D 525 
 .H47 
 Copy 1 
 
No. 2. 
 
 ISSUED BY THE DUTCH COMMITTEE 
 "THE EUROPEAN FEDERATION". 
 
 ) 525 
 H47 
 Jopy 1 
 
 To the citizens of the belligerent States 
 
 by 
 
 Prof. G! HEYMANS. Ph. D. 
 
 (Reprinting allowed and desired.) 
 
We neutrals enjoy in these times many and undeserved privileges. 
 Chief among them all, most certainly is, that we can continue our appre- 
 ciation of the one half without despairing of the other half of civilized 
 mankind. 
 
 Undoubtedly we too, with more or less vehemence, may lean rather 
 to the one side than to the other. It has been said of us that our sympathies 
 were neither for Germany nor for England, but for Holland, and it was actually 
 believed that we should take the assumption as a compliment. Fortunately 
 for the honour of our nation this is not so. We have not yet sunk to the 
 level where the question of right and wrong becomes a matter of indiffe- 
 rence so long as one's own interests are not affected. And we have all 
 of us, each according to the measure of his information, and in some 
 degree also to the dictates of his prejudices, given a reply to the question. 
 There is a Vast difference however between our party-leanings and those 
 prevailing amongst the belligerents. Most of us, see at least two sides to 
 the question, although perhaps more light may fall to the one side than to 
 the other; but for the members of the belligerent States, the question 
 appears to have only one side to it. Each unit is convinced that his coun- 
 try is making a stand, not only for its incontestable rights, but also for the 
 highest interests of humanity; if others do not recognize this, he believes 
 it can only be due to deliberate ill-will, and each member of the opponent 
 Country, neglecting to make formal protest against the actions of his Govern- 
 ment, gives good proof of that same ill-will. To such length scarcely one 
 of us will go. We, to a certain extent at any rate, have retained the power 
 to appreciate the standpoint not shared by us, and we are therefore less 
 prone to condemn it unconditionally. This is not to be ascribed to a higher 
 morality or better insight on our part, nor to the phlegmatic temperament 
 We are commonly supposed to possess, but to the circumstance, that we, 
 in our capacity as neutrals, get the arguments of both parties laid before 
 us; and that we, to a certain extent again, are in a position to make a 
 proper study of those arguments. The inhabitants of the belligerent coun- 
 tries, on the contrary, rarely hear or obtain anything to read, except what 
 has been said or written from their own standpoint; and if they do happen 
 to hear or read anything else, they will rarely deduct anything therefrom 
 beyond what is conducive to their own view of the case. Of course this 
 is only natural, being merely an enlargement of what takes places in 
 party or family disputes. It is deeply deplorable nevertheless. The greatest 
 evil of the war is not the untold misery which it carries in its train — its 
 death-roll, its mutilations, the stricken widows and orphans, loss of home 
 and possessions — but it is the rending of the great ideal of the brotherhood of 
 nations which we had begun to cherish as our great hope of the future; 
 the supplanting of mutual faith by suspicion, the denial of the human element 
 
 JON 8 ' 
 
Tl5a5 
 
 in the enemy, the hardening and insulating feeling of self-righteousness in a 
 corrupt society devoted to its own selfish interests. To the neutrals, more 
 than anybody, it must be left to stem this evil. Unlike the belligerents they 
 are not cut off from other nations, but are kept au courant of the opinions 
 held in the separate countries through the medium of newspapers, pam- 
 phlets, letters, etc.; and seeing how variously the different countries express 
 themselves, relative to the causes which led up to the war, they can appre- 
 ciate the dissimilarities which arise in regard to the right and wrong of the 
 matter. It would be well if those concerned in the war could share this 
 knowledge, or at least had the ability to imagine its existence. Or is this 
 asking too much, and can we not expect that those suffering from the 
 blows dealt by the enemy, should pay heed to the motives inspiring him? 
 We hope this may still be possible. We hope that amongst you, citizens 
 of the belligerent states, there will be many who will not hesistate to give 
 their enemy his due, and even under these trying circumstances keep, not 
 only their hands, but also their hearts, free from even a suspicion of injus- 
 tice. Buoyed up by this hope, we urgently request you to give your 
 earnest attention to the following brief summary of the ideas prevailing in 
 the different headings, and to accept provisionally our assurance, that each 
 contains an honest statement of the manner, in which the members of the 
 different groups explain to themselves and to others the causes which 
 have led up to the present war. 
 
