402 Germany's Point of View sions in a pamphlet called Reply to the German Pro- fessors, and says: We are all going deeper than the surface in our search for the truth. ... In the English White Paper we have all the telegrams which were exchanged between the English Foreign Office over the signature of Sir Ed- ward Grey and the diplomatic officials of the other pow- ers, including the Imperial Chancellor of Germany.* And speaking of the American judgment, Pro- fessor Church says : That judgment is not based upon the lies and calumnies of the enemies of Germany, nor upon the careless pub- lication contained in newspapers, but upon a profound study of the official correspondence in the case, . . . and the public demand for this indisputable evidence has not yet been satisfied.! Professor Church, therefore, it will be seen, has placed implicit confidence in the completeness and honesty of Sir Edward's evidence. Nor is he alone in his belief. So keen an observer of America as Viscount Bryce w^as quoted in the Boston Herald of March 22, 1915, as follows: As to the general feeling in the United States, my correspondents entirely agree with what may be gathered from the leading American journals. The vast majority of the people condemn the German Government, laying the blame for the outbreak of the strife upon it and Austria. This they do not from racial sympathy with England nor from their traditional friendliness to France, but because their reading of the diplomatic correspond- ence in the first half of August convinced them that Ger- many zvas the aggressor and put herself utterly in the wrong. * Page 6. "^ Ibid., p. 13. Sir Edward's Evidence 403 Both Viscount Bryce and Professor Church are right in explaining the pro-British attitude of many Americans by their study of the official documents. The British Blue Book, first published as a White Paper, reads well. It did, therefore, not occur to the people that its trustworthiness was doubtful. For these reasons a somewhat detailed investigation of Sir Edward's Evidence is in place even at this late hour. Sir Edward delivered his great speech in Parlia- ment on the evening of August 3, 1914. The speech, which was unsupported by documentary evidence — for the Blue Book was not issued until August 6 — was at once cabled to America. It should have, and was be- lieved to have, contained the salient points and facts, for England went to war on the information given by Sir Edward Grey on August 3, and was at war with Germany before the telegrams were published. Nobody can, of course, expect a minister to include every despatch in a speech. But he has the right to assume that the minister has not suppressed such in- formation as would have made his country keep the peace. Dr. Conybeare and many Englishmen believe that Sir Edward suppressed such information, and that if he had divulged it, peace would have been pre- served. Whatever view one wishes to take of this subject, the fact is established that Sir Edward's speech was accepted by many Americans and by most Englishmen as a fair and honorable statement of the facts. For this reason Dr. Conybeare's letter is of great importance. But it is possible to go even farther than the Oxford scholar and charge Sir Edward not only with unfor- 404 Germany's Point of View tunate omissions, but also with positive falsehood. He said in his speech {Blue Book, p. 134), We have disclosed the issue, the information which we have. When he said this he had not disclosed the informa- tion he had on the following important points : (i). The telegrams exchanged between the royal houses of London, Berlin, and St. Petersburg, in which many people see the sincere efforts of the Ger- man Emperor to preserve peace; (2), the final offer of Germany made by the German Ambassador, and published later as Number 123 of the Blue Book; (3), the full promise made to France, which has -never been published by England, and seems to have been un- known even to Dr. Conybeare; (4), the British-Rus- sian naval agreement, without which Russia would never have dared to risk a war; (5), the "conversa- tions " between the British and Belgian general staffs, which had given to England all the military secrets of Belgium, and in a war between Germany and England made it practically impossible for Belgium to remain a neutral outsider. The first of these omissions is sufficiently discussed by Dr. Conybeare. The second, however, grows more formidable when one compares Sir Edward's excuse why he did not mention the final liberal offer of Ger- many with a message he sent to France. It will be remembered from Dr. Conybeare's letter that Sir Ed- ward explained, when he was challenged in Parlia- ment late in August, that he had thought the offer had been made unofficially by the German Ambassa- Sir Edward's Evidence 405 dor, and not by Germany. Dr. Conybeare tried to prove the falsity of this excuse by innuendo, and has made a strong case. The whole matter, however, is clinched by Number 126 of the French Yellow Book,^ where the French Ambassador reports home his con- versation with Sir Edward Grey concerning Ger- many's offer. He writes under date of August i, 1914: Sir Edward Grey has told me that in the council this morning the Cabinet considered afresh the situation. Germany having demanded from England a declaration of neutrality, and not having obtained it, the British Government remained master of its actions. There is not one word here of an '' unofficial " offer. On the contrary, the friendly proposals are presented to France as a demand made by Germany. When Sir Edward, therefore, told Parliament that he had disclosed his information, although he had not mentioned this offer, he did not speak the truth. And when he later told Parliament that he had believed the offer to have been unofficial, he either told a false- hood to Parliament or he had told one to Paul Cambon on August I, 19 1 4. And even this is not all, for Sir Edward actually spoke as follows on August 3 {Blue Book, pp. 128, 129): But I understand that the German Government would be prepared, if we would pledge ourselves to neutrality, to agree that its fleet would not attack the northern coast of France. I have only heard that shortly before I came to the House, but it is far too narrow an engagement for us. * It is a strange fact that Dr. Conybeare has nowhere made use of the French Yellow Book. 4o6 Germany's Point of View He had heard it on August i, and had heard much more, too, so that the last sentence is a deliberate false- hood. The German offer of August i reads (Blue Book, No. 123) : He [the German Ambassador] asked me whether if Germany gave a promise not to violate Belgium neu- trality we would engage to remain neutral. . . . The Ambassador pressed me as to whether I could not formu- late conditions on which we would remain neutral. He even suggested that the integrity of France and her colonies might be guaranteed. Under this liberal offer Sir Edw^ard might have se- cured the neutrality of Belgium, the integ'rity of France and her colonies, and the German agreement not to attack the northern coast of France with her fleet, exactly as Germany had refrained from doing in 1870. In fact, he might have avoided the war. For France would have refused to support Russia, unless she had been sure of the support of England, and alone Russia would not have risked a war. One also should remember that Sir Edward declined this German offer with the words, " I could only say that we must keep our hands free," and that when he said this he had twice before, on the preceding day and on this very day, pledged himself personally to the French Ambassador and promised to secure the support of the Cabinet for France. The dealings of Sir Edward Grey in this entire matter have been fully exposed in the discussion of the French Yellow Book. The third point mentioned above as falsely stated in Sir Edward's speech of August 3, was the assurance which he said he had given to France. There is a discrepancy between the message he actually sent to France and the message he told Parliament the Cab- Sir Edward's Evidence 407 inet had authorized him to send. The passage from the speech {Blue Book, p. 128), reads as fol- lows: Yesterday afternoon I gave to the French Ambassador the following statement: I am authorized to give an assurance that if the Ger- man fleet comes into the channel or through the North Sea to undertake hostile operations against the French coasts or shipping, the British fleet will give all the pro- tection in its power. This assurance is, of course, sub- ject to the policy of