UC-NRLF 
 
GIFT OF 
 
 ^r^ie^>^Ji4^oJk> tg>^^:;^^ 
 
.^ 
 
 Kjvr> X. 
 
 OCT 6 1915 
 
 EUROPE BLED WHITE 
 
 FBOM THE PRESIDEOT^S OFFIC. 
 TO THE UNIVERSITY LIBRAE^ 
 
 SECOND EDITION 
 
1^ v-^ ' ^ 
 
 / 
 
 FOREWORD. 
 
 As a loj^al Amepkan citizen, proud of Ms 
 Teutonic birth, I feel it is my duty to com- 
 ply with the urgent requests of a great num- 
 ber of my American friends, who realize that 
 there must be "another side" to the European 
 War, different from the side shown by our 
 American press, to present my personal view- 
 point, and I have, therefore, succinctly sum- 
 marized in the following pages what I hon- 
 estly believe to be authentic data that I hope 
 may be thus accepted by those who have 
 known me longest and best. 
 
 E. STAUFFEN. 
 
 New York, 
 November, 1914. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 The kindly reception, not only by pro-German, but also by 
 pro-Ally and neutral readers, accorded to the first edition and 
 the appearance of niw and salient facts prompt me to issue a 
 second and revised. ejlitLon., 
 
 /••.. •• .*.••• • : ': :. 1 •*...•* E. S. 
 
 May, 1915. 
 
a^ 
 
 EUROPE BLED WHITE. 
 
 War is always what Sherman called it ! The present Euro- 
 pean War is not only the gr^^test but the most calamitous 
 catastrophe in history. Literal believers in Biblical prophecy 
 as well as some European Diplomats say that this war had to 
 come sometime. Bismarck foresaw it, Napoleon prophesied it, 
 and Peter the Great drew military plans for it. It was not 
 an unpremeditated clash of arms. It was the crushing climax 
 of years of perfidious diplomacy and infamous intrigue. The 
 Servian murder of Austro-Hungary.'s heir-apparent broke the 
 last link in the chain of European Peace and let loose the Dogs 
 of War. 
 
 In order that we may dispassionately analyze the course of 
 events and logically trace results from their initiatory causes 
 let us briefly review some of the most salient episodes in com- 
 paratively recent European history. 
 
 Three Great Forces Have For Years Made For a Universal 
 
 European War. 
 
 Russia's Pan- Slavic program, France's "Revanche" and 
 England's commercial jealousy of Germany. 
 
 Russians Reason. 
 
 Russia, in brute strength is the mightiest nation of the 
 future. She has a population of 165 millions with an annual 
 increase of 3 millions and an area 2% times as large as that 
 of the United States of America and proportionately rich in 
 natural resources. For centuries she has fought and intrigued 
 to gain possession of a sea free from ice; one opening into the 
 Ocean — "a mndow" through which she might look upon the 
 world's commerce and civilization. For this she waged the 
 
 312435 
 
disastrous Crimean and Japanese wars and inspired the Balkan 
 war of 1912-13. To her, Constantinople is not only the Mecca 
 that will give her untrammeled passage from Black Sea ports 
 through the Dardanelles but also a gateway to the realization 
 of her centuries-old dream of eventually ruling all of the Euro- 
 pean continent as well as the British Isles. In Kussian diplo- 
 matic circles, during recent years, it has been repeatedly said 
 "The road to Constantinople lies through Berlin.'' 
 
 Rnssia has for years conspired against the Austrian Empire. 
 She has secretly and persistently fostered treason among the 
 Austrian Slavs, urged and bribed them to revolt, hoping to dis- 
 rupt the Austrian Empire and forever hem her in with an 
 orthodox Slavic girdle, thus making her stationary on the 
 Danube and practically powerless to help her only logical ally 
 — Germany, when the determined-upon deluge of destruction 
 was to be let loose. 
 
 Russia's political creed was created by Peter the Great, 
 who in his "will" says : 
 
 "Clause 9. Russia must incessantly extend herself 
 towards the North, along the Baltic Sea, and toward the 
 South along the Black Sea. Our kingdom must advance 
 as far as possible toward Constantinople and the East 
 Indies. Whoever shall reign there will be the true mas- 
 ter of the World. Therefore we must excite continual 
 wars, sometime with Turkey, sometime with Persia; 
 create dockyards on the Black Sea ; take possession, little 
 by little, of that sea as well as of the Baltic, which is a 
 point doubly necessary for the success of the project; 
 we must hasten the downfall of Persia ; penetrate as far 
 as the Persian Gulf ; re-establish, if possible, the ancient 
 commerce of the Levant, through Syria; and advance as 
 far as the Indies, which is the emporium of the world. 
 When once there we can do without the gold of England. 
 "Clause 10. Russia must carefully seek and keep 
 up the alliance with Austria ; apparently second her de- 
 
 2 
 
sign for future domination of Germany; and we must 
 excite underhand against her a jealousy of the Princes. 
 We must excite each and all of these to seek succor from 
 Russia, and exercise a sort of protection over the coun- 
 try, which may prepare our future domination. 
 
 "Clause 11. We must interest the House of Austria 
 in the expulsion of the Turk from Europe, and neutral- 
 ize her jealousy after the conquest of Constantinople, 
 either by exciting a war between her and the old states 
 of Europe, or by giving up to her part of the conquest, 
 to retake it from her afterward." 
 History proves that Russia is constantly striving to work 
 out the destiny thus forecast hy Peter the Great. True, her 
 desperate attempt to annex Manchuria and thus obtain a port 
 on either the Yellow or the Japanese sea was frustrated by 
 Japan; but immediately after she signed the Treaty of Ports- 
 mouth, Russia showed her "good faith and respect for her 
 diplomatic honor" by actively resuming her efforts to secure 
 Mongolia and in 1912 she succeeded in accomplishing her pur- 
 pose and thereby gained a commanding position from which, 
 sometime, she can attack Manchuria or China. That she has 
 already begun "the downfall of Persia" is shown by her collabo- 
 ration with England in 1907 when these two great world- 
 powers, who already possessed about half of the earth, gravely 
 divided Persia, — a country almost as large as the combined 
 areas of Germany, Austria-Hungary and France and fabulously 
 rich in mineral wealth — ^into three Zones, viz : the Russian Zone, 
 the British Zone, and (as a mark of courteous condescension) 
 the Persian Zone. When Shuster, an American financier, at- 
 tempted to reorganize Persia's crumbling financial system, and 
 put it on a sound monetary basis, Russia at once objected and 
 forced Shuster to leave the country after which she sent her 
 Cossacks to Persia "to secure order," — and there they yet re- 
 main, of course at Persia's expense, despite the urgent request 
 of England, that they be withdrawn. So even while, as now, 
 
 3 
 
the Russian Bear is on terms of temporary friendship with the 
 British Lion, he coolly ignores his erstwhile allies' perfectly 
 proper request. This autocratic presumption of the Czar may 
 not now portend anything to King George but some analytical 
 minds believe that Russia even now impatiently bides her time 
 — she herself had fixed it at 1916 — until she can build up her 
 Navy to be second only to Great Britain's, when she will be 
 in a safe and secure position "to abundantly repay" England 
 for her "self-sacrificing help" in the present conflict by dictating 
 terms to her. 
 
 William Bayard Hale, confidential advisor on Foreign Re- 
 lations to our President says — 
 
 "Great Britain has already awakened to the realiza- 
 tion that it is not Germany the Anglo-Saxon has to fear. 
 . . . The present war will settle little or nothing, 
 especially in the event that the Allies get the best of it. 
 In that case there will ensue a war between Britain and 
 Russia." 
 Russia's real animus in the recent Balkan war was not so 
 much to crush Turkey — ^although for centuries she has coveted 
 Constantinople — as it was to deal a death-blow to Austria- 
 Hungary and through her to Germany. And yet, although 
 Russia's designs were well known at Berlin, Germany, for the 
 sake of Peace, stayed Austria's hand at the very beginning of 
 that war and induced her not to march her army to Salonika, 
 where, and when, Austria without doubt could have conquered 
 Servia and not only have acquired a large territory but also 
 an outlet to the Aegean Sea. 
 
 France^s "Revanche.^^ 
 
 FRANCE has ached, prayed and schemed for "Revanche" 
 ever since 1870-71. Nothing less than the return of the "Lost 
 Provinces," Alsace and Lorraine, and the refunding of the five 
 billion francs Franco-Prussian war indemnity, plus interest for 
 44 years could ever make her Parisian "Strasbourg" doff her 
 
 4 
 
widow's weeds. Not only the French but most Americans, 
 Englishmen and others than those better versed in history either 
 never knew or have forgotten that Alsace and Lorraine were for 
 800 years German provinces. They were wrested from the then 
 weakened German States by Louis XIV after he had laid in 
 ruins the beautiful Castle of Heidelberg and devastated the 
 Palatinate. Even under French rule Alsace was at heart more 
 German than French. Paris barely tolerated the Alsatians 
 and considered them as only "half French." Up to 1870 Strass- 
 burg was only an overgrown village. Today, under German 
 rule, Strassburg is a palatial city with one of the finest Uni- 
 versities in the world. To the credit of an English author be 
 it said, that in 1891 he wrote: "Germany has done more for 
 Alsace-Lorraine in 20 years than France in 200 years." France 
 despised rather than loved her Alsace-Lorraine until it was 
 "lost." Even now she cannot comprehend why Greneral Joffre's 
 recent address of adulation was so indifferently received by the 
 "poor down-trodden Germanized Alsatians." France's mem- 
 ory of Sedan is still as bitter as it was on that fateful day of 
 defeat. Eesentment, under all circumstances of defeat, is very 
 human. Official France has never forgiven Grermany for her 
 defeat in 1870-71. She apparently ignores the historic fact that 
 she precipitated the conflict by declaring war on Germany in 
 1870. It is also well known that in 200 years France has de- 
 clared war on Germany thirty times. 
 
 The German Emperor has persistently shown his friendly 
 feelings towards France and has repeatedly made strenuous 
 efforts to establish friendly relations with France. France 
 has invariably and abruptly refused reciprocal relations and 
 her continually increasing demands for "Revanche" was one 
 of the controlling factors that led to the upbuilding of Ger- 
 many's great army of defense. "Revenge on Germany" was 
 the keynote in France's alliance with Russia. It is said on 
 good authority that up to the end of January, 1915, her partici- 
 pation in this war had already cost Prance ten times as much 
 
 5 
 
as she had to pay Germany at the end of the Franco-Prussian 
 War. How much better it would have been for France and for 
 Humanity had she arisen from the defeat of 1870-71 with a 
 nobler ideal and employed her rapidly recuperated finances, due 
 to her innate thrift, to better, more humanitarian purposes than 
 filling Kussia's hungry coffers. It cannot be successfully denied 
 that the last French loans to Kussia were for military purposes 
 and specifically, for the development of railroads to the Prus- 
 sian frontier. The French government, when granting Russia's 
 demand for financial assistance stipulated "that Russia render 
 fuller service to the Alliance and take up a firmer attitude 
 toward Germany." And this exemplifies France's sincerity in 
 her much-heralded "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality." 
 