 We will give Belgium the right to speak first: 
 
 "We have merely done what we considered our Right and Duty to 
 do. It was within our Right to resist the invasion of our territory, which 
 was wholly unprovocated; and it was our duty to uphold our neutrality 
 as established by Treaties. Germany claimed from us, what she her- 
 self, in the same circumstances, would have repelled with scorn; she 
 has perpetrated a double wrong, in having first entangled an innocent 
 people in the toils of a devastating war, and then by setting open 
 defiance to Treaties to which she had set her own Seal. Her original 
 attempt to excuse her action under the plea of necessity, is confronted 
 by the fact that the breach had long been premeditated, as the German 
 military authorities themselves avow in their literature; v\ the resort 
 afterwards to certain pretended agreements between England and 
 Belgium, it was forgotten to reckon with the fact, that the docu- 
 ments which were said to be discovered, would, supposing them to 
 have been genuine, only relate to an ipso facto violation of Bel- 
 gian neutrality by Germany. Far from constituting a breach of 
 neutrality, they on the contrary would give evidence of the intention 
 to avoid such a contigency by every possible means. Finally Germany 
 has waged war in Belgium under a system of barbarity which, in the 
 given circumstances, is altogether unjustifiable." 
 
 We will now permit Germany and Austria to proceed: 
 
 "The entire fault of the war must be laid at the doors of Russia 
 and England. Russia had long been desirous of recouping her defeat 
 vis-a-vis Japan with a succesful war, and at the same time to distract 
 attention from the internal frictions; England was watching the gigantic 
 strides taken by the industry and commerce of the German Empire 
 
with growing envy, and injustly considered that the supremacy of the 
 sea, to which she had always laid claim, was being menaced by the 
 formation of the German Fleet. Germany, on the contrary, at the cost 
 of heavy sacrifices to herself, had maintained Peace for over forty 
 years, and even now, had no desire to break the relations. When, at 
 the instigation of Servia, the Serajewo assassination took place, the 
 German Emperor did his utmost to localize the conflict; and it was 
 not until Russia had revealed her plans through secretly mobilizing, 
 that the war, which had now become inevitable, was declared. And 
 then, when France refused to keep aloof from the contest, Germany, 
 seeing herself confronted by an overwhelming force which necessitated 
 the swiftest possible action, could no longer respect the neutrality 
 (already questionable) of Belgium. This action was seized upon by 
 England as a pretext for the declaration of a war which she had already 
 determined upon, Edward VII indeed having initiated a set of intrigues 
 which aimed at the downfall of Germany. The manner finally, in which 
 the war in Belgium has been conducted, is solely the fault of the 
 Belgian People themselves, who proved such adepts in the practises 
 of franc-tireurs, mutilation of the wounded, etc., that the German army 
 was forced to adopt the severest possible measures in order to quell 
 these irregularities." 
 
 Finally the Entente Powers have their say: 
 
 "The Entente was entered into for purely pacific reasons, it being 
 solely intended to act as a deterrent to the ominous momentum of the 
 Triple Alliance. Germany on the other hand, with her gigantic military 
 system and overbearing attitude, was a constant menace to the peace 
 of Europe. After the preposterous demands made by Austria to Servia 
 this summer, which were utterly untenable for any sovereign state, 
 Germany could have saved the situation had she chosen to urge her 
 Ally to exhibit a certain moderation of her demands; her refusal to 
 do so, coupled with her opposition of Great Britain's proposals to 
 convene a Conference, forced Russia to take steps for the protection 
 of the threatened sister state; yet even then, a European war might 
 have been averted if Germany, with the casting of her ultimatums 
 right and left, had not cut off all attempts at a reconcilation. France 
 was bound to come forward to the assistance of her Ally; Great 
 Britain, who had a free hand, remained in dubio, and as in 1870, put 
 the question to France and Germany, whether they were prepared to 
 observe the neutrality of Belgium as guaranteed by Treaties. And it 
 Was only after this question had been answered by France in the 
 affirmative and by Germany in the negative, that she felt morally 
 obliged to enter into the conflict." 
 
 May I ask what impression you have obtained from the foregoing 
 contentions? 
 
 Your primary impression of these various opinions will certainly be, 
 that it is your own side, which gives the true version of the matter and 
 that the other sides have dished up a tissue of lies and insinuations. But 
 if you will permit me, I will put two questions before you, to which you 
 
are bound to give answer, if you conscientiously desire to do none an 
 injustice, even in thought. 
 
 Firstly: Do you think it at all likely that in a so long previously pre- 
 pared and so complicated conflict as the one under discussion, justice and 
 truth should ^have ranked themselves wholly on the one side, and their 
 opposites all 'on the other? Would you yourself, supposing the case con- 
 cerned a conflict of which you were merely a spectator, be prepared to 
 endorse such a view? Now it appears differently to you; but must not 
 you admit that your judgment may be more or less contorded by the 
 same mistaken ideas as that of your opponent? It is an established truism 
 that "Where one's treasure is, there one's heart is also", and man's whole 
 nature rises up in revolt when he is in danger of being convinced of 
 that Which would rob his life of all its value. Are not the sources upon 
 which you base your judgment almost exclusively one-sided? Have you 
 consulted the official documents — the White-Books, Grey-Books, etc. — 
 issued by the belligerent governments, in addition to those of your own? 
 Have you never detected yourself skipping over less favourable reports 
 relating to your own side, and dwelling repeatedly upon the more favour- 
 able ones? Can you deny that you prefer the companionship of those 
 who are thoroughly convinced of the absolute justice of your Cause, to 
 that of those who constantly come forward with some objection or 
 reservation? And have not you yourself, when doubts have arisen within 
 you, tried to hush them up with the thought that such a thing could not, 
 and might not be? And knowing these to be the commonest and most 
 dangerous forms of self-delusion, must not you admit the possibility that 
 your judgment may possible differ from that pronounced by a fully 
 enlightened and impartial judge? 
 