His Majesty's Government receiv- ing the support of Parliament, and must not he taken as binding His Majesty's Government to take any action until the above contingency of action by the German fleet takes place. The message which the French Ambassador sent home on August 3 {Yellow Book, No. 143), reads as follows : Sir Edward Grey has authorized me to tell you that you may inform Parliament that today he made declara- tions in the Commons as to the present attitude of the British Government, and that the chief of these declara- tions was as follows: If the German fleet cross the Straits or go north in the North Sea in order to double the British Isles with a view to attacking the French coasts or the French navy, or to disturbing the French mercantile marine, the British fleet will intervene in order to give the French marine entire protection, so that from that moment on England and Germany would he in a state of war. Sir Edward Grey pointed out that the mention of oper- ations through the North Sea implied protection against a demonstration in the Atlantic ocean. The declaration with regard to the intervention of the British- fleet, of which I gave you the text in my telegram 4o8 Germany's Point of View of August 2,"^ is to be regarded as binding the British Gov- ernment. Sir Edward Grey assured me of this, and added that the French Government was therefore in a position to bring it to the knowledge of the Chambers. Who v^as in error ? Did Sir Edv^ard Grey give the above quoted message to the French Ambassador, or did he not? The French Prime Minister, M. Viviani, addressed the French Chambers on August 4 ( Yellozv Book, No. 159), and there repeated Sir Edv^ard Grey's declaration ending v^ith the w^ords, " so that from that moment on England and Germany v^ill be in a state of war ! " and continued, " From now on, therefore, the British fleet covers our northern and western coasts." Such a public announcement, it would seem, could not have been made without contradiction by Sir Ed- ward Grey if it had not been true. But if it was true, Sir Edward either did not tell Parliament the truth on August 3, or if he did, he had his speech revised for publication. In either case the American reader who has based his opinion at least in part on this speech must realize that he has builded on sand. He also should realize that Sir Edward uttered this threat of war before a single German soldier had en- tered Belgittm. Germany has always claimed that the certainty of England's entrance into the war, and the knowledge of secret understandings between England, France, and Belgium, forced her to anticipate her opponents or commit hari-kari. In Sir Edward's own publications none of the documents which prove his firm determination to join France against Germany, * This declaration is substantially the same as that given by Sir Edward Grey as the only one he sent to France. Sir Edward's Evidence 409 whether Belgium was invaded or not, is printed. This explains the discrepancy between his published version and Viviani's public statement of the British message to France. The same reason induced Sir Edward Grey to keep from Parliament the naval agreement he had permitted to be made with Russia. There can no longer be any doubt that such an agreement exists. It was pointed out above in the discussion of the French Yellow Book that this Russian naval agreement is spoken of as a fact, with the further comment that its existence had made the German Ambassador pessimistic con- cerning the future of his country. And in Russia the general text of the agreement had actually been pub- lished ! * It had given Russia the conviction that in case of a conflict England would take her part and fight by her side. And even in America the conclusion of this British- Russian agreement had remained no secret. It was mentioned in the daily press, and Albert Shaw, editor of the American Review of Reviews, wrote in June for publication in the July number of his magazine : The bitter feeling between Russia and Austria con- tinues, if we may believe the tone of the press in these two countries, and the guarded, though unmistakable utterances of Russian and Austrian public men. It is believed that Russia is intending to provoke a near eastern crisis. Reports are also rife that a secret naval conven- tion has been concluded between England and Russia, with the object of enforcing the demands of the Triple Entente against Germany. Here not only mention is made of the Russo-English naval agreement, but a definite hint of the aggressive * For the translation see p. 44, 410 Germany's Point of View attitude of the Triple Entente is given. Sir Edward's evidence, however, is so arranged that the reader re- ceives the impression that nothing had been further from the mind of England, Russia, and France than aggressive ideas. What these ideas were, so far as Russia is concerned, is explained in the sam.e number of the American Review of Reviews, which quotes the eminent Russian statesman. Professor Mitronov of Moscow, as saying: Germany has pushed Russia out of the Balkans and put Austria across her path. For Russia, however, ex- tension into the Balkans is a " political necessity," and nothing short of the possession of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles will end the intolerable situation. Knowing these wishes of Russia, Sir Edward Grey entered into a secret naval agreement with her, stiffened her backbone, and placidly saw her make her preparations for the war. The same number of the American Review of Reviezvs contains also this item : An evidence that Russia is preparing for some warlike movement on a large scale is furnished by a letter of a Tiflis correspondent appearing in a French newspaper. That part of the Russian Trans-Caucasus territory known as Georgia was the center of the revolutionary whirlwind of 1905- 1906, towards the close of the Russo-Japanese war. It seems that the terrible repressive measures which were then taken to punish these revolutionary sentiments are now to be repeated with even greater vigor in the same regions. It is a striking illustration of the ruth- less methods of Russian militarism. If such and similar Russian measures, notably the Russian mobilization which has been discussed above, were known to the Paris press, they were known also to Sir Edward Grey. There is, however, in all his docu- ments not one despatch that gives the least hint that Sir Edward's Evidence 411 he tried to moderate the Russian aggressive spirit On the contrary, he encouraged it, for nothing was so well calculated to stiffen the Russian military party than the knowledge of the people that England had at last been prevailed upon to commit herself, and had made a secret naval agreement with Russia. It is not claimed that this agreement was a formal treaty. It was a "gentleman's agreement," just as the understanding with France had been based on nothing more than two letters exchanged between Sir Edward Grey and Paul Cambon, the French Ambas- sador. These Sir Edward was obliged to lay before Parliament on August 3, after he had repeatedly de- nied in the House of Commons that any understanding with France existed. This whole question of Sir Edward's quibbling with words and misinforming Parliament is fully treated by C. H. Norman in a pamphlet, Britain and The War: A Study in Diplo- macy, London and Manchester, 19 14. The French letters had been preceded and followed by exhaustive discussions between the French and British military authorities. The same has been true of the Russo-English relations as appears from the Russian version of the naval agreement. If Sir Edward, therefore, said to Parliament, " We have dis- closed the information we have," without giving his understanding with Russia, he conveyed to his hearers an impression which does not square with the facts. And what can finally be said of Sir Edward's lengthy discussion of the Belgian question in his speech of August 3, without informing Parliament of the fact that negotiations between the British and Belgian military authorities had been in progress for 412 Germany's Point of View years, and that on the strength of such " conversa- tions" England found herself in complete possession of the military secrets of Belgium, and had herself worked out a definite plan of throwing troops into Belgium? Some of the documents which prove the close relations that have existed for years between England and Belgium were discovered by the German Government in Brussels, and published in the North German Gazette, the German official paper, on October 12. Facsimile