 England^'s Antipathy to Germany. 
 
 No act or word of the German Emperor aroused English 
 antipathy to Germany. An English statesman. The Right Hon. 
 Thomas Lough, M. P., in "England and Germany by Leaders of 
 Public Opinion in Both Empires," says: 
 
 "I have pointed to the fact that for nearly a quarter 
 of a century the present Emperor of Germany has never 
 used an unkind word or promoted an unfriendly act 
 towards Great Britain." ♦ ♦ ♦ 
 The same writer throws the spotlight of fact upon this un- 
 reasoning antipathy which gradually grew into enmity against 
 Germany in the following words : 
 
 "When the Boer War drew to a close the general quiet 
 of the political horizon gave an opportunity to the Yel- 
 low Press to look around for some fresh fields in which 
 operations might be carried on. The feeling of hostility 
 to Russia, which had survived with more or less intensity 
 during the fifty years since the Crimean War, had died 
 down, owing to the defeat of that country by Japan, and, 
 above all, to the destruction of its navy. Long-standing 
 quarrels with the U. S. of America and France had been 
 
 6 
 
amicably settled, so that there was no Power except Ger- 
 many against which popular opinion could he success- 
 fully roused.'' ♦ ♦ ♦ 
 Lewis Nixon of ship-building fame — according to the N. Y. 
 German Herold — wrote in the New York Times, April 4, 1909 ; 
 ^^Germany has more potential financial strength than England. 
 Germany is increasing more rapidly than England in wealth 
 and population. In a mere endurance contest, therefore, Ger- 
 many would win, because her money would hold out longer. 
 England knows this. And knowing it, England may end this 
 contest very suddenly some day by forcing war on Germany. 1 
 expect to see w^ithin five years the most terrific war in the 
 world's history between England and Germany." And again in 
 the Evening Mail of April 17 of the same year: "Look back 
 upon history and you will find that in the case of the Dutch, 
 the French and the Spanish when they severally reached the 
 grade of second grade of naval power, if the country aspired to 
 ocean trade the great force of England w^as exerted to crush it. 
 While we have built up a great navy we have been content to 
 remain in so far as the exploitation of our sea trade is con- 
 cerned, a British colony, but Germany has not been so unmind- 
 ful of her destiny, even though not having the God given front- 
 age that we have on our two oceans." 
 
 Let us throw a still stronger searchlight into the mass of 
 established facts — all stepping-stones to the present gory con- 
 flict — and thus determine just what is 
 
 England^s Animus. 
 
 "John Bull" is always the merchant. Through a greater 
 mastery of detail, — directly due to her scholastic system — as 
 well as originality and greater powers of invention and creation 
 of almost innumerable manufactured products, Germany first 
 became a noticeable competitor and in later years, because of 
 sheer merit of manufacturing processes, exploitation methods 
 and commercial policy ran a close race with England for her 
 
 7 
 
vaunted first place in the world's commerce. Not only did 
 Germany compete with England in the bulk and scope of ex- 
 portation but Germany's flag flew from the mastheads of her 
 large merchant-marine that plied the great ocean roadways. 
 Instead of emulating Germany's example and learning by pa- 
 tient, persistent study of local trade conditions the needs of 
 foreign buyers and adapting her products and methods so as to 
 meet them or adopting those German methods, which were con- 
 ceded, even by Britons, to be result-getters, England preferred 
 to lament her lost opportunities and, in resentment, to scheme 
 with Eussia and France, to crush German enterprise abroad 
 as well as at home. In addition to this constantly increasing 
 trade jealousy England has for years been haunted by the fear 
 of Germany's growing navy, and her daily papers have given a 
 wide circulation to such fantastic rumors as that Germany was 
 secretly tunnelling the English channel so as to throw her great 
 army in overwhelming masses upon London at some opportune 
 time. England's intervention in the present conflict has been 
 tersely proclaimed by the German Ambassador to America as 
 "the unreasoning climax of that unjustifiable fear of Germany, 
 which has troubled her for years." 
 
 Militarism vs. Sea-Sovereignty. 
 
 England, for generations mistress of the seven seas, assumes 
 by both Divine Eight, and because of her insular location, that 
 she alone has the privilege of maintaining a mighty Navy. Ac- 
 cording to her political creed no continental nation, and least of 
 all her most aggressive and progressive commercial competitor 
 — Germany, has any right to own more than a negligible aggre- 
 gation of warcraft, even for defensive purposes. 
 
 Great Britain not only wants to have all continental im- 
 ports and exports pass the mouths of her bristling guns at 
 Dover, but she also demands that her Sea-Sovereignty shall 
 never be successfully challenged. Is Britain's mighty fleet 
 an instrument of Peace? And yet, who ever hears much un- 
 
 8 
 
reasoning criticism of England's maritime miltarism? Ger- 
 many, with her ever increasing export business and her large 
 fleet of merchantmen afloat, considers that she is strictly 
 within her privileges as a World-Power, when she perfects a 
 modern navy, powerful enough to protect and defend the integ- 
 rity of her enormous oceanic business. Further, because of 
 her being hemmed in between France and Russia, and the con- 
 sequent need of being properly prepared to defend her homes 
 against possible and always probable invasion by land, her 
 people have willingly and liberally contributed in money and 
 service to the up-building of a magnificent army for defense. 
 
 Sir Rufus D. Isaacs in "England and Germany by Leaders 
 of Public Opinion in both Empires," says: "We must bear 
 in mind that for Germany, with her three land-frontiers, a pow- 
 erful army is essential and that to protect her trade interests, 
 her food supply, and her foreign possessions, to maintain her 
 prestige and to render her Diplomacy effective, a strong Navy 
 is equally needed." And yet, who has not heard Germany's 
 land militarism denounced with merciless severity? England's 
 latest "reason why" she went to war is to "crush Germany's 
 militarism." Why even Bernhardi never aspired to be as 
 much of a militarist as Roberts was and Kitchener is. Does 
 any one — least of all an Englishman — believe that if "Ger- 
 many's militarism" were utterly crushed and absolutely up- 
 rooted England would reduce her two Power standard navy? 
 In the name of Justice and Fair Play, why make "fish" of 
 England and "fowl" of Germany, when each parallels the 
 other's military activities — England on the sea, and Germany 
 on the land? Why not also denounce France for building 
 mighty fortresses, that look towards Germany and pro- 
 gressively perfecting and increasing her military prowess 
 both on land and sea? Why not vehemently protest against 
 the menace to the World's Peace, kept ever near the danger 
 line, by the Czar's cruel Cossacks? Does it not seem strange 
 that the most peaceful and peace-loving nation of Europe 
 
 9 
 
should be the only one universally selected for vitupera- 
 tive attacks by pen and tongue? All that Germany has ever 
 asked or will ever ask for of the rest of the world is Fair Play 
 and to be left in Peace and Security. 
 
 It is German "efficiency,'' military and especially commer- 
 cial that troubles England. There is more "militarism" about 
 the Lion than there is about the Imperial Eagle. When it 
 comes to "efficiency'" the case is reversed. In but one feature 
 is England more "efficient" than Germany and that is in Diplo- 
 macy — but that is rather "cleverness" and the facility to juggle 
 with facts than the real diplomacy that wins and retains the 
 acquiescence of statesmen and the respect of historians. 
 
 Germany^s Efficiency. 
 
 Germany begins to train her men when they are schoolboys. 
 They have discipline for breakfast, dinner and supper — ^and 
 between meals. They are not only taught to obey, but they are 
 shown why they should respect Power as represented by Age, 
 Education and Skill. Germany's tremendous commercial 
 growth is the logical result of Efficiency — of maximum results 
 from minimum efforts — of the composite team work of thor- 
 oughly trained men. This same thorough training plus the 
 essential specializing that fits the untrained youth for further 
 development, produces the scholar, the statesman, the soldier. 
 In every field of endeavor the German's efficiency is the charac- 
 teristic that commands respect and secures success. Thorough- 
 ness, Persistency and Efficiency form the Teutonic triad that 
 has made for Germany "a place in the sun." 
 
 The New York Evening Post, March 6th, 1915, says edi- 
 torially : 
 
 '^Nothing can he more wrong-headed than to attribute 
 German efficiency solely to the perfection of machine 
 methods. What the anti-German calls a machine, the 
 Kaiser^ s people call order and discipline. The German 
 citizen ♦ ♦ ♦ feels himself as free in living up to the 
 
 10 
 
law as the American citizen feels in allowing laws to 
 remain a dead letter because justice is impartially ad- 
 ministered ♦ ♦ ♦. We have built up a faith in mere 
 legal machines, while Germany has perceived that the 
 machine of the state must have men behind it J' 
 
 Germany^s Enforced Sblf-Defense. 
 
 For centuries the several states and provinces now, but not 
 then, welded together under the Imperial Eagle, were 
 the chosen battlefields of the nations of Europe. These 
 frequent invasions on various pretexts not only devastated 
 and depopulated the German country but her territory was 
 reduced since each victor in turn appropriated as much land as 
 he wanted or could secure. In self-defense and for self -protec- 
 tion a standing army and border fortresses were among the first 
 logical military developments, followed by the amalgamation 
 of the states now comprising the German Empire. Without her 
 military organization the integrity of the Empire could not 
 have been secured or maintained. With the growth and per- 
 fection of her military forces, Germany not only defended and 
 protected herself but for many years she was able to maintain 
 Peace. War means Destruction. Germany, during all of these 
 44 peaceful years was creating, up-building her science, art, 
 music, agriculture, manufacturing industries and export trade, 
 together with all else that makes for comfort, health and happi- 
 ness in life. In the Arts of Peace she was pre-eminent. Her 
 mighty army and her modern navy were drilled and kept up to 
 the acme of efficiency solely to protect her own country and 
 interests and not to fight her neighbors just for the sake of 
 conquest. 
 