 However I am here perhaps suggesting a superhuman effort, in asking 
 you to admit this. We will therefore put it thus : — Your representation of 
 the case gives the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ; that of 
 your adversary is a mass of errors. But here I put to you my second 
 question, which, after all, is more to the point than my first: Cannot 
 you understand that your adversary is forbidden to see the truth as you 
 see it, and consequently must consider right what you consider wrong, 
 and vice-versa ? Endeavour for one single moment to put aside your 
 own views and to put yourself into one of the situations described above; 
 cannot you then, for that single moment, feel with your adversaries, 
 and understand that they, who see the actual course of events in a 
 totally different light to what you do yourself, must morally react diffe- 
 rently? Or do you consider it beyond the bounds of reason, that any- 
 body honestly disposed could possibly hold a different view of the 
 question? Then look around. Have you never in slight personal disputes 
 occurring in your circle, observed how people of whose strict honour 
 you have not the slightest doubt, show themselves blind to what you 
 consider to be the absolute truth? And how much easier it must be 
 for misunderstandings to arise in cases which touch one so closely as 
 the welfare, the existence and the honour of one's Country. You 
 should take into account how the same one-sided information, the 
 same incessant suggestion from without, and the same burning desire 
 for the vindication of one's own Cause, which make the access to 
 
your truth so very easy to you, are so many stumblingblocks for its 
 admission by your enemies; and then ask yourself seriously if you, in 
 their position, would have the moral courage to resist such a combi- 
 nation of influences. Indeed the persons on the opposite side may err, 
 but they are human beings \\7ho are possessed of feelings similar to 
 your own. You have had intercourse with them before, read their books, 
 appreciated their works of science and art, and followed their endeavour 
 to alleviate suffering and redeem wrongs; now, dare you actually believe 
 that during the few days which elapsed between the end of July and the 
 commencement of August, they have suddenly been converted into rapa- 
 cious barbarians or greedy shopkeepers ? Be sure they would not have 
 entered into the field against you with the enthusiasm and braving of death 
 which they have shown, unless they had been convinced that their Cause 
 was far above the mere desire of conquests or increased business relations. 
 Naturally you cannot conceive that they have a view of the question which 
 is diametrically opposed to your own, and it would be futile to expect 
 you to do so. What is beyond your imagination however, may be true all 
 the same, and you may see that it must be true. You can theoretically 
 comprehend, although you may not be able to make it real to your- 
 self, that men and women whom you have formerly learnt to know as 
 honourable and upright members of society, are not acting against their 
 consciences, but solely because of their one-sided information and limited 
 mental vision, when they hold for right, what you consider scandalous, and 
 for truth what you feel to be an impudent lie. And should even this theo- 
 retical comprehension still be beyond you, 1 ask you to believe what every 
 outsider who has remained in personal- or written communication with your 
 enemies will confirm to you, that they in common with yourselves, are 
 equally convinced of having gone to battle from necessity and for the ad- 
 vancement of a just Cause. 
 
 After having carefully considered these things, you may perhaps, at 
 the cost of some effort, begin to countenance the idea that when the 
 war is over, you will be able to frankly extend your hand to the enemy 
 of yore. It will then perhaps seem to you, as if you and he had been 
 awakened from some terrible nightmare or temporary fit of insanity, 
 during which you have both suffered yourself, and made others suffer. 
 You will both stand gazing at the devastation which you have brought 
 about, and reflect upon the wounds you have inflicted upon each other. 
 You will begin to wonder what it was all about, and whether anybody 
 really intended it. Little by little you will begin to acknowledge that 
 it was no one's desire, but that, by a ghastly misunderstanding, 
 each believed it was the other's desire, which caused so many elaborate 
 precautions to be taken, that they got interpreted into war intimidations, 
 until at last war itself was an accomplished thing. And then you will 
 admit that after all it matters very little which of the rulers and diplo- 
 mats has acted as liberator of the Monster of War, since after decades of 
 mutual mistrust of the states, the chain which held him had become 
 so worn that he would anyway have broken loose within another few 
 years' time. 
 