reproductions of two of these docu- ments appeared in the same paper on November 25, 1914. At first the pro-Allies' press was tempted to doubt the genuineness of these documents, but on January 2y, 1915, Sir Edward Grey inadvertently ac- knowledged their genuineness in trying to refute some of the charges against him that had been based on them. The question as to what extent these Anglo-Belgian conversations had impaired the standing of Belgium as a neutral country does not belong here, and has been fully discussed in earlier chapters. The impor- tant point in the appreciation of Sir Edward's trust- worthiness is that he discussed the Belgian question at length without referring to the Anglo-Belgian un- derstanding, and yet had the courage to utter these words : " We have disclosed the issue, the information which we have." Quite recently and after waiting almost six months the Belgian Government has made a tardy defense against the charge that by entering into an Anglo- Belgian military understanding it had betrayed the Belgian people. The censorship is severe, but enough news has leaked through to make it probable that King Sir Edward's Evidence 413 Albert and his government will find it exceedingly difficult to convince the Belgians that they were not responsible for their sufferings, if the German publi- cations are proved to be true. This explains King Albert's tardy defence which was issued on March 17. Cabled extracts appeared in the American press of the following date, and the full document was printed here on March 31, 1915. The Belgian defense is threefold : ( i ) , the German allegations are a " tissue of lies " and their " facsimile " publications falsified; (2), the measures discussed in the documents were forced upon Belgium by the Ger- man danger; (3), the Belgian Government is entirely innocent of the charge of having taken the measures rendered necessary by the German danger and dis- cussed in the documents. Let the reader pay tribute in passing to the magnifi- cent logic of this defense, and then proceed to the in- vestigation of the specific charge of dishonesty made by the Belgian Government against Germany. It is thus stated: To produce an impression on those ignorant of the facts, " German honesty " suppressed, when the precis of the above-named conversation was published, the clause in which it was set forth that the exchange of opinion therein recorded had reference only to the situation that would be created if Belgian neutrality had already been violated. The Belgian Government gives to the allegations of the German Chancery the only answer that they deserve — they are a tissue of lies, all the more shameless because they are set forth by persons who claim to have studied the original documents. But what are the documents which Germany produces in order to prove Belgium guilty? They are two in number: (i), The narrative of certain interviews which took place between Lieutenant 414 Germany's Point of View General Ducarne and Colonel Barnardiston in 1906. In the course of these interviews the British officer set forth his views as to the way in which England could help Belgium in case the latter were attacked by Germany. One phrase in the document clearly proves that Colonel Barnardiston is dealing with a hypothetical case, viz., " the entry of English troops into Belgium would only take place after a violation of Belgian neutrality by Ger- many." The translation in the Norddeutsche Zeitung [the official Gazette] of November 25 omits this clause. When the Belgian Government made this charge they believed that the German Official Gazette jNonld not be available in the neutral countries, where it was hoped the charge would fall on fertile ground. The facts are as follows : The sentence appears ( i ) in the facsimile published by the Gazette, (page i). It is a marginal note and appears in exactly the same position in which it was written in the original; (2), in the dis- cussion of the text (page 2, column 4, lines 34 to 37), the following is written: In the document there is the following marginal note: L'entree des Anglais en Belgique ne se ferait quapres la violation de noire neutralite par l' Allemagne. When Dr. Bernhard Dernburg issued his publica- tion of these documents he inserted the marginal note in the running text (page 4, column i, paragraph 5, lines 4 to 6). It may, however, well be asked whether the official Gazette did not give greater prominence to this important sentence by devoting a paragraph to it at the end of the translation of the running text, than Dr. Dernburg did by inserting it in the text. The charge of dishonesty, therefore, made by the Belgian Government falls to the ground. And the same is true of the second charge which, in the Belgian defense, reads as follows: Sir Edzvard's Evidence 415 Moreover, the photograph of General Ducarne's report contains the words : " The officer with whom I spoke in- sists that our conversation has been absolutely confiden- tial." For the word conversation the Norddeutsche Zei- tung substitutes the word " convention." Colonel Barna- diston is made to say that " our convention " has been absolutely confidential ! Such proceedings need no commentary. The facts from the official Gazette are these: The facsimile reproduction of the letter (page 2, last word of line i), is "conversation/' and not "convention," as the Belgian charge would make one believe. In the translation (page 2, column i, line 34), this is trans- lated with ahkommen, which is perhaps most ac- curately rendered in English by "understanding." The translation into English is easy because both lan- guages possess the word "conversation," and in both the meaning of the word may range from " desultory talk " to " understanding." In German the case is dif- ferent, for while a translator who is not afraid of using a foreign word might have said " konversation," nine people out of ten would probably have rendered "conversation" here by ahkommen, for the text im- plies that the two military representatives of Great Britain and Belgium had come to an understanding. The Belgian defense continued: The British Government has always held, as did the Belgian Government, that the consent of the latter was a necessary preliminary [to the entry of British troops into Belgium]. This assertion is flatly contradicted by the docu- ments themselves, the second of which contains these words : 41 6 Germany's Point of View Lieutenant-Colonel Bridges told the [Belgian] Gen- eral that ... at the time of the recent events the British Government would have immediately effected a disembarkment in Belgium even if we had not asked for assistance. The General objected that for that our con- sent was necessary. The military attache [Lt.-Col. Bridges] answered that he knew this, but that, since we were not able to prevent the Germans from passing through our country, England would have landed her troops in Belgium anyhow \^en tout etat de cause']. Very interesting also are the remarks which Xord Roberts made in the British Review of August, 19 13, and which are here quoted from the Fatherland of IVCarch 17, 1915: I do not think the nation yet realizes how near it was to war as lately as August, 191 1. For many autumn nights our home fleet lay in Cromarty Firth with torpedo nettings down, with the gun crews sleeping on deck, with a live projectile ready in each gun, and with the war heads fitted to each and every torpedo. Our Expedition- ary Force was held in equal readiness instantly to embark for Flanders to do its share in maintaining the balance of power in Europe. There is not a word here of asking the consent of Belgium. And whatever the American press may say, no English officer can be found who can deny on his honor that it had not been known for years in British military circles that England would send her troops to Belgium in case of war, whether Belgium wished this or no. After Belgium had given her military secrets to England, who knew the exact size of each garrison, the number of guns, how far they could shoot, where each place was vulnerable, how many troops could be fed in each village or town, where the Belgian troops would gather, how they planned to Sir Edward's Evidence 417 provision themselves, and so on, Belgium was no longer free to act as she chose. When she first dis- cussed her military affairs with England, she may have done so absolutely honestly and in fear of an invasion by Germany. When her Government permitted these " conversations " to go as far as they were carried under Sir Edward Grey's instructions this Govern- ment suddenly found