 His Excellency, Dr. Bernhard Dernburg, formerly Sec- 
 retary of State for the German Colonies, says : "German mili- 
 tarism has kept the peace for 44 years. While Russia went to 
 war with Turkey and China and, after having promoted the 
 Hague Conference, battled with Japan and 'protected' Persia, 
 
 11 
 
conquering territory double the size of the United States on the 
 might-is-right principle; while England, the defender of the 
 rights of the small states, smashed the Boer Kepublic, took 
 Egypt, Cypress and South Persia; while the French Republic 
 conquered the Sudan, Tunis, Madagascar, Indo-China and Mo- 
 rocco ; while Italy possessed itself of Tripoli and the islands in 
 the Aegean Sea; while Japan fought China, took Formosa, 
 Corea and Southern Manchuria and has now, with the aid of 
 her allies, invaded China, a neutral country; there is not one 
 annexation or increase of territory to the charge of Germany. 
 She has waged no war of any kind and has never acquired a 
 territory in all her existence except by treaty and with the con- 
 sent of the rest of the world." 
 
 Germany A Practical Democracy. 
 
 The German Empire is a confederation of 26 kingdoms, 
 duchies, states and free cities. These 26 units still have their 
 rulers, courts, legislative bodies and local governments. The 
 Empire, as the central government, looks after their foreign 
 relations, issues their money, regulates their tariffs and per- 
 forms other duties for the good of all. As a matter of actual 
 fact the German Empire could, with absolute accuracy, be 
 called the United States of Germany, of which the King of 
 Prussia is the President, or as he is officially designated in Ger- 
 many, the "German Kaiser." Every German is a citizen and a 
 subject of the Kingdom or state to which he belongs. No Ger- 
 man is strictly speaking a subject of the German Kaiser. Wil- 
 helm II has less actual power than our own President. 
 
 German Army Life. 
 
 For years it has been dinned into American ears that the en- 
 forced military service was not only an intolerable hardship on 
 Germany's young men in that it prevented them from engaging 
 in more lucrative business for three years, but that it also un- 
 fitted them for a later civilian career. Now everyone will con- 
 
 12 
 
cede that even one year in an American military school makes 
 a boy manly. He is taught self-respect by being put on his 
 honor, while the drill, the gymnasium work and the proper 
 food make him strong, well poised and healthy. 
 
 Young Germans serve two years in the infantry or three 
 in the cavalry; high-school graduates serve only one year. 
 The young German's army life brings out all of the 
 good that is in him. Entering the army, as many of the 
 recruits do, without any previous physical training other 
 than that associated with work in the field or workshop, the 
 crude recruit is first taught to stand and walk erectly. With 
 this as the fundamental essential firmly established he is drilled 
 with and without his gun in the various evolutions that eventu- 
 ally transform him into a well-poised soldier. To this physical 
 development is added such study of army regulations and many 
 other things besides the manual of arms, as will in the course of 
 time make him an intelligent man and soldier. All through his 
 whole army life he is taught to respect the authority of his 
 superiors, is taught courtesy, cleanliness and hygiene and that 
 makes him a gentleman and a disciplined soldier. He is there- 
 fore developed physically, mentally and morally. 
 
 At the end of his military service he is a manly man and 
 better equipped in every way for that place in civilian life to 
 which he aspires. Far from being "an intolerable hardship" 
 it is a liberal education for every German boy, rich or poor, 
 high or low, and an experience that makes them better citizens 
 and better Germans. The German soldier of the rank and file 
 does not make army life a profession as the active officers do. 
 He serves his allotted time in the army and then returns to his 
 private life. In after years he looks back on his army life as a 
 series of "red letter days." 
 
 German Military Expenses. 
 
 For the last quarter of a century much has been said and 
 more written about "the great burden of expense imposed upon 
 
 13 
 
the German people for the upkeep of ^the Prussian sabre' on 
 land and sea." According to the most extreme anti-militarists 
 Germany is kept poor by supporting her army and navy. 
 Strange that there are no evidences of this poverty ! If anyone 
 has ever travelled through a more prosperous, happy and con- 
 tented country than Germany is, I never heard of it. German 
 cities have no slums like London; neither is pauperism a pro- 
 fession in Germany. The daughter of a New York druggist, 
 who accompanied the German- American Apothecaries' Union 
 on their trip to Europe last summer, received from her German 
 grandmother a dollar with this kindly advice : "Give it to the 
 first beggar you see in Germany." The young lady travelled 
 through Germany for six weeks and upon her return handed the 
 dollar back with the convincing remark: "Grandma, there 
 aren't any." 
 
 These same extremists point with "pious horror" to 
 Germany's "intolerable extravagance" in the liberal pension- 
 ing not only of the widows and orphans of her army and navy 
 men but also in the paternal care of her aged poor and those 
 incapacitated by accident or otherwise. To draw a paral- 
 lel between Germany's liberality to her unfortunates and Eng- 
 land's parsimony to hers would but add weight to the epigram 
 "comparisons are odious." Perhaps the following figures may 
 throw the spot-light on some rather instructive data, not par- 
 ticularly pleasing to the aforesaid anti-militarist statisticians : 
 
 Expenditures for the year 1913-14, according to the World 
 Almanac of 1914 (page 470) : 
 
 Great Britain Kussia France Germany 
 
 Army. |224,300,000 $317,800,000 $191,431,500 $183,090,000 
 Navy. $224,140,000 $122,500,000 $119,571,400 $111,300,000 
 Total. $448,440,000 $440,300,000 $311,002,900 $294,390,000 
 
 Tax on each inhabitant: Great Britain, $9.97; Russia, 
 $2.75; France, $7.91; Germany, $4.54. 
 
 These figures tell the tale. The upkeep of "the Prussian 
 sabre" in time of peace costs each German only $4.54 as com- 
 
 14 
 
pared to the Frenchman's outlay of f7.91 and the English- 
 man's tax of $9.97 for the support of their respective fighting 
 forces. Where does the shoe pinch most — in Germany, France 
 or England? Facts are stubborn things! 
 
 Reduced Armament 
 
 — so much discussed during recent years — is possible for Ger- 
 many only on condition that England, Russia and France not 
 only obligate themselves to do likewise but play fair and actu- 
 ally reduce their armament both on land and sea. Were these 
 four great World Powers to set such an example, it would 
 probably become general and all other nations might fall into 
 line without protest or delay. It is as Utopian to expect univer- 
 sal disarmament as it is unfair and unreasonable to expect Ger- 
 many, for example, to reduce her army and navy both in num- 
 bers and efficiency and the Allies to maintain their present fight- 
 ing machines on land and sea. From the viewpoint of London, 
 Germany should be perpetually disarmed. But what a howl 
 would be heard from Downing Street if the case were reversed 
 and the same demand were made and enforced on the Union 
 Jack! 
 
 Premeditated Preparedness. 
 
 Ever since "To Arms" ushered in the month of August, 1914, 
 the phrase "Premeditated Preparedness" has been overworked 
 by both English and American editorial writers. Let us look 
 some established facts squarely in the face and thus get a clearer 
 conception of the meaning of that phrase as it applies to the 
 several nations at war. 
 
 Russia did not disband her Army Corps as usual after the 
 annual Spring manoeuvers but kept them on a war- footing; 
 two business friends of mine w^ho were in Russia in March and 
 April, 1914, reported that everywhere in Russia the pending war 
 against Germany was discussed openly and that large numbers 
 of troops were being sent westward towards the German border. 
 
 15 
 
Was not that at least a premonitory symptom of Premeditated 
 
 Preparedness? 
 
 J. J. Williams, in the New York Sun, September 2, 1914, 
 
 writes — 
 
 "Immediately after the assassination of the Austrian 
 archduke, Kussia started making warlike preparations. 
 Middle of July last, the most important Eussian news- 
 paper, the Novoye Vremya, published a sensational arti- 
 cle to the effect that Russia would be ready to completely 
 crush Germany and Austria in 1916, and to establish 
 a great Slav empire in Europe. . . . 
 
 "On July 27 the great Russian liberal paper, the 
 Retch, wrote that, if a great European War should 
 break out, the cause would have to be laid at the doors 
 of the Novoye Vremya for their warlike article. As 
 the Retch continued in agitating for peace, the newspaper 
 was ordered to be suspended by the Russian govern- 
 ment. On July 29 last a council of the Russian cabinet 
 ministers decided for war, and ordered a general mobili- 
 zation of the Russian army and navy (the only Russian 
 minister who spoke for peace in this council was the 
 minister of agriculture.) On July 25 I traveled from 
 Helsingfors to Reval, where I saw the whole Russian 
 Baltic fleet assembled. On July 29 I witnessed hostile 
 demonstrations of a big Russian mob before shops and 
 hotels owned by Germans and Austrians in Moscow. On 
 July 30 Germany asked Russia to stop mobilizing but 
 Russia declined to do so. On August 1 a squadron of 
 Russian Cossacks crossed the German boundary on the 
 River Warthe.'' 
 To my personal knowledge, hundreds of Russian families 
 
 suddenly left Germany and Switzerland to return to Russia, 
 
 weeks before the war was started. Was that only a coincidence? 
 
 The four children of the Russian General Rennenkampf, who 
 
 16 
 
were being educated in Breslau, were ordered home early in 
 April. Was that also only a coincidence? 
 
 England "happened" to have a great Naval Review of prac- 
 tically the entire British Fleet of War vessels — all painted in 
 the war color — in the home waters less than a month before war 
 was declared — "ready for action and disposed according to the 
 stragetical plan of the Admiralty" — ^and not only was this 
 monster marine fighting machine not disbanded after the "Re- 
 view" but on the specious plea of "for emergency" it is re- 
 ported that Lord Churchill had contracted for £2,700,000 (|13,- 
 500,000) worth of provisions and ammunition for the fleet 
 without consulting his Cabinet colleagues who, it is credibly 
 stated, knew nothing of the matter until Churchill asked for a 
 voucher authorizing the payment of the bill. In this respect 
 Churchill emulated the example of his diplomatic confrere. Sir 
 Edward Grey, although be it said in a less disastrous way, for 
 Churchill's purchases could at least in part be legitimately 
 used in the course of time, while Grey's tactics sent Englishmen 
 to the firing line in France. However Churchill's animus 
 is made more clear by the fact that by another rather peculiar 
 coincidence the French Fleet was ordered to go to the Mediter- 
 ranean, thus leaving the French coast entirely unprotected by 
 French men-of-war. Of course the big British Fleet was strong 
 enough to protect both the English and French coasts and the 
 French warships "were needed in the Mediterranean." Can 
 this be meaningless to any one who actually thinks? 
 
 It is said to be a matter of official English record that before 
 war was declared against Germany Lord Churchill laid before 
 his colleagues plans for blowing up the German Fleet and with- 
 out making a declaration of war. The Churchill propo- 
 sition affords additional incriminating evidence against 
 England and emphasizes the statement that England was both 
 ready and eager to "paint another few square miles of the 
 world's map red" and that she was not only prepared to make 
 war on Germany but that she actually incited the attack. 
 