 But there is another question we must consider when this war will 
 have drawn to a close and Peace sheds its benign influence upon the 
 
Wounds that have been inflicted: how long will it last? For how lon^ 
 will the nations of Europe be left in peace, to try and restore the. havoc 
 of the past few months as best they may? How long will it be |)efoi'e 
 our Continent is subjected to another such attack of frenzy, that will 
 claim fresh victims and alienate the nations anew? And above all, for how 
 long, time after time, shall we have to ask this question, when shall we, 
 or shall ^ve never see peace unbroken by war? 
 
 It appears to me, that in principle at any rate, the latter question 
 admits of a feasible answer. A peace Which shall outlast war will settle 
 down when the .mutual mistrust between the states has been removed. In 
 that mistrust and in nothing else, lies the actual menace to Peace. Much 
 has been said concerning conflicts of interests that can only be solved 
 by the power of the sword; if one looks closer, the conflicts appear to 
 be, nearly without exception, the outcome of mutual suspicion. What 
 reason is there for a state to make conquests, if not to get more defensible 
 frontiers, to increase the army and exchequer and so to be on better guard 
 against the dreaded attack of a neighbour? Why come forward to the assis- 
 tance of allies, even though the cause be unjust, unless, with possible personal 
 difficulties, the aid of the allies can be similarly called upon? Why desire 
 the possession of harbours and colonies, if not from the fear that those 
 of other states may be closed? What objection can there be to the 
 rapid economic progress of a neighbouring country except that it thereby 
 becomes an increasingly dangerous rival? Such is the prevailing situation 
 everywhere. If a state had no cause to fear outside attack, or impediments 
 to progress, it is difficult to conceive a motive, warranting, in the remotest 
 degree, the catastrophes attendant upon war. Experience teaches us plainly 
 that the serious conflicts of interests disappear immediately when the several 
 states unite into a federation, which excludes mutual attacks, and governs 
 the rights which the citizens of one state are entitled to, in another. Look 
 for instance at the relations existing in the federations of Germany, Swit- 
 zerland, and the United States of North America. There war has practically 
 ceased to exist. The histories of these federated states furnish the empi- 
 rical confirmation of what has already been remarked, and a mark for the 
 future at the same time. Wherever the states have united into a federation 
 they have abandoned their mutual mistrust of each other and ceased to 
 make war, and it will not be before the civilized nations recognize fede- 
 ration as the sole means of disbanding mistrust that a lasting peace can 
 be secured. 
 
 And therefore it is above all so highly important, that you, to Whatever 
 nation you may belong, should already during the war, be pervaded with 
 the idea that your enemies are no demons, no savage beasts or cynical 
 egoists, but men like yourself, with the same failings, the same short- 
 comings and the same ideals. Possibly they, even more so than yourself, 
 may have been deluded by their governments and press; nevertheless, 
 they, like yourself, are acting in good faith. And deep-rooted in one and 
 all lies the desire for peace and justice. If you truly desire, as you and 
 your adversaries are so constantly asserting, a peace which will make 
 your enemy "harmless" for good, I pray you to consider the best means 
 of attaining your desire. If you pursue the old course of levying indem- 
 nities, wresting territory and limiting the powers of resistance of the 
 
021 547 823 3 
 
 Vanquished one, the result will be the same as herciuiurc, arrogance on tne 
 one side and rancour and thirst for vengeance on the other, and )''ou will 
 liavc sown abundant seed for fresh wars. If, on the contrary, you makr 
 an appeal to the better part of man, then it will rise to meet you. 
 Only fear can subdue a savage animal; but man, at least the cultured 
 specimen of our days, requires something more — the establishment of 
 justice. Give him that, and you will have made him in very deed: Harmless 
 for ^ood and all. 
 
 The committee ;,The European Federation", being 
 convinced: 
 
 that the relations of civilised states toward each 
 other should be governed by the same laws of mora- 
 lity and justice as social life in the nations individually; 
 
 that in the first instance the creation of a narrow 
 bond on the basis of equality of rights and preser- 
 vation of their individuality is desirable for the present 
 European states; 
 
 begs fervently every individual, as well as all 
 organisations that are of the same conviction, to 
 co-operate with all possible energy in the formation 
 of .public opinion in that direction and to inform our 
 committee of the same. 
 
 Dr. FREDERIK VAN EEDEN. 
 
 Prof. Dr. G. HEYMANS. 
 
 Dr. ALETTA H. JACOBS. 
 
 Dr. B. DE JONG VAN BEEK EN DONK. 
 
 Dr. NICO van SUCHTELEN. 
 
 (Secretary, Blaricnm-Hollaiul.) 
 
 Please ask for our No. 1 : The only solution, a European Federation, 
 by Nico van Suchtelen, L. L. D. The pamphlet will, like No. 2, be sent 
 gratuitously. 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 021 547 823 3