itself entirely at the mercy of its new allies. The fiction has been kept up in the American press that Belgium is not one of the Allies, but a neutral for whose restoration the Allies are fighting. But even Mr. Bryan knows better, and in the famous interview he granted the Rev. D. Mac- Fayden for the Westminster Gazette of December 23, 1914, he refers to Belgium as the ally'^ of England. And such Belgium undoubtedly is, and was even be- fore the war began, for that intimate relations had * The tone of this interview was so strongly anti-German, and the reference to Belgium as the "ally" of England so important, if true, that the author wrote to Mr. Bryan asking him to confirm or deny the accuracy of the interview. The following courteous reply was received : Department of State, Washington, D. C. December 29, 1914. My Dear Sir: For Mr. Bryan I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 25th in which you ask permission to quote the purported interview with Rev. Donald MacFayden on Decem- ber 7th, as authentic. In reply I am directed to say that Reverend MacFayden called at the State Department. He has reported the conver- sation from memory. The Secretary has no doubt that Doctor MacFayden tried to be accurate, but he would not v/ant to have his words taken as an exact statement of his views. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, (Signed) E. C. SWEET, Mr. Edmund von Mach, Confidential Clerk. 48 Shepard Street, Cambridge, Mass. 41 8 Germany's Point of View been established between Sir Edward Grey and the Belgian Government is proved by the Brussels docu- ments. Like the ambassadorial agreement with France, and the naval agreement with Russia, the Belgian under- standing had remained secret. Parliament and the English people had no idea how far Sir Edward had committed them. One of these agreements he was forced to disclose on August 3, and in choosing the French letters he gauged wisely the temper of his countrymen. He was equally wise in refraining from disclosing the other two, for an irate Parliament and surely an irate electorate would have swept him from the stage of politics. Wise reticence is an admirable quality, but to keep silent on several of the most important bits of informa- tion, and yet to say with the air of an honest man: "We have disclosed the issue, the information which we have" — this is not admirable. s CHAPTER XXXII SIR Edward's evidence (Concluded) O many people have read the British Blue Book and German White Paper and other official docu- ments, who never before had even seen such publica- tions, let alone looked into them, that the ethical prin- ciples according to which state papers are edited were unknown to them. The pro-English press, moreover, and such writers as James M. Beck, have led them to believe that governments are accustomed to publish in their various white, blue, gray, or orange papers the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This, however, is nowhere done. There are many bits of information which come to a government through its diplomatic connections which it would be indelicate, discourteous, or unwise to give to the public. The official documents on American foreign rela- tions and all white, gray, or orange papers are " edited." They are understood to be so by Congress, Parliament, the Reichstag, the Duma, etc., and no charge of dishon- esty can be maintained against the respective govern- ments on that score. This whole question has been so carefully treated in the New York Times' Current History of the War (Vol. I, No. 3, pp. 438 ff), that it is not necessary to repeat here the arguments and proofs there given. They were compiled as a reply to ex-Assistant Attor- ney-General James M. Beck, whose article In the Su- preme Court of Civilization has been reprinted in book 419 420 Germany's Point of View form and won the approval of the Allies and pro- Allies press. Mr. Beck is a member of the law firm of Shearman and Sterling, and is upholding the pro- English traditions of this firm. During the Civil War, when the Union was suffering untold insults and dam- ages at the hands of England, Shearman was the de- fender of his country's worst enemies, and the motto of the firm seems to have been ever since, " England, right or wrong.. We are for England first, last, and forever ! " Since the reply to Mr. Beck in the New Y or Jf Times was written, the French Yellow Book has been pub- lished and other documents have come to light on the strength of which it is possible to prove the inac- curacy and incompleteness of Sir Edward's Blue Book in several particulars. A careful reading of the Bhte Book itself, moreover, has revealed falsifications of such a serious character that they seem to be incom- patible with the assumption of honesty on the part of the editor. The most glaring of all the omissions is Sir Edward's suppression of the dossier by which Austria explained her demarche against Servia. If these Aus- trian proofs had been in the hands of the members of Parliament when the Blue Book was distributed to them, and if they had been read by the American people, when they formed their impressions of the causes of the war by reading "the diplomatic cor- respondence in the first half of August," as Viscount Bryce says, an entirely different impression might have been created. But be this as it may, nobody can defend Sir Edward's suppression of this important document. Sir Edward's Evidence 421 It was sent from Vienna on July 25, and presented both in Paris and in London on July 2y. The French Yellow Book prints most* of it as received on that day, and calls it a "positive act of accusation against Servia." In it Austria sets forth her relations with Servia, and by documentary evidence and reports from the Servian press, including the official Servian Gov- ernment paper, tries to prove the complicity of the Servian Government in the murder of Serajevo. Sir Edward received the dossier on the same day, July 27, and in the first paragraph of Number 48 of his Blue Book gives a very insufficient summary of it, so worded that no reader would suspect that it is based on an exhaustive presentation of Austria's grievances against Servia. Whatever force, moreover, may have remained in the emasculated summary is spoiled by Sir Edward's own commentary on it in the last para- graph. This is not a sportsmanlike procedure. Honesty demanded the publication of Austria's dossier, or if Sir Edward considered it too long, or an insuffi- cient explanation of Austria's course, at least the men- tion that he had received what Austria believed to be proofs of the justice of her contentions. As the suppression of the dossier is the most glaring omission from the British Blue Book, so Number 105 contains the most glaring falsification. This is the famous despatch of Sir Edward Grey to his Ambas- sador in Paris, dated July 30, in which he enclosed as a proof of his assertion that Germany was assuming * For the full text of the dossier see the Austrian Red Book. The Yellow Book does not print the several Annexes. In the absence of further proof it is impossible to state whether the Annexes are later additions, or whether the French Gov- ernment failed to print the document in full. 422 Germany's Point of View a threatening attitude toward France, a telegram from the French Minister of Foreign Affairs to Paul Cam- bon, the French Ambassador in London, dated July 31. The impossibility of enclosing a note of July 31, in one written on July 30, was so apparent that Sir Edward omitted the date, July 31, in the later issues of his documents.