 17 
 
The German Foreign Office is said to have proof that Eng- 
 land was treating with Russia, months before the war, to furnish 
 transports for carrying Russian troops to the German (Pom- 
 meranian) coast, but, apparently, the arrangement did not 
 lead to any results. 
 
 The Paris ^^Gil Bias" of February 25, 1913, printed the 
 following : "A paper in the East of France publishes an inter- 
 esting news item. It is common talk in military circles that 
 for weeks past large supplies of British munitions of war have 
 been shipped to Maubeuge, on the Northeastern French Fron- 
 tier, via the Paris-Cologne railway. The City of Maubeuge is of 
 great military importance. In the French plan of campaign 
 it is designated as the point of concentration of the allied troops, 
 who are to be commanded, in case of war, by the English Field 
 Marshal, Sir John French, as Commander-in-chief under Gen- 
 eral Joffre. It is well known that the projectiles for the British 
 guns are different from those of the French. However the two 
 Governments have formed an arrangement by which the neces- 
 sary supplies for the English artillery may be landed in France 
 in time of peace." 
 
 "Never ready" France was for once ready — only waiting for 
 the orders of her Allies of the Triple Entente. French prisoners 
 of war openly assert that after the spring manoeuvers of 1914 
 their army corps were not disbanded as usual but were supplied 
 with bullet cartridges and sent towards the German and Bel- 
 gian frontiers. Does that signify nothing? All German health 
 resorts are freely patronized by wealthy Frenchmen and Rus- 
 sians and, naturally, many French waiters are employed at the 
 hotels and restaurants. During my visit in Germany last sum- 
 mer I noticed and commented upon the almost complete absence 
 of the French waiters. "Called back to France" I was told. 
 That was over a month before war began. Was it a coinci- 
 dence? 
 
 To my personal knowledge^ premeditated preparedness can- 
 not he charged to Germany. I spent two months in Germany 
 
 18 
 
during the summer of 1914. It was the same hospitable, happy, 
 contented, prosperous, peaceful country I have known for 
 the last 18 years during my yearly visits. In the military bu- 
 reaus of the towns where I spent some weeks, the officers at- 
 tached to those offices were either on furlough or were mingling, 
 in civilian clothes, with the general public. In my social inter- 
 course with them nothing was said which would indicate that 
 Germany would soon be drawn into war. Having served in the 
 Army, and having a wide acquaintance among military men 
 as well as some knowledge of German military affairs, it was 
 my impression, in fact my firm conviction, that Germany be- 
 lieved that Peace would continue to abide with her and that 
 it would not be disturbed even by the Austro- Servian episode, 
 which was, at that time, receiving much deserved diplomatic 
 attention. Travelling through Germany, I saw thousands of 
 soldiers on the railroad trains and stations; they were not on 
 their way to join their regiments, but on their way to spend 
 their vacation with their families. German cavalry officers, 
 with their string of fleet-footed horses were participating in the 
 series of mid-summer races in the various cities. I attended 
 several "Herren Eeiter" race meetings. Germany was at peace ! 
 And to my personal knowledge this was the state of affairs until 
 July 30th. Does that look as though the Kaiser premeditated 
 war or does it look as though he felt confident that he could 
 successfully counsel and preserve Peace, as he had done so 
 many times during his reign of 26 years? 
 
 In the light of these established facts against whom would 
 any reasoning, thinking man charge "Premeditated Prepared- 
 ness" — Germany — or England, France and Russia? 
 
 "To THE Day.^^ 
 
 And yet in spite of these incontrovertible facts some English- 
 men persist in reiterating that for years the favorite toast in 
 German military circles was "To the Day," inferring that Ger- 
 
 19 
 
many was not only "ready" but was impatiently awaiting "the 
 day" when she would have a plausible excuse to go to war. 
 
 Grand Admiral von Tirpitz, whose standing as a man and an 
 officer precludes the possibility of prevarication, in an interview 
 with Ex-Senator Albert J. Beveridge, published in Collier's. 
 March 27th, 1915, declares this to be "an infamous lie." He 
 further asserts "I say on my honor as a man and an officer, that 
 I never heard such a toast proposed, never drank such a toast, 
 and never heard of such a toast being proposed or drunk. 
 Every honest English officer will tell you that it is a wretched 
 lie." Further it is of official record that in 1909, Prince Henry 
 of Prussia, the Kaiser's brother, in his official capacity of Gen- 
 eral Inspector of the Marine, wired to Sir Henry Lunn, a well- 
 known member of the British Nobility, that the statement rela- 
 tive to the "To The Day" toast was AN INFAMOUS LIE. 
 
 What more convincing evidence does any reasonable man 
 
 ^ ^ * The Teiple Entente. 
 
 Looking at the preliminaries to this disastrous war from 
 another angle, it is important to note that as a tangible result 
 of the Young Turks' revolt in 1908 at Constantinople, the Sultan 
 was forced to grant a new constitution according to which both 
 Bulgaria and Bosnia-Herzegovina were to send their represen- 
 tatives to the Turkish Parliament; but Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
 preferring Austrian to Turkish control, renounced the Sultan's 
 nominal suzerainty in October of that year, much to the dis- 
 gruntlement of Russia. During the next four years Austria- 
 Hungary gave to Bosnia-Herzegovina a local constitution to- 
 gether with representative institutions, while Germany made 
 Alsace-Lorraine a State of the Empire and admitted her repre- 
 sentatives to the Reichstag. Meanwhile Russia had recovered 
 from her Japanese defeat, France had perfected her military 
 organization, and England's jealousy of Germany's rapid 
 growth as a great commercial factor, became still more acute. 
 England, thereupon, joined hands with Russia and France and 
 
 20 
 
the "Triple Entente" was born. Theoretically the purpose of the 
 Triple Entente was "to forever preserve the i)eaceful balance 
 of power." Current history proves that its real reason for 
 existence was to try to crush the two great Teutonic Powers — 
 Germany and Austria-Hungary, who, with Italy had formed, 
 many years earlier, the "Triple Alliance" for mutual defense. 
 Perhaps a more illuminating title for the new Anglo-Franco- 
 Russian offensive Alliance would have been the "Triple Con- 
 spiracy." Eacially, culturally and regally — for her reigning 
 family comes from Teutonic stock — England's logical Alliance 
 would have been with Germany. But it has been well said that 
 "Politics makes strange bedfellows." 
 
 HiLAIBB BELLO<ys ViBWS. 
 
 To quote that eminent English historian, Hilaire Belloc, 
 "England came to an arrangement with France whereby she 
 should have a free hand in Egypt and France should be sup- 
 ported by England in the occupation of Morocco. * * ♦ to 
 the manifest loss of Germany's colonial ambition. She gave all 
 that is vital to Russian control. She forgot her old anxiety 
 about the Indian frontier; she lost her old and hitherto un- 
 broken policy of supporting Turkey in Europe. When the war 
 came, she was with the French in supporting the Balkan pow- 
 ers, The Little Nations.' " 
 
 The Skevian Climax. 
 
 But let us come still nearer to the Prologue to Act I of this 
 terrible Tragedy, to be presented in the Theatre of War. Servia 
 is the Mexico of Europe, — the hot-bed of revolutions, assassina- 
 tions and intrigue. It must be remembered that Servia for 
 many years so persistently stirred up international animosity 
 and on a number of occasions so nearly succeeded in precipitat- 
 ing a European war that all the Great Powers lost patience with 
 her. England went so far at one time as to refuse to send a 
 diplomatic representative to the Servian Court. 
 
 21 
 
Servia had defeated the Turks. With Russia's connivance 
 and guidance she planned for a new Slavic Empire which should 
 border the sea and include all of Austria's Slavic possessions, 
 — an immense forward stride for Russia's Pan- Slavic program. 
 If consummated it meant Austria's disruption and the crumb- 
 ling of Austria's power. 
 
 In the midst of this Slavic scheming and as a hurried climax 
 to the underhanded plot against the integrity of the Austrian 
 Empire came the world-startling murder of Austria's Heir- 
 Apparent, the Archduke Ferdinand and his wife at Sarajevo 
 on June 28th, 1914. The Sarajevo murder was but one of an 
 unending series of efforts to embroil Europe in war. Persis- 
 tent investigations proved beyond question that the murder- 
 plot was planned by high Servian officials at Belgrade and 
 it is claimed, with the knowledge of Russia. This was not the 
 act of a fanatic or a madman but only one of a series of four 
 carefully, simultaneously laid plots all with the avowed purpose 
 of assassinating Ferdinand. Austria made several unsuccess- 
 ful attempts to induce Servia to agree to an immediate official 
 investigation, but Servia diplomatically temporized at the re- 
 quest of Russia. Austria had not forgotten that Servia 
 killed her own King and Queen in cold blood and that the mur- 
 derers were never punished. Neither had she forgotten that 
 during the reign of the murdered King Alexander, the present 
 Servian King lived in Switzerland at the expense of Russia 
 and that his hurried assumption of Servia's crown was at the 
 command of Russia — not at the authoritative call of the Servian 
 people or officials. 
 
 Knowing that the Servians, having refused to punish the 
 murderers of their own King, could not be expected to punish 
 either the murderers of Ferdinand or those who instigated the 
 vile plot, Austria demanded representation on the proposed jury 
 of investigation but this Servia's "honor" could not and would 
 not tolerate. Austria's demand was justified and not without 
 precedent. Did we not demand the same privilege in the Ben- 
 
 22 
 
ton case in Mexico? It must be evident to every fair-minded 
 person that this was not a subject for arbitration. A foul mur- 
 der had been committed. It was a case that deserved investi- 
 gation, that called for reparation, that demanded the punish- 
 ment of the guilty. As Servia, backed by Russia, refused Aus- 
 tria's just demands there was but one other course for Austria 
 
 to take. AusTRiA^s Only Alternative. 
 
 Therefore, Austria under great provocation and in self- 
 protection, adopted the only other alternative. But before 
 starting her expedition to Servia, Austria informed that coun- 
 try that her only purpose was to properly avenge the death of 
 Ferdinand by punishing all of those connected with the das- 
 tardly crime and at the same time Austria guaranteed to all the 
 European Powers, that that was and would be the extreme 
 limit of her proposed punitive expedition. All the European 
 Powers, save Russia, apparently agreed to let Austria and 
 Servia settle their own family quarrel in their own way and 
 without interference on their part. Russia alone objected. 
 The Russian minister of Foreign Affairs, Sazanof said : "Rus- 
 sia could not possibly permit the Servian- Austrian dispute to be 
 confined to the parties concerned." 
 
 The Kaiser in Norway. 
 It is an incontrovertible fact that during the crisis following 
 the assassination of Ferdinand, the Kaiser was on his annual 
 outing in Norway and did not return to Germany until a few 
 days before war was declared. He was confident that the Ser- 
 vian episode could and would be definitely disposed of by the 
 two countries most vitally concerned. His absence from Ger- 
 many at that time is another indisputable proof that Germany 
 had no idea of going to war, as has been so often claimed. 
 
 The Kaiser Mediates. 
 At the Czar's request the Kaiser, upon his return to Berlin 
 from Norway, began to mediate between Austria and Servia, 
 
 23 
 
for Eussia at once made Servians cause her own. And 
 with that "Cossack duplicity," w^hich is infamously historic, 
 even while he apparently welcomed the Kaiser^s Peace over- 
 tures, the Czar, bountifully supplied with French capital, 
 began to perfect the mobilization of his troops against both 
 Germany and Austria. The long-dreaded ultimate crisis of 
 Slav against Teuton had arrived. The Kaiser made four ap- 
 peals to the Czar to stop mobilization and not to move his 
 troops towards and across the frontier, but the Czar kept on 
 mobilizing. The Kaiser also offered to urge Austria to begin 
 new negotiations with Servia — Servia being then on the point 
 of yielding — with the avowed purpose of preserving peace by 
 preventing war. The last message of the Kaiser to the Czar, 
 when read in connection with those that immediately preceded 
 it, clearly proves that this is not the Kaiser's war. It also, with 
 equal directness of convincing evidence places the initial blame 
 where it belongs — on the Czar. In his final appeal to the Czar 
 the Kaiser said: "My efforts to maintain the Peace of the 
 world have reached their limit. It will not be I who am re- 
 sponsible for the calamity which threatens the whole world. 
 Even at this moment it lies in thy power to prevent it. Nobody 
 threatens the honor and power of Eussia, which could well have 
 waited for the result of my mediation. . . . The Peace of 
 Europe can still be maintained by thee, if Eussia decides to 
 cease her military measures which threaten Germany and 
 Austria-Hungary." 
 
 Eussia Began the Wae. 
 
 It must be remembered that, while the Kaiser's personal 
 efforts to preserve Peace were going on, Eussian troops had 
 already crossed the German frontier and marched into German 
 territory (August 1st.) Thus Eussia began the war against 
 
 ermany. Germany^s Ultimatum. 
 
 It must also be remembered that Germany, being aware of 
 the military activities of France and the massing of her troops 
 
 24 
 
along the German and Belgian frontiers, instructed her ambas- 
 sadors at Paris and at St. Petersburg to notify the French and 
 Russian governments that, unless their military measures would 
 be discontinued within 12 hours, Germany would mobilize her 
 army. At the same time the German Ambassador at Paris was 
 instructed to demand from the French Government a declaration 
 within 18 hours, whether France would remain neutral in a 
 Russo-German war. France replied she would do that which 
 her interests demanded. A few hours later, August 1st, 5 P. M., 
 the mobilization of the entire French Army and Navy was 
 ordered and on the following morning France opened hostilities. 
 Russia's answer never reached Germany. 
 
 England^s Insincere Negotiations. 
 
 In this connection it is proper to call attention to an official 
 letter written by the Belgian Minister at St. Petersburg to the 
 Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs at Brussels on July 30th, 
 1914, and sent by courier to Berlin and there mailed to a private 
 address in Brussels. This letter never reached its destination, 
 owing to the interruption of mails when war was declared, and 
 it was later on opened at the Berlin Dead-letter Office, so as to 
 return it to the writer. This official letter, sent in an unofficial 
 envelope, clearly establishes the elsewhere proven fact that Eng- 
 land's negotiations with Germany were absolutely insincere 
 and intended not only to give France and Russia more time for 
 preparation but also to create the impression in America as 
 well as elsewhere in the world, that England was honestly try- 
 ing to preserve European Peace. It, with equal clearness, 
 establishes the duplicity of the Czar and emphatically, though 
 unknowingly, confirms the German contention, elsewhere al- 
 luded to in detail, that, while the Czar apparently encouraged 
 the Kaiser to plan for Peace, he secretly perfected mobilization. 
 The Belgian Minister to St. Petersburg assured his Brussels 
 confrere: "It is, however, unquestionably true that Germany 
 has tried hard here as well as in Vienna to find some way of 
 
 25 
 
preventing a general conflict. England originally let it be 
 known that she was not to be dragged into the conflict but today 
 St. Petersburg has positive assurance that England will sup- 
 port France." 
 
 It is indeed the irony of fate that it fell to the lot of a 
 Belgian Minister to expose the hollowness of England's virtuous 
 indignation at the violation of Belgium's neutrality and show 
 the flimsiness of her casus belli. 
 
 England^'s Real Casus Belli. 
 To prove the verity of my contention that England's insen- 
 sate jealousy of Germany's commercial success was a more 
 potent casus belli than her righteous indignation at the so- 
 called violation of Belgian neutrality it is noteworthy that her 
 first act after war was declared was to try to capture or sink 
 merchant ships flying the German flag in all parts of the world, 
 regardless of the fact that she thus temporarily paralyzed the 
 world's commerce. In the Hamburg harbor alone, the port 
 least of all loved by Englishmen ever since through German 
 enterprise Hamburg had wrested from London and Liverpool 
 the proud distinction of being the greatest world-port — about 
 1200 idle merchant ships rode at anchor afraid to go to sea 
 for fear of capture. Our own New York harbor gave haven to 
 a mighty fleet of ocean fliers and freighters. Not only did 
 England thus throttle Germany but both England and France 
 vigorously protested against the proposed purchase by Amer- 
 icans of certain German vessels berthed in our New York harbor. 
 The fact that these vessels belonged to the two German lines 
 that carry about two-thirds of the ocean passenger traffic of the 
 world did not lessen England's objection to their sailing under 
 the Stars and Stripes. England is determined to be the real 
 mistress of the sea. She aims to be not only Neptune's naval 
 spouse but also his commercial consort. She is just as unwill- 
 ing to allow Germany to surpass her in the export world as she 
 is to allow "Uncle Sam" to buy a ready-made merchant marine 
 and thus become at once an oceanic competitor. 
 
 26 
 
The Violation of Bblgium^s Neutrality 
 
 has been played tip in the headlines of the Anglo-American 
 press as England^s overwhelming casus belli. But let us test 
 Britain's logic in the white-light of historic fact presented by 
 Professor Emeritus John W. Burgess, of the Department of 
 Political Science and Constitutional Law of Columbia Univer- 
 sity, N. Y., in the "Vital Issue" of October 4th, 1914. Prof. 
 Burgess says : 
 
 "So much has been said about 'Belgian Neutrality,' 
 so much assumed, and it has been spoken of as such a 
 sacred thing, that it may be well to examine the basis 
 of it and get an exact idea of its scope. It is not a moral 
 question. It is a question of truth. It is a question 
 purely of international agreement and we must find for 
 it such an agreement and the agreement must not have 
 been abrogated nor have become, by change of conditions, 
 obsolete. Of course, by the term 'Belgian Neutrality' 
 is meant guaranteed neutrality, not simply the 'general 
 neutrality of all states not at war,' at a time when other 
 states are at war. 
 
 "On the 19th day of April, 1839, Belgium and Hol- 
 land which had from 1815 to 1830 formed the United 
 Kingdom of the Netherlands, signed a treaty of separa- 
 tion from, and independence of, each other. It is in this 
 treaty that the original pledge of Belgian neutrality is to 
 be found. The clause in the treaty reads: 'Belgium in 
 the limits above described shall form an independent 
 neutral state and shall be bound to observe the same 
 neutrality towards all other states.' On the same day 
 and at the same place, London, a treaty, known in the 
 history of diplomacy as the 'Quintuple Treaty,' was 
 signed by Great Britain, France, Prussia, Austria and 
 Russia, approving and adopting the treaty between Bel- 
 gium and Holland. A little later, May 11th, the German 
 
 27 
 
Confederation, of which both Prussia and Austria were 
 states, also ratified this treaty. 
 
 "In the year 1866 the German Confederation was dis- 
 solved by the short war between Prussia and Austria. 
 In 1867 the ^North German Union' was formed, of which 
 Prussia was the largest state. 
 
 "Did these changes abrogate the guarantee of the 
 Treaty of 1839, or make it obsolete? The test of this 
 came in the year 1870, at the beginning of hostilities 
 between France and the North German Union. Great 
 Britain, the power most interested in the maintenance 
 of Belgian neutrality, seems to have had considerable 
 apprehension about it. Mr. Gladstone, then Prime Min- 
 ister, said in the House of Commons on the 2d of August, 
 1870: ^I am not able to subscribe to the doctrine of 
 those who have held in this House what plainly amounts 
 to an assertion that the simple fact of the existence of 
 a guarantee is binding on every party to it, irrespective 
 altogether of the particular position in which it may find 
 itself at the time when the occasion for acting on the 
 guarantee arises.' 
 
 "Acting on this view, the British government then 
 sought and procured from the French government, and 
 from the government of the North German Union sepa- 
 rate but identical treaties, ratified on the 9th and 26th 
 of August, 1870, respectively, guaranteeing the neutral- 
 ity of Belgium during the period of the war between 
 France and the North German Union (the so-called 
 Franco-Prussian war), which had just broken out, and 
 for one year from the date of its close. In these treaties 
 Great Britain limited the possible operation of her mili- 
 tary forces in maintaining the neutrality of Belgium to 
 the territory of the state of Belgium. 
 
 "These treaties expired in the year 1872, and the pres- 
 ent German Empire has never signed any treaty guar- 
 
 28 
 
anteeing the neutrality of Belgium. If the Treaty of 
 1839 had become so unreliable in 1870 as to require, in 
 the opinion of the British government, the new treaties 
 in 1870 in order to make sure of the guarantee of Belgian 
 neutrality, what shall we say about it in 1914, 42 years 
 after these treaties of 1870 have expired, and after the 
 North German Union, which was party to them, has given 
 way to the present German Empire? 
 
 "Finally, The Hague Conference of 1907 drafted a 
 convention which reads: 
 
 " 'The territory of neutral powers is inviolable. Bel- 
 ligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of 
 either munitions of war or supplies across the territory 
 of a neutral power.' 
 
 "Great Britain, Germany, Austro-Hungary and Italy 
 refused to sign it and did not sign it. Russia was not 
 represented. 
 
 "Perhaps we may now somewhat more clearly under- 
 stand why the German Chancellor referred to the guaran- 
 tee of Belgian neutrality as a 'scrap of paper.' At any 
 rate, these facts, taken together with the facts that Great 
 Britain refused to pledge her own neutrality in the pres- 
 ent war even on the condition that Germany would agree 
 not to move her troops through Belgium and not to attack 
 the north coast of France, and declined to formulate any 
 conditions upon which she would remain neutral, clearly 
 reduce England's much vaunted altruistic reason for en- 
 tering upon this war to a diplomatic subterfuge." 
 