* But even the omission of this date did not make the note square with the facts. July 30 was Thursday. The enclosed note read: "The Ger- man army had its advance posts on our frontiers yes- terday (Friday)." It was, therefore, necessary^ in the later editions to omit " Friday." But even this change did not suffice, because later on in the note, as first printed, these words occur: ^ All my information goes to show that the German prep- arations began on Saturday, the very day on which the Austrian note was handed in. This is another mistake, and to correct it Sir Ed- ward Grey had recourse to a footnote in his later reprints. The footnote to "Saturday" reads : Sic: in original. The actual date of the presentation of the Austrian ultimatum was, in fact, Thursday, July 23. The Servian reply was dated Saturday, July 25, and it is clearly to the latter document that reference is in- tended. This sounds honest. "Sic: in original!" Unfor- tunately for Sir Edward Grey the original despatch *For a full discussion of these dates, see the author's chapter in Why Europe is At War, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1915. The New York Times reprint of the English docu- ments gives the first version; the so-called Blue Book, issued in London Foreign Office, September 28, 1914, gives the second version. Sir Edward's Evidence 423 has been printed in the French Yellow Book, Number 106, and a comparison of Sir Edward's version of the French despatch with the despatch itself reveals the remarkable fact that Sir Edward has re-written the original, using the exact French words wherever pos- sible, but interpolating new ones whenever his several alterations made this necessary. To make the des- patch stronger, Sir Edward began it with a sentence of the last paragraph, which reads : The German army's advance posts are at our frontier ports. And to make it more definite he added a date. The original French despatch is dated July 30. Sir Ed- ward had it re-written for presentation to the Cabinet meeting on July 31, and possibly showed it to his col- leagues as having just been received. On July 31 he may have felt at liberty to add to the French state- ment "yesterday," or since the Cabinet meeting was on Friday to keep the French sentence, which is writ- ten in the present tense, and to add Friday in paren- thesis. Whatever explanation is given one thing is sure. Sir Edward's first publication of the French des- patch is as impossible as the second. The French note contained neither " yesterday " nor " Friday," and was written in the present tense. The English "transla- tion" interpolated a date and changed the present to the past tense " had." And more ! The French note actually contains two references to " Saturday," to which Sir Edward felt obliged to add his footnote. They read : The preparation in the fortresses (the cutting of wood, mounting of guns, construction of batteries, strengthening 424 Germany's Point of View of wire entanglements) had already started * in Germany on Saturday, the 25th. . . , The stations were occu- pied in Germany on Saturday, the 25th. In both cases " the 25th " is added to Saturday, and as appears from the note, no measures of mobilization are spoken of, merely a re-arrangement of the troops on regular peace footing, and those protective meas- ures which any commandant of a frontier fortress might deem it necessary to take. Sir Edward took the first passage as serving his purposes best, altered the singular " preparation " to the plural, and by omit- ting the words which explain what preparations are meant, gave the impression that the note had reference to steps generally referred to as mobilization. He wished to convey the impression that Germany and Austria had used the Serajevo murder as a pretext for an aggressive war, and, therefore, substituted for *' the 25th " the words " the very day on which the Austrian note was handed in." In this he made a mistake, and since this sentence had been printed in his first edition, had to have recourse to a foot note. It is not necessary to discuss Sir Edward's falsifica- tion of this note further. Those who wish to ascer- tain the truth can compare the English version with the French original. They will then see for them- selves which passages Sir Edward felt obliged to omit, and why, and what changes he made in the origi- nal sentences he used. One change is rather note- worthy. Sir Edward's version speaks of the "pacific intentions" of France, while the French original says that " France is resohite/^ * This Is quoted from the New York Times translation. The French original is as accurately translated with " begun " as with " started." Sir Edward's Evidence 425 Those who read the whole French note and may gather from it the impression that France really be- lieved Germany was taking aggressive military meas- ures on July 30, and had done so for several days, are reminded that on the same day, July 30, Viviani, the French Premier, had telegraphed to his ambassador in St. Petersburg instructions to urge Sazonof to " take no immediate steps which might offer to Germany a pretext for the total or partial mobilization of her forces." {Yellow Book, Number loi). Such a des- patch would have been nonsense if Viviani had not known that Germany had not yet proceeded even to a partial mobilization of her forces. A copy of this despatch was sent to Paul Cambon, the French Ambas- sador in London, and unless one wishes to assume that he wilfully kept this information from Sir Edward Grey — which, considering the close relations of these men is incredible — Sir Edward Grey knew that Ger- many had not even partially mobilized when he pre- sented his falsified version of the French note to the Cabinet on Friday, July 31. That Sir Edward is not above insinuating false im- pressions is proved also by the internal evidence of his own Blue Book. The carefully prepared edition of September 28, 19 14, contains an " Introductory Narra- tive of Events." On page ix Sir Edward writes : Sir Edward Grey telegraphed to Berlin once more. " Mediation," he said, " was ready to come into operation by any method that Germany thought possible, if only Germany would press the button in the interest of peace." The telegram was despatched at about 4 o'clock on the evening of the 29th. This appeal was followed almost immediately by a strange response. About midnight a telegram arrived at the Foreign Office from His Majesty's Ambassador at 426 Germany's Point of View Berlin. The German Chancellor had sent for him late at night. He had asked if Great Britain would promise to remain neutral in a war, provided Germany did not touch Holland and took nothing from France but her colonies. Turning to the despatches themselves, Sir Edward's offer of mediation is contained in Number 84, while the next number contains the enquiry from the Ger- man Chancellor. By an oversight, however, the last paragraph of this despatch has not been omitted, and proves that Number 85 is not a response to Number 84. The nearest approach to a reply to Number 84 contained in the Blue Book is Number 107, received in London on July 31. When Sir Edward, therefore, called Number 85 a response to Number 84, and printed the two despatches in juxtaposition to bear out his statement, he was guilty of one of those deceptions which honorable men despise. On page vii of his "Introductory Narrative of Events," Sir Edward writes : On the 23d July the Austrian Ambassador told Sir E. Grey that an ultimatum was being handed to Servia. For the first time Sir E. Grey heard " that there would be something in the nature of a time limit." This statement is not true, unless one wishes to assume that the British sources of information were less than those of the French, and that the French Government intentionally kept Sir Edward in the dark. The French Government was informed by its Ambassador in Vienna on July 20 {Yellow Book, Number 14), that The shifts by which Servia will no doubt wish to delay a direct and clear reply have been taken into account, and that is why a brief delay will be fixed for her to notify her acceptance of her refusal. Sir Edward's Evidence 427 This means that France knew on July 20 that the note to Servia would contain a time limit. And yet Sir Edward writes that he first heard of it when the note was presented on July 23 ! He also studiously refrains from stating in his Blue Book that the vServian Minister in Berlin had declared on July 20 (French Yellow Book, Number 15) that, This Government was ready to listen to the request o£ Austria arising out of the Serajevo outrage, provided that she did not demand judiciary cooperation. Austria apparently had intended to ask this, but on the request of Germany dropped it and asked only for participation in the investigation. Nobody needs ask why Sir Edward suppressed this information. It was his intention to present Germany as bound to have war, and unwilling to exert any mod- erating influence on Austria. Sir Edward, therefore, suppressed all information tending to show that Ger- many had done everything possible from the very be- ginning to preserve the peace of Europe. The several efforts in this direction made by Germany appeared from the study of the French Yellow Book above, and need no repetition here. Only one other despatch from the French Yellow Book should be mentioned because it is of incalculable importance for the understanding of the causes of the war, and because Sir Edward Grey, who must have known its bearing, has not referred to the information it contained, either in his " Introductory Narrative " or in