 No Sane Person 
 
 — says Harry Carr in the "Los Angeles Sunday Times" — "No 
 sane person believes that England entered this war out of a 
 chivalric determination to protect Belgium. England viewed 
 with Christian forbearance the violation of Luxemburg's 
 neutrality; she herself violated the neutrality of Chili with a 
 
 29 
 
light heart." Mr. Carr here refers to the "Dresden incident" for 
 which England now acknowledges her culpability, although 
 at first, as usual, she vehemently declared that she was within 
 "her rights" in her attack on the virtually interned Dresden, 
 and has now offered to Chili, what England officially declares 
 is "a full and ample apology." 
 
 England Will Blame Grey. 
 
 In the last analysis all England will justly blame Sir 
 Edward Grey not only for her participation in this war on the 
 flimsy pretext of the violation of Belgium's neutrality but more 
 bitterly because he neither accepted nor reported to the Cabinet 
 the last offer made by Germany. Not only did Grey reject Ger- 
 many's bona-fide offer to absolutely respect Belgium's neutral- 
 ity and to guarantee the integrity of France, if England would 
 guarantee her own neutrality and also try to persuade the Czar 
 not to interfere with Austria and Servia in the localized settle- 
 ment of their own troubles, but he refused even to discuss with 
 the German Ambassador Germany's request that Sir Edward 
 Grey propose his own conditions, that would secure England's 
 neutrality. To make matters still worse and prove conclusively 
 that Grey was, in this instance, acting on his own initiative, 
 he did not report this most important of all diplomatic confer- 
 ences to his official colleagues, nor did he refer to it in his 
 speech before Parliament. Had Grey then been true to his 
 King and his country, and had he not previously committed 
 England, in the event of war, to support Russia and France, 
 and had he met Germany's peaceful overtures and co-operated 
 with the Kaiser, who up to the last minute of the eleventh hour, 
 worked earnestly and unceasingly for Peace, this great war 
 might, and prol ably would have been prevented and in the 
 meanwhile the Austro-Servian imbroglio would have been set- 
 tled. But evidently Grey, imbued with the "crush-Germany" 
 idea, to the exclusion of all pacific methods of diplomacy, threw 
 down the gauntlet and — England went to War. 
 
 30 
 
Two days before England declared war on Germany (I 
 refer to an article of F. Hugh O'Donnell, a former member of 
 Parliament, in the "New Witness"), the Asquith cabinet 
 ordered the British Fleet to attack Germany in defense of 
 France and in furtherance of the French naval action in the 
 Mediterranean against Austria and if necessary against Italy. 
 Yet England was then and for two days more, officially at peace 
 with Germany. On August 1st the British Ambassador at 
 Paris informed England that France had ordered a general 
 mobilization. On August 2d the British Ambassador at Berlin 
 informed his government that "Germany and Russia are now in 
 a state of war." 
 
 England at once joined France against Germany and as- 
 sured France on August 2d that she would strike at Germany 
 the instant a German Fleet came "into the Channel or through 
 the North Sea to undertake hostile operations against French 
 coasts or shipping." Not a word about Belgium. That came 
 two days later. England thus officially went on record by an 
 act of war two days before she actually declared war against 
 Germany, and at least one day before German troops reached 
 the Belgian frontier. Does not this irrefutable evidence prove 
 that England's indignation at the "violation of Belgian neu- 
 trality" was — to quote Prof. Burgess — "a diplomatic subter- 
 
 fuge"? 
 
 'fe 
 
 Belgium^s Friendship for France. 
 
 Belgium has been very partial to France for years. Her 
 best people speak French in preference to Flemish. Brussels 
 prides herself on being "Little Paris." French money is gladly 
 accepted everywhere in Belgium. 
 
 French Reciprocity. 
 
 It is a conceded fact that French army officers organized and 
 drilled the Belgian army and not only planned and supervised 
 the construction and equipment of her system of fortifications, 
 but also were practically in command of her garrisons. It is 
 
 31 
 
also said to be a fact that French troops in Belgian uniforms 
 were in Belgium long before Germany asked permission to pass 
 through on her way to France. French prisoners of war make 
 the statement that regiment No. 45 was stationed at Namur in 
 Belgium and that French troops were also at Liege on July 
 30th — two days before Germany mobilized her army. It is 
 equally well established that at the very beginning of the pres- 
 ent conflict and before Germany passed the Belgian border, 
 Belgium without protest, permitted French aviators to cross 
 her kingdom so as to drop bombs into Cologne and Nuremberg. 
 
 King Albert's Scheme. 
 It was known in Germany that King Albert of Belgium, 
 acting for the Triple Entente, early in 1914 endeavored to unite 
 the neutral countries of Europe (those not members of the 
 Triple Entente or the Triple Alliance) for the purpose of com- 
 pletely isolating Germany and Austria-Hungary. Holland's 
 suspicions being aroused, the plan was not carried out. When 
 at the end of July the general situation grew threatening, the 
 Belgian Ministers became greatly alarmed. Unknown to them. 
 King Albert, at the suggestion of Lord Curzon, sent a despatch 
 to King George of England, asking him to protect Belgium's 
 
 neu ra i y. q.ej^j^^p^ty^s Friendship for Belgium. 
 
 And yet in 1866, during the Bismarck regime France 
 repeatedly sought his collusion and co-operation either for the 
 entire acquisition of Belgium or her partition, but the Iron 
 Chancellor sternly refused to be a party to the scheme and 
 instead exposed France to the universal condemnation of the 
 rest of Europe. Thus Germany protected Belgium against 
 French territorial expansion ! That Belgium conveniently for- 
 got Germany's good offices through Bismarck was shown when 
 in her great strategic emergency Germany pleaded with Bel- 
 gium for a peaceful right of way through her country and guar- 
 anteed to pay in full for all damages caused by the passage 
 of her army, and also guaranteed Belgium's integrity. 
 
 32 
 
All Europe Knew. 
 
 For years all Europe, including Belgium, knew that in the 
 event of a war between Germany on one side and France and 
 Russia on the other, the only feasible plan, in view of the strong 
 cordon of French frontier fortifications, was for Germany to 
 first attack France through Belgium and then hurry east to 
 meet Russia. Indeed Gladstone clearly stated to the House 
 of Commons in 1870 that in the event of such a conflict Bel- 
 gium's formal neutrality might be technically violated. 
 
 All Europe also knew that if France ever attacked Ger- 
 many she would have found the Neubreisach-Strassburg-Metz 
 fortifications exceedingly difiBcult to overcome on a direct 
 march from her own frontier fortresses and that a flank move- 
 ment through Belgium was inevitable. England, too, officially 
 recognized the Belgian route as the most feasible for her to take 
 in the event of an Anglo-Teutonic war. Even Belgium herself 
 recognized the fact that she was Europe's natural battle ground 
 but while she strongly fortified her Liege and Namur against 
 Germany her frontier facing France was unfortified. 
 
 Who Is To Blame.? 
 
 Note the sequence of the following authenticated facts in 
 determining who took the direful initiative. 
 
 August 1st — Russian troops crossed the Grerman fron- 
 tier at Eichenried, Miloslaw, Schwidden and Johannis- 
 burg. 
 
 France and Germany mobilize their armies. 
 
 August 2nd — Germany declares war against Russia. 
 French troops cross Alsatian frontier into Germany 
 at Mtinster, Markirch, Diedolshausen and Saales. 
 German Ambassador at Brussels reports massing of 
 French troops along the Maas-Givet-Namur line — evi- 
 dently for the purpose of entering Germany via Belgium. 
 England orders her Fleet to attack Germany. 
 
 33 
 
Germany asks permission to march her troops through 
 Belgium. 
 
 August 3rd — Germany declares war against France. 
 
 Germany invades Belgium to reach French territory. 
 
 August 4th — England declares war against Germany. 
 
 And that was the sombre stage-setting for Act 
 First of this terrible tragedy — ^^ Europe Bled White, '^ 
 
 Germany^s Last Resort. 
 
 All fair-minded men should conclude that Germany, realizing 
 her dangerous position, beset on all sides by enemies deter- 
 mined upon her destruction, was compelled to adopt the only 
 feasible plan and strike at France through Belgium, so as to 
 more quickly and effectively defend herself against the pur- 
 posed attack of France. It was Germany's only possible course 
 then, because delay in reaching French territory in that 
 crisis spelled probable defeat and eventual national annihila- 
 tion. Further from America's own ideas of international law 
 Germany was, under the circumstances, justified in disregard- 
 ing the claimed neutrality of Belgium. 
 
 U. S. Supreme Court Ruling. 
 
 Arthur von Briesen points out that in the Chinese Exclusion 
 cases our own Supreme Court ruled "that circumstances may 
 arise which would not only justify the government in disregard- 
 ing their stipulations, but demand in the interests of the country 
 that it should do so, there can be no question. Unexpected 
 events may call for a change in the policy of the country." 
 
 England's position in 1870 with regard to Belgian neutrality 
 as pointed out by Prof. Burgess shows that she too reserved 
 the right to act as "her interests" required. 
 
 If both England and America claim the right to act as their 
 interests demand, on what ground can either of them object 
 to Germany's exercise of the same prerogative? 
 
 34 
 
Germany Justified. 
 
 In speaking to a high official, I expressed my regret that 
 circumstances beyond her control and conditions not of her 
 making forced Germany to violate Belgium's nominal neutral- 
 ity. I realized that Americans, not knowing the inside facts, 
 would severely criticize Germany and many would never for- 
 give her for it. My friend, the official, replied that "irrespec- 
 tive of the necessity from the military standpoint there are 
 still more powerful reasons why Germany crossed the Belgian 
 frontier and they will come to light in due course of time. 
 These facts when made public will convince all fair minded 
 men that Germany's action was even more than justified." Ever 
 since that conversation, knowing well that many Americans, 
 although perhaps convinced that Germany was forced to go 
 to war, were against Germany because by her so-called "viola- 
 tion" many Belgian lives were lost and much property was de- 
 stroyed, I have been watching for the appearance of the power- 
 ful "reasons why" mentioned by my official friend. They have 
 now come to light. They prove that Belgium is more than 
 guilty and England's action in declaring war on Germany in 
 view of these authentic facts is simply monstrous infamy. 
 
 Belgian Strategical Points. 
 
 To prove that both England and France foresaw that war 
 was imminent and that their military tacticians recognized and 
 admitted that in the event of their purposed attack on Germany 
 — Russia in the meanwhile to work toward Germany's eastern 
 frontier — Germany would have to choose between the longer 
 because more strongly fortified frontier route to Paris or the 
 comparatively short because less fortified route through Bel- 
 gium and that the latter was by far the more feasible, the 
 General Staffs of both England and France sometime ago care- 
 fully mapped out every Belgian strategical point. 
 
 35 
 
English Intervention in Belgium. 
 
 The archives of the Belgian General Staff at Brussels when 
 searched by the German military authorities, were found to 
 contain, among other documents, a portfolio inscribed "Eng- 
 lish Intervention in Belgium." One of the enclosed documents 
 dated April 10th, 1906, gave in detail and with the sanction 
 of Sir James M. Grierson, chief of the British General Staff 
 the proposed landing of 100,000 English troops at Dunkirk, 
 Calais and Boulogne and the transportation to and provision 
 for these troops in Belgium in the event of a war between France 
 and Germany. Another document detailed British plans for 
 sending supplies and provisions by way of Antwerp after Eng- 
 land had destroyed the German navy while a third document 
 mapped out the strategical positions of the French army and 
 demonstrated that a Franco-Belgian agreement existed. Taken 
 together, these documents indisputably prove that the British 
 Government had fully determined, in the event of a Franco- 
 German war, to at once invade Belgium without even consulting 
 Belgium's wishes in the matter. Further, as Dr. Dernburg has 
 clearly pointed out, "the British plans even considered landing 
 by way of the Scheldt, thus violating also Dutch neutrality." 
 The Belgian Minister at Berlin, Baron Greindl, protested that 
 it was not safe to trust to the British and French to preserve 
 Belgium's neutrality. Both of these powers violently protested 
 when the Dutch Government proposed to fortify the mouth of 
 the Scheldt in 1906. When the Balkan crisis became acute in 
 1912 Col. Bridges of England informed Gen. Jungbluth, chief 
 of the Belgian General Staff that England was ready to strike 
 and to land 160,000 men in Belgium. Gen. Jungbluth pro- 
 tested that Belgium's permission would have to be obtained. Col. 
 Bridges' reply was that England knew that, but as Belgium was 
 not strong enough to protect herself, England would land her 
 troops whether Belgium said Yes or No. It is therefore and 
 thereby indisputably established that England was ready as 
 
long ago as 1912 to invade Belgium, in case of a European war. 
 The English White Book chronicles the fact that on 
 August 1st, 1914, Prince Lichnowsky, the German Ambassador 
 at London, asked Sir Edward Grey if England was willing to 
 remain neutral if Germany agreed not to march through Bel- 
 gium, and that Grey evaded a direct reply. Grey then knew 
 that his arrangements with France to use her fleet in the Medi- 
 terranean to protect England's food supplies from that section, 
 England to protect the French coast in the meanwhile, and his 
 assurances to Kussia of support precluded the possibility of 
 English neutrality in the event of war between Germany and 
 either Russia or France. As a matter of fact it was only Ger- 
 many's prompt action at Liege that prevented England from 
 landing troops and invading Belgium at once and thus "violat- 
 ing Belgium's neutrality" herself. 
 
 The Deluded Belgians. 
 
 The Belgians are devout Catholics. I have been personally 
 assured by a prominent priest of the Catholic Church that in the 
 early days of the war, when Germany "knocked at the gate" 
 and asked for entry and peaceful passage through Belgium, 
 Belgians, disguised as Priests, led the Belgian mob in furious, 
 though unsuccessful attacks on the German ranks. A Priest's 
 word is Law in Belgium. Disregarding the enormous odds in 
 favor of seasoned soldiers, when pitted against even the most 
 frenzied mob, these deluded Belgians, believing that their lead- 
 ers were really Priests, hurled themselves with impotent fury 
 upon the Germans only to be defeated. 
 
 At the very beginning of hostilities the Belgian people were 
 told that the Germans demanded that the Belgians fight with 
 them and against the French and English. They never knew the 
 truth until three months later when the Belgian Gray Book was 
 published. It was then too late. Belgium was then a con- 
 quered country. The Belgians were deluded by false diplomacy 
 and worthless British promises. Had the truth been known to 
 
 37 
 
them when Germany first asked permission to peacefully cross 
 her borders her present plight might not have resulted. Bel- 
 gium could have saved her life blood and her treasures just 
 as Luxemburg has; and her National Honor would not have 
 been sullied either by her gracious acceptance of what, in all 
 European military circles, was regarded as "the inevitable." 
 And the fact that these planned tactics were on file in Brussels 
 as above asserted, has been established, for Germany has pub- 
 lished photographic reproductions of the original documents. 
 These documents positively prove that England by promis- 
 ing support that she knew she could not and would not give to 
 Belgium induced the Belgian King to betray his own people. 
 England said "Hold Liege and Namur against the Germans 
 and in thirteen days we will send you 160,000 men." Belgium 
 would not now be a scene of desolation but for that English 
 encouragement. Her heroic, though futile, attempt to main- 
 tain her position as a "buffer" to England's east coast has cost 
 Belgium dearly. The German Ambassador asserts : 
 
 "The Anglo-Belgian military agreement existing since 
 1906 proves that by its own free will 'Neutral Belgium' 
 accepted the British offer and decided to fight on the side 
 of the Allies. England instigated Belgium to go to 
 war and when the time came to protect the unfortunate 
 little country it was left to its own resources. Ger- 
 many, on the other hand, who had heard of Belgium's 
 agreement with England at the beginning of this war, 
 offered to protect Belgium and to pay full indemnity for 
 all her losses and Germany would have religiously kept 
 her promise. The documents found in Brussels further 
 prove that as far back as 1906 England was systematic- 
 ally trying to bring about the coalition which has now 
 forced war on Germany." 
 
 Who Was the Violator? 
 It is stated on credible authority that during the summer 
 
of 1914 and before the assassination of Ferdinand, Lord Kitch- 
 ener "went secretly to Belgium to arrange with the Belgian 
 headquarters staff about the disposition of the English expe- 
 ditionary forces." As a matter of fact, Belgium thereby de- 
 stroyed her own proclaimed neutrality and therefore as her 
 neutrality no longer actually existed England's loudly heralded 
 and virtuously justified excuse for summarily declaring war 
 on Germany does not ring true, especially when one recalls 
 that on a much slighter pretext England entered the port of 
 Copenhagen, destroyed the surprised Danish fleet and com- 
 placently occupied that port until the end of the Napoleonic 
 wars. Yet when Germany, who had often and unmistakably 
 shown her respect and friendship for Belgium, asked for a 
 I)eaceful passage through her territory, Belgium did not even 
 file a formal protest but supported by England and France she 
 began to fight against "the German invasion." 
 
 Twice Belgium was given the opportunity to stop fighting 
 and each time Germany guaranteed Belgium's territorial in- 
 tegrity provided she in turn granted a peaceful passage through 
 her country to the German Army, but both times Belgium 
 refused. The lamentable results that followed are therefore 
 entirely due to Belgian obstinacy plus Anglo-French promises 
 of military support. It was not, therefore, Germany's invasion 
 of Belgian territory but the collusion of France and England 
 with Belgium that actually produced the violation of Belgian 
 neutrality and that fact makes England's course still more dis- 
 honorable. 
 
 British Inconsistency. 
 
 To be consistent, England at least should have criticized her 
 Asiatic ally for the violation of China's neutrality in occupying 
 Chinese territory in connection with her attack upon Kiao- 
 Chow, but did she? There was neither an emergent necessity 
 nor a recognized tactical need for Japan's invasion of all of the 
 Chinese territory she occupied. On the other hand all tac- 
 ticians and many statesmen including Gladstone acknowledged 
 
 39 
 
that Germany's only practicable route to France was via Bel- 
 gium. In the one case England, by acquiescence, endorses a 
 needless violation of neutrality; in the other case she declares 
 war. 
 
 No thinking person would be so credulous as to believe that 
 if France had violated Belgium's much discussed ''neutrality" 
 England would have declared war on France. 
 
 In other words, England's virtuous indignation was aimed 
 at the violator, not at the violation ! 
 
 "A Scrap of Papbe.'^ 
 
 "Tearing up a scrap of paper" is the way some American 
 newspaper men refer to the breaking of a treaty between Na- 
 tions. These writers insist that the entry of Germany into 
 Belgium is quite an unpardonable sin. They either do not 
 know or have forgotten that England, only four years after 
 having signed the Treaty of Berlin, occupied Egypt, although 
 at that time Egypt was a part of the Turkish Empire whose 
 integrity this very treaty of Berlin guaranteed. Japan " Japan- 
 ized" both Korea and Manchuria after the Russo-Japanese war, 
 although she had already guaranteed China's integrity. Eng- 
 land protested against Germany's "invasion" of Belgium, yet 
 did England observe the neutrality of Turkey when three days 
 later she seized several dreadnoughts building in British yards 
 for Turkey and already paid for by Turkey? Did England 
 observe neutrality when she sank the German steamer, "Kaiser 
 Wilhelm der Grosse" in the neutral harbor Rio del Oro, within 
 the three mile limit, or when she sent her aviators across Swiss 
 territory to throw bombs into Friedrichshaf en ? 
 
 The Dresden incident still more forcibly illustrates Eng- 
 land's disregard of all precedents and international law. An- 
 chored in the neutral Chilian harbor of Juan Fernandez Island, 
 her machinery damaged and without coal and about a quarter 
 of a mile from shore, the Dresden's commander, when the Brit- 
 ish squadron opened fire upon his ship, hoisted the Parliamen- 
 
 40 
 
tary flag and advised the British commander that the Dresden 
 was in neutral waters and therefore immune from attack. The 
 Briton's reply was that his orders were to sink the Dresden, no 
 matter where and to let the diplomats fight it out afterwards. 
 The Dresden's commander ordered his crew ashore but blew up 
 his vessel rather than give the enemy the satisfaction of sinking 
 her. Is that War or Piracy? The captain of the Chilian ves- 
 sel Argentina confirmed the above report as strictly in accord- 
 ance with the facts. The Argentina was close to the Dresden 
 and was hit by British shells. England now concedes the truth 
 — mirahile dictu — and has "apologized" to Chili. She thereby 
 answers our query — "Is it War or Piracy!" 
 
 China issued an edict against the cultivation and use of 
 Opium. Our country and England agreed to help her. Our 
 country passed and still enforces most rigid anti-opium laws. 
 But England broke faith because the opium traffic was worth 
 110,000,000 a year to India and India now ships enormous quan- 
 tities of opium into China, regardless of protest. England de- 
 manded, and got, as an indemnity the island on which Hong- 
 Kong stands, for the destruction by China of several shiploads 
 of opium from India consigned to Chinese merchants. 
 
 These few historic episodes, taken at random, clearly prove 
 that Treaty-breaking is not strictly a German enterprise, for 
 the history of the past century shows that practically every 
 European nation has been guilty of it. 
 