any of his despatches. It is a note {Yellow Book, Number 27, July 24, 1914), from the French Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs to his plenipotentiaries in Stockholm, Belgrade, London, St. Petersburg, Berlin, 428 Germany's Point of View and Rome, and contains the information sent him by the French Ambassador in Vienna. According to this the Servian Minister in Austria acknowledges the guilt of Servians in the murder of Serajevo, and the existence of an anti-Servian propaganda in Servia ! Whatever one may think of Sir Edward's honesty, his consistency is admirable, for with unerring pre- cision he has omitted from his Blue Book every in- formation which tended to show that Servia was guilty on the evidence of her own ministers (Yellow Book, Number 27) or of Austria's exhaustive dossier (Yel- low Book, Number 75) ; that Servia was at first will- ing to accept Austria's modified ultimatum (Yellow Book, Number 15) ; that Germany exerted a moder- ating influence on Austria (see page 255), in short every bit of information which did not fit into his nicely arranged case that Germany had planned the war and that an innocent Servia had to serve as a pre- text. Omission and falsification are written large over this chapter of Sir Edward's Evidence ; and when the passions have cooled and scholars study his docu- ments, he will not escape the judgment which over- takes all who by false evidence try to prove a case. Some despatches are included in the British Blue Book for which Sir Edward Grey may not have been personally responsible, but whose variance with the true facts detracts from the credibility of his evidence. On July 30, Sir G. Buchanan, the British Ambas- sador at St. Petersburg, reported two interviews he had had in company with the French Ambassador, with the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Sazonof (British Blue Book, Number 97). The French Sir Edward's Evidence 429 [Omitted] Ambassador sent reports to his home office of the same interviews. (Yellow Book, Numbers 102 and 103). There is no reason whatsoever to beheve that the French Ambassador or his home office altered what Sazonof had told them, for nobody will suspect the French of falsifying despatches in the interest of Ger- many, The notes are too long to be reprinted in full, but a few passages deserve to be placed side by side. FRENCH NO. 102 ENGLISH NO. 97 M. Sazonof, whom I have informed of your desire to see, avoided any military measure that might give Germany a pretext for gen- eral mobilization [Note : his instructions read " total or partial mobilization"], re- plied that in the course of last night the General Staff had suspended the execution of some precautionary mili- tary measures, so as to avoid any misunderstand- ing. . . . On the other hand, the Russian General Staff and Admiralty have received alarming informa- tion as to the preparation of the German Army and Navy. It will be noticed that Sir G. Buchanan omits all ref- erence to the suspension of the Russian mobilization, which was designed to prevent Germany from taking any military steps on her part. Such an admission would not have squared with Sir Edward's Evidence, according to which Germany had begun her prepara- tions days before. M. Sazonof told us that absolute proof was in pos- session of Russian Govern- ment that Germany was making military and naval preparations against Russia. 430 Germany's Point of View In the second paragraph the Russian " alarming in- formation" has been turned by Sir G. Buchanan into " absolute proof." It is well known that Germany did not order mobilization until August i, as of August 2. While, therefore, some unreliable and alarming infor- mation might have come to Sazonof, he could not pos- sibly have spoken of " absolute proof." The discrepancies between the French and English accounts of the second interview are even more aston- ishing, and show Sir G. Buchanan's or Sir Edward's animus toward Germany. M. Sazonof had repeated to the two ambassadors his interview with the German Ambassador. FRENCH NO. IO3 The German ambassador called tonight upon M. Sa- zonof to urge again, but in less categorical terms, that Russia should cease her military preparations, af- firming that Austria would do nothing against the ter- ritorial integrity of Servia. [The same] BRITISH NO. 97, SECOND PART German ambassador had a second interview with Minister of Foreign Af- fairs at 2 a. m., when for- mer completely broke down on seeing that war was in- evitable. [The reference to Rus- sia's mobilization is omitted.] He appealed to M. Sa- zonof to make some sugges- tion which he could tele- graph to German Govern- ment as a last hope. M. Sazonof accordingly drew up and handed to German Ambassador a formula in French, of which following is translation: "If Austria, recognizing that the conflict with Servia has assumed character of Sir Edward's Evidence 431 Count de Pourtales prom- ised to urge this proposal on his Government. In M. Sazonof's opinion the ac- ceptance of his proposal by- Austria will have as a log- ical consequence the open- ing of a deliberation of the powers in London. question of European inter- est, declares herself ready to eliminate from her ulti- matum points which violate principle of sovereignty of Servia, Russia engages to stop all military prepara- tions." Preparations for general mobilization will be pro- ceeded with if this proposal is rejected by Austria, and inevitable result will be a European war. Excitement herehas reached suchapitch that if Austria refuses to make a concession, Russia cannot hold back, and now that she knows that Ger- many is arming [Note : this was written on the same day on which Viviani said that Germany had not even begun partial mobilization] she can hardly postpone for strategical reasons, convert- ing partial into general mobilization. According to the French version, Sazonof was counting with the possibility of a peaceful solution, while Buchanan quotes him as practically ready for war. Why this discrepancy? And why, it may be asked, did Austria not seize this opportunity and by accepting Sazonof's offer stop the Russian mobiliza- tion? The answer adds another black mark to Sir Ed- ward's diplomacy, for at the request of his Ambas- sador at St. Petersburg", Sazonof withdrew his offer, substituting for it one which was impossible of ac- 432 Germany's Point of View ceptance. This is perhaps the most serious charge that can be made against Sir Edward, but it is fully- substantiated. Sazonof had made his offer late on July 30, or more properly in the night of July 30-31, at the immediate request of the German Ambassador and without con- sultation with the British and French Ambassadors. On the next day, July 31, the French Ambassador re- ported to Paris {Yellow Book, Number 113) : M. Sazonof informs me that he has modified his for- mula, at the request of the British Ambassador, as fol- lows: Then he transmits Sazonof 's new formula, which makes greater demands on Austria, the chief of which is that Austria " stay the advance of her troops on Servian territory," and instead of promising that Rus- sia would " stop all military preparations," ends with the ambiguous phrase : " Russia undertakes to main- tain her waiting attitude." Since Russia at that time had been vigorously mobilizing for some time, and at least since July 25, according to the Czar's own tele- gram, maintaining " her waiting attitude " cannot mean stopping "all military preparations." Sir Edward cannot claim that his Ambassador had acted de suo, and contrary to Sir Edward's wishes, for on the same day, July 31, he himself writes to Bu- chanan (British Blue Book, Number no*) : The German Ambassador asked me to urge the Russian Government to show goodwill in the discussions and to suspend their military preparations. ... I informed the German Ambassador that, as regards military prepara- tions, I did not see how Russia could be urged to sus- * See also Blue Book, Number 103. Sir Edward's Evidence 433 pend them, unless some limit were put by Austria to the advance of her troops in Servia. Sir Edward's wishes, therefore, were carried out when Sazonof altered his formula at the request of Sir G. Buchanan. The new formula is not printed in Sir Edward's Blue Book, and the impression is con- veyed that Austria and Germany refused to consider Sazonof's offer, when, as a matter of fact, the British diplomats themselves requested and obtained its with- drawal. Sir Edward Grey has not yet explained Buchanan's and his own actions in this matter, but until he explains it, the only possible inference is that Sir Edward Grey did not want Russia to make a proposal to Austria and Germany that they were likely to accept. In short, Sir Edward wanted war ! He wanted war, because he had prepared for it, and because he had begun his mobilization weeks before, certainly as early as the end of June. His Blue Book begins with July 20, but this is only a feint, as is proved by the following affidavit in the possession of the author : In a speech before the Boston Press Club on Sunday, January 14, Forbes Sutherland made the following state- ments : That for several years he had been a member of the British military intelligence department. That he landed in New York toward the end of June and he there found a cablegram from the home office in London, already three days old, telling him to report immediately. That he telephoned to his local chief in Montreal, Can- ada, to inquire what it was all about, and that he was told that it was for the European service. That he had returned to London and that about one week before the first declaration of war he had gone to 434 Germany's Point of View Antwerp with one of the heads of the intelligence de- partment to concert measures with the head of the Bel- gium Secret Service. That he was now in this country overseeing the ship- ment of horses for the British army. This affidavit was published in the Fatherland, April 14, 191 5, and since Mr. Sutherland v^as then employed by a prominent New England paper as military expert, the editor of this paper complained of the publication, but had to confess that the affidavit was correct when the author offered to publish- any correction if it had been wrong. Why did Sir Edward recall Mr. Sutherland in June and send him to Antwerp, on his arrival In London, "to concert measures with the head of the Belgium Secret Service"? How does this square with the studied impression conveyed by his Blue Book that he had no thought of war before July 20, and took no active steps until days later? Another affidavit in the possession of the author reads as follows : In Viersen, Germany, is a very large concern which has over 2,000 retail stores in Germany dealing in coffee. The name is Kaiser's Kaffee Geschaeft. The main stock- holder's name, who is also the president of the com- pany, is Comerzienrat Joseph Kaiser. This company has coffee plantations in Brazil, and on July 22 the home office cabled a large amount of money to their Brazil office via London. England attached this amount and did not forward same to Brazil. Again one wonders why England should have taken this action on July 22, a day before the Austrian note was presented to Sdrvia, if Sir Edward had no inten- tion of bringing about an European war. Similar instances have been collected in large numbers and Sir Edward's Evidence 435 will undoubtedly be edited soon and presented as a strong indictment of Sir Edward Grey. He will be forced to explain them — which he has refused to do as yet — or stand convicted either of having treacher- ously plotted the war, or having falsified his evidence. The present discussion is concerned with Sir Edward's published evidence and may, therefore, disregard the other information except in so far as it forms a back- ground against which the published evidence may be surveyed. The British Blue Book is remarkably silent on the subject of British mobilization. The first reference to the British fleet occurs in Number 48, July 27, where Sir Edward quotes his interview with the Austrian Ambassador as follows : I pointed out that our fleet was to have dispersed today, but we had felt unable to let it disperse. We should not think of calling up reserves at this moment, and there was no menace in what we had done about our fleet. This statement is a falsehood, for the fleet was to have dispersed three days earlier, but had been kept mobilized by Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, without the knowledge or consent of the Cabinet.* This is today an acknowledged fact, and * See also letter by Admiral Lord Fisher to Sir Henry Lucy, published in New York Evening Sun and Milwaukee Free Press, April 19, 1915. *' I am in close touch with Winston [Churchill]. He has been splendid for three things. First, the appointment to the command of the fleet of Jellicoe. Second, mobilizing before war was declared. Third, buying [this is euphemistic for seizing. E. v. M.] the two Turkish dreadnaughts. . . . Mobilization of the fleet before the war upon the innocent pretext of an expected visit from the king, was a clever strategy that found the grand fleet oppor- tunely in the North Sea when, a few days later, war was 43^ Germany's Point of View appears also from a despatch in the French Yellow Book, Number 66, which reads in part as follows : The attitude of Great Britain is defined by the stop- page of the demobilization of her fleet. The first Lord of the Admiralty on Friday already [that is July 24] discreetly took this step on his own initiative. Tonight Sir Edward Grey and his colleagues decided to publish this news. The result is due to the conciliatory attitude of Servia and Russia. The effect of this announcement, as is generally known, was to stiffen the military party of Russia, who saw in it the proof of England's intention to live up to the demands of her recently concluded naval agree- ment with Russia. The trustworthiness of Sir Ed- ward's evidence, however, can be gauged by the fact that he writes over his own name as having taken place on July 27 what actually took place three days earlier, on July 24. The mobilization of the British fleet could not be kept a secret long, and even if there had been no ulterior motive in publishing it, it would have had to be announced soon after it had taken place. It was not so with the mobilization of the land forces, and readers of the Blue Book have received the impres- sion that no steps had been taken in advance of the outbreak of hostilities. This is due to Sir Edward's studious omission of all references to this subject. The French Yellow Book is less reticent, and in Number 108, July 30, Paul Cambon reports what Sir Edward had told him of his interview with the German Ambassador : declared, with the result of bottling up the German fleet in the helpless condition in which it remains to this day." It will be remembered that Sir Edward Grey has said that only he prepares for war who plans war. Sir Edward's Evidence 437 But my German colleague questioned the Secretary of State for foreign affairs as to the military preparations of England. Sir Edward Grey replied that they had no offensive character, but that in the present state of affairs on the continent it was natural to take some precautions. This interview has been suppressed in Sir Edward's evidence ! But it is needless to pursue the investigation fur- ther. Those who have followed it may or may not agree with Dr. Conybeare of Oxford that Sir Edward Grey is " a sinister liar who forever has peace on his lips and war in his heart," but they cannot deny that Sir Edward's evidence is tainted with falsifications and omissions. It was, however, largely on Sir Edward's evidence that Germany was condemned in ^this and other neu- tral countries. From this very evidence it now appears, when it is corrected and supplemented, that Germany and Austria, far from plotting an European war, were slowly but surely pushed into it by Sir Edward Grey. He tried to cover up his tracks, and, barring a few slips in his Blue Book, might have suc- ceeded if it had not been for the publication of the voluminous French Yellow Book. Taking these two publications together and reading them against the background of history, there is no doubt that the present war is the result of a gigantic conspiracy against Germany. In such a case, individual likes and dislikes have no place, and if justice has not entirely forsaken this world, the sympathy of all right- minded people who see the causes of the war in their true light must be with Germany. INDEX Alsace, Lorraine, history of, and present condition, 78-100 America, defense of dum-dum bullets at the Hague, 48-55; exportation of arms, 325-327; growing sentiment for Ger- many, 122-125 ; hardships among its poor worse than in Belgium, 193, 194; partial and unreliable news, 180-185, 193; insistence on her rights as a neutral would render Belgium relief work unnecessary, 197-199, 368, 369; the Nation and other important papers misinformed, 129, 135, 136 ; American idea, 355-362; declares export of arms a cause of war, 360; where she will stand at close of war, 370 Arms, export of, by U. S., 351-362 Atrocities, 28-32, 179, 184, 185 Austria, attitude before the war, 242-256; her dossier sup- pressed by Sir Edward Grey, 420-424 Belgium, actual conditions after the conquest, 35-38, 199; atrocities by franc-tireurs, 31-39, 185, 187, 188; Brussels documents, 65, 66, 131, 135-139, 413-417; Congo atrocities, 134, 135; distrust of England in 1913, 115-117; famine denied by American newspaper men, 193, 196-199; gratitude for German kindness, 34, 35; great possessions, 135; hostility to Germany in recent years, 9, 10 ; letter of Minister to Russia, 6-8 ; Louvain, 30-38, 199, 200 ; helped by Germany, 34, 35, 126, 188, 199; need of impartial commission, 31, 32; neutrality, 168-174; neutrality and England, 47, 48, 101-107; neutrahty and France, 68, 69 ; neutrality broken by herself, 47, 48, 65-72, 114-118, 135-139; treaties of neutrality of 1831 and 1839, 1-13, 131-139; treaty of neutrality of 1870, 113, 132-139; illiteracy of, 374; "conversations" with England, 408, 412-418; defense vs. Brussels documents, 413-417 Beck, James M., writings and reply to, 419, 420 Bernhardi, limited influence of, 56, 317 Bismarck, character and achievements, 328-337 Blue Book, British, see Sir Edward Grey's evidence Bombs, asphyxiating, used by France first, 388 Bowles, T. Gibson, 358 Brussels, the, documents, 65, 66, 131, 135-139, 412-418 Bryan, W. J., note to England, 365, 366 ; MacFayden interview, 417 Bryce, Viscount, 403 Bulgaria, 338-350 439 440 Index Cables, why England cut the German, 273 Carnegie endowment for international peace, comrnittee's re- port on the Balkan wars, 345-347 Casement, Sir Roger, letter to Sir Edward Grey, 380-387 Censorship of news, British, 24-27, 103, 119, 136, 137, 180-185, 191, 192 Choate, Joseph, betrays United States at Hague Conference, 355, 356 Church, Samuel H., confidence in Sir Edward Grey, 401-403 Churchill, Winston, 113, 114 Cleveland, President, on duties of neutrals, 359 Concentration camps, 280, 281 Conybeare, F. C, letter on Sir Edward Grey, 391-405, 437 Consuls, exequaturs withdrawn from, 200, 201 Czar of Russia, responsible for the war, 104-106, 128 Declaration of Paris and of London, 303-327, 358, 364 Dernburg, Dr. Bernhard, and Brussels documents, 414 '^Der Tag," 77, 78 Dum-dum bullets, 48-56 Embargo, see Exportation of arms ; could have forced England to observe International Law, z'^y England, see Great Britain Exportation of arms, 351-362 Firth, William, falsely accuses Germany, 2)7^ Fisher, Baron, on the conduct of war, 57 * France, Alsace-Lorraine, 78-100; dum-dum bullets, use of, 48- 56; most valuable provinces held by Germany, 108; official documents (the Yellow Book), 216-268, 405, 407, 408, 420- 437; voices against England, 101-103; wanton destruction of churches by the government in times of peace, 203-208; uses asphyxiating bombs first, 388 Franc-tireur attacks, 32-39 Freedom of the sea, 355, 373 Gallivan, Congressman, advocates embargo on food, 369 Gas bombs, used by France first, 388 German Emperor, rights and duties of, 20-23; estimate of by Houston Chamberlain, 38-42; estimate of by ex-President Taft, 92; Germany's love for, 211-215; his practical Chris- tianity, 211-215; man of peace, 38-42; misquoted, 38, 129, 130; tried to avertvwar, 127-131 German Chancellor von Bethmann-Holweg, 11, 12; and the "scrap of paper," 10-13, i73, i74 Germany, Alsace-Lorraine, 78-100; achievements in Kiau-chau, 59-64 ; American estimate of German sailors, 202 ; atrocities denied, 29-32, 179, 184, 185; as a world power, 73, 77, 317, 318; attitude before the war in the light of the French Index 441 Yellow Book, 216-268; in the light of letters by German scientists, 269-279; broke no treaty by invading Belgium, 65, 66; her character as exemplified by Bismarck, 328-337; character of her soldiers, 140-148; character of her sailors, 202; criticized by American travelers, 162-168, 201, 202; con- duct of the war, 28-42 ; conduct in Belgium, 374, 376 ; de- fended by American newspaper men, 186-189, 193, 196-199; conduct of naval war, 303-309; constitution of, 14-27; "Der Tag," toast explained, yy, 78; did not begin the war, loi, 104-106; food supply, 280-302; franc-tireur attacks on sol- diers, 32-39; invasion of Belgium paralleled by other coun- tries, 175-179; odds against her, 74-76; help given to Belgium, 34, 35, 126, 188, 199, 374; Prussia, 91-93, 14-23; "scrap of paper," incident, 10-13, 173, 174; self control of, 208, 209; victories thus far in the war, 107-111; unfairly treated, 358; exportation of arms, 351-362; British Order-in-Council, 363- 368; her submarine blockade, 372; and the Brussels docu- ments, 412-418; forced into the war by Sir Edward Grey, 437 Great Britain, alliance with Japan, 56-64 ;. animosity against Germany, 40, 57; attitude before the war, 222-231, 259-268; Belgium neutrality and, 103, 132-139; conduct of the war, 43-57, 2o8r-2ii, 308-310; conduct of African War, 210, 280; conduct of River War, 112, 113; conduct of naval war, 303- 314; treatment of Ireland, 149-161 ; dum-dum bullets, use of, 48-56; expressions of neutrality in 1870, 69-71, 132-134, 197; invites criminals to enlist, 209; and the "law of nations," 303- 327; London Times and Belgian neutrality, 132-139; naval agreement with Russia, 43-46, 404, 409 ; "naval holiday," 43 ; news from her unreliable, 24-27, 119, 120, 126, 127, 182, 191, 192; plans for a Belgian campaign, 131-134, 412-418; refuses to ratify the Hague Conventions, 46, 68-72, 305, 307, 308, 314, 316-327; refuses to guarantee neutrality of Belgium, 1-8; trying to starve women and children of Germany, 280, 281, 363-368; violation of neutral territory and waters, 8, 65, 186; voices against the war, 101-106; web of calumny against Germany, 190-202; Order-in-Council, 363, 367; atrocities by, 378-380; treatment of Casement, 380-387; deluded by Sir Edward Grey, 421-428; his evidence, 401-437; mobilization, 435, 436; importation of wheat, 371, 372; why German cables were cut, 373 Greece, treatment of Bulgaria by, 347, 348 Grey, Sir Edward, in the light of the French "Yellow Book," 216-268; reply to Belgian fears of an English invasion in 1913, 114-119; what he left unsaid on August 3, 1914, 68-72; Conybeare's letter on, 375, 391-400; his evidence, 401-437; could have prevented the war, 406 Hague Conference, conventions of neutrality, 46-48 ; discussion of dum-dum bullets, 48-57; points for next conference, 55; purpose of, of 1907, 357 442 Index Holland, protests British Order-in-Council, 363, 364, 367, 371 Illiteracy of Belgium, 374 International law, 303-314. 354, 355 Italy, dislike of England, 121 ; ex-Premier Giolitti's statement misinterpreted, 118-124; not unfriendly to Germany, 120-121 Japan, capture of Kiau-chau, 59-64; violation of neutrality, 64 Jefferson, Thomas, estimate of England, 366 Kaiser's Kaffee Geschaeft, money of, held up by England, 434 Kiau-chau, 59-64 Kitchener, Field Marshal, 112, 113 Law of nations, see International law — Louvain, not destroyed, 32, 36, 38, 187, 191, 200 Luxemburg, and neutrality, 69-71, 131- 133 MacFayden, D., interview with Secretary Bryan, 417 Miller, C. R., and embargo on arms, 354, 355 Miltronov, Prof., and Russia's ambition, 410 Mobilization, British, 435, 436 Morgan, J. P., commission on munitions of war, 370 Neutrals, rights and duties of, 357, 363-377 Nietzsche, admired by the French, 76, 77, 94, 95, 317 Norman, C. H., pamphlet on the war, 411 Press, the American, partial and unreliable news service, 119, 120, 126, 127, 136, 137, 181-189, 191, 192, 203, wicked campaign by in England and Germany, 399 Review of Reviews, American, on Russian militarism, 409, 410 Rheims, the true story, 207, 208 Roberts, Field Marshal, 58, 416 Russia, attitude before the war, 217-241, 252-268; naval agree- ment with England, 43-46, 404, 409; responsible for the war, loi, 107, 128, 129; suspends mobilization, 429; influenced by England to war, 431-433 "Scrap of paper, a," incident, 10-13, 173, 174 Serajevo, the murder at, 105, 124, 125, 243, 424, 427 Servia, treatment of Macedonia by, 345-347 Sutherland, Forbes, British officer in American newspaper em- ploy, 433, 434 Tipperary, the meaning of, 149- 161 Treitschke, 94, 317 Index 443 ■- ■ Viviani, M., French Premier, 408 War, naval and international law, 303-330 Wheat, America drained of, 371, 372 White Paper, British, see Sir Edward Grey's evidence Yellow Book, French, 216-268, 405, 407, 408, 420-437 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: ^^^ 2001 PreservationTechnologies A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 111 Thomson Park Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066 '-4'' LIBRARY OF CONGRESS I nil Mill mil II I •