 The invalidating of German Patents issued in England and 
 her colonies is another illustration of "tearing up a scrap of 
 paper." What a travesty on common decency ! What a shining 
 example of Christian Civilization! What an unanswerable 
 argument in favor of "Cultured Albion's" moral supremacy and 
 mental superiority over the "Barbaric Teuton!" 
 
 The "scrap of paper" that has afforded an excuse for so 
 many unbalanced and even vituperative editorial attacks on 
 "German Diplomacy" since August 3d, 1914 (the date when 
 Germany touched the Belgian border) is an obsolete treaty, 
 
 41 
 
whereby Belgium's neutrality was to be respected and main- 
 tained. On August 2d, while diplomatic negotiations between 
 Germany and England, on the text of this very treaty or "con- 
 tract" were in active progress, England refused "to tie her 
 hands" against Germany but agreed with France to defend the 
 northern ports of France against possible German naval at- 
 tacks. Judge Grosscup interprets the position of England 
 towards Germany as follows: "You shall not use the neutral 
 seas to attack with your navy the northern ports of France or 
 open them up to your armies. I will use my navy to prevent you 
 from the use of such neutral seas. Nor shall you reach north- 
 ern France with your armies through Belgium. I will use this 
 'contract' of neutrality to block that. My obligation toward 
 neutrality amounts to nothing on the seas ; but your obligation 
 of neutrality is everything on the land. And because Germany 
 did not submit to this double cross on her right to attack 
 France from the north, England professes to have gone into 
 the war as the champion of the cause of the inviolability of 
 treaties and of neutrality." In this "I win, you lose" crisis 
 what could Germany do, what could any self-respecting nation 
 do but "tear up the scrap of paper"? 
 
 Germany Unsheaths Hee Sword. 
 
 It is an established fact that the Kaiser hesitated to sign the 
 Declaration of War, after it was sanctioned by the Federal 
 Council, even when the time limit of the German ultimatum to 
 Russia had expired. He still hoped that something would 
 intervene to prevent this dreadful catastrophe. It was only 
 after his General Staff laid before him indisputable proofs that 
 Russia had actually crossed the frontier that, with his eyes 
 blinded with tears, he signed the declaration of war. Then and 
 not until then did the great German fighting machine begin 
 real mobilization and the Kaiser's un-mobilized troops struck 
 quickly through Belgium. To have temporized then would 
 
 42 
 
have been worse than treason to the Teutonic throne, — it would 
 have been national suicide. 
 
 Germany Declared War 
 
 on Russia and France before she began operations against 
 either. That is Civilized warfare. In the Russo-Japanese war 
 Japan destroyed the Russian fleet riding at anchor at Port 
 Arthur without going through the formality of a declaration of 
 war against Russia. That is Asiatic warfare. 
 
 What Would Wb Have Done? 
 
 We Americans can best appreciate the intense diplomatic 
 crisis that precipitated the Kaiser's "Forward, March," when 
 we recall a comparatively minor crisis at Vera Cruz during 
 the recent Mexican complication. To protect non-combatant 
 interests, chiefly American, and in reparation for the mistreat- 
 ment of some of our marines we demanded a salute to our flag — 
 a demand which was never effectually enforced but which at the 
 time quite seriously jeopardized our peaceful relations with 
 Mexico. We occupied Vera Cruz without declaring war on 
 Mexico. Suppose Japan still smarting from the lash of 
 California's anti-Japanese propaganda, had made Mexico's 
 cause her own and had at once started her sea-flghters 
 towards the Pacific shore. Would any American have 
 endorsed a "watchful waiting" policy and applauded our Pres- 
 ident for refusing to sign a declaration of war until the Japan- 
 ese navy actually began to bombard San Francisco? Are not 
 the two cases essentially parallel? To carry the simile still 
 further so as to even more closely approach the situation at 
 Berlin, — suppose England had also sided with Mexico and 
 started her enormous fleet, then riding at anchor in her home 
 waters, towards Sandy Hook. Which Nation would our mili- 
 tary men have struck at first — far-off Japan or near-by Eng- 
 land? There can be but one answer and that is also the same 
 "reason why" Germany struck first at near-by France. Delay 
 
 43 
 
was dangerous. Germany's national existence, as well as that 
 of Austria-Hungary was threatened with absolute extinction 
 and, as "the die was cast" by the Triple Entente, Germany was 
 forced to unsheath her sword to defend her life and legitimate 
 interests with the blood and treasure of her own sons. 
 
 Not the Kaisee^s Wae. 
 
 But it is not the Kaiser's War; neither is it the German 
 Empire's War. This war was forced upon all Germany, for 
 the Kaiser and the people are in unison and stand shoulder to 
 shoulder against the enemy. The entire German Nation is as 
 one man in this titanic struggle. From Emperor to peasant 
 all are loyal, self-sacrificing Germans in this terrible conflict. 
 Even the millions of Germany's Socialists, who for years have 
 opposed some of the Kaiser's policies, are with him to a man in 
 this war. Although the Socialists are opposed to the monar- 
 chical form of Government and do not believe in war, 
 it is of official record that in the Reichstag, when the bill 
 authorizing an enormous war credit was presented, every 
 Socialist-member of the Reichstag enthusiastically voted 
 for it without a moment's hesitation or protest. It is 
 equally significant to add that the government loan was 
 promptly and very considerably over-subscribed for by the 
 German people. Even more noteworthy is the authentic fact 
 that within a week from the hour when the Kaiser's call "To 
 Arms" rang through the Empire, 1,300,000 able-bodied young 
 men, who, because not heretofore needed, had not yet served 
 in the army, rallied round the flag, anxious to fight for the 
 Fatherland. Every section of the Empire was represented, — 
 Alsace-Lorraine with 90,000, — University professors, students, 
 artists, musicians, physicians, EVERYBODY — even men over 
 50 volunteered. The whole German nation raised the gauntlet 
 which the Triple Entente had thrown down. Germany and 
 Austria-Hungary had to choose between a war of self-defense 
 
 44 
 
for National existence or National abdication and political 
 bankruptcy. They regretfully chose War! 
 
 John L. Stoddard, the well known lecturer, writer and trav- 
 eller, speaking of the genuine patriotism of the entire German 
 Empire, says : 
 
 "It is a people's war ♦ ♦ ♦ nor are its princes sitting 
 back, like the royal figure-heads of England and Russia, letting 
 their subjects do the fighting." 
 
 Two Gbrmanys. 
 
 In the minds of many Americans there is a belief that there 
 are two Germanys, — "the Kaiser's Germany," meaning the 
 military Autocracy, so called, and "the University's Germany," 
 meaning the intellectual, artistic "Germany of Ideals." They 
 overlook the fact that no German is more closely allied with 
 the "Germany of Ideals" than is the Kaiser. Was it not he 
 who fathered the idea of an interchange of University Pro- 
 fessors with the United States of America? Who, in current 
 times, has done more than he for the intellectual uplift, not 
 alone of Germany, but of the world at large? While such 
 bodies as the German Navy League are the natural outcome of 
 all military organizations — not excepting our own Army and 
 Navy — their liking for military display of power and efficiency 
 in actual practice has, at least in Germany, been immeasurably 
 overshadowed by the more pacific aggregation of the great ma- 
 jority of the German people. If we consent, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, that two Germanys exist, it is only so that we may em- 
 phasize the statement that "the Kaiser's Germany" — the army 
 — is fighting to protect and preserve "the University's Ger- 
 many" side by side with its logical coadjutor "Commercial 
 Germany" and that that is one of the most important reasons, 
 if not the sole reason for the existence of the so-called "Kaiser's 
 Germany." The German Army and Navy are maintained to 
 defend, protect and preserve the "Germany of Ideals" and not 
 as is so frequently said for "the domination of Europe and the 
 
 46 
 
World by the Germanic Kace." Repeatedly the Kaiser has em- 
 phatically assured the world that while it was not his intention 
 to have a Navy for aggression, he wanted one that would com- 
 mand the respect of the World. "I want to do everything pos- 
 sible to let bayonets and cannon rest; but at the same time to 
 keep our bayonets sharp and cannon ready, so that envy and 
 grief shall not disturb us in tending our garden or building our 
 beautiful house." Since the Kaiser and the German people are 
 absolutely of one mind in the present conflict the utter absurdity 
 of the misguided wish of some American sympathizers with the 
 German people that "the Kaiser might be beaten and the Ger- 
 man people win" will at once be evident. All Germany will 
 either win or lose, for there is only one Germany and that in- 
 cludes every man, woman and child, from the Kaiser to the 
 lowliest peasant. 
 
 The Most Lied- About Man. 
 
 Practically ever since the Kaiser became the head of the 
 German Empire he has been a target for an enormous amount 
 of sarcasm, criticism, abuse and persistent misrepresentation. 
 He is undoubtedly the most lied-about man of this Era. 
 
 His detractors have derided his unquestionable skill in 
 musical composition and sneeringly alluded to him as "the Im- 
 perial Bandmaster of Berlin." Those who themselves could 
 scarcely draw a straight line laughed at his art work. There 
 were those who irreverently commented upon his pronounced 
 religious proclivity. "War Lord" has been dinned into the 
 brains of the reading public particularly in England and 
 through English pens, in America, in season and out. No oppor- 
 tunity to thus create prejudice against the Kaiser was allowed 
 to escape. All advertisers know that the constant repetition of 
 a word or a phrase, even though not true, will in time be almost 
 universally convincing to the general public. For that reason 
 the Kaiser's detractors kept everlastingly at it, hoping that 
 when "the time" did come, all worth-while people in America 
 
 46 
 
particularly would be ao prejudiced against the Kaiser that 
 neither he nor the Empire would have any friends or sympathiz- 
 ers on this side of the Atlantic. That this perennial persecution 
 was to a great extent successful was clearly shown by the an- 
 tagonistic attitude toward Germany of the American press at 
 the outbreak of hostilities. Every great man is eventually 
 rightly placed in that niche of fame to which he is justly en- 
 titled and some day history will correctly concede the Kaiser, 
 those attributes, honors, and distinctions to which he is emi- 
 nently entitled and which for years have endeared him to the 
 German people. 
 
 President Nicholas Murray Butler of the Columbia Univer- 
 sity in 1913 — ^after extolling the Kaiser's character, his efforts 
 to avoid armed conflict with other nations, etc., says : ^^If the 
 German Emperor had not been horn to monarchy, he would 
 have been chosen Monarch — or chief executive — by popular vote 
 of any modern people among whom his lot might have been 
 
 cast ^^ 
 
 The Wae Lord. 
 
 The Kaiser has for years been sneeringly referred to as 
 "The War Lord." The literal English equivalent for the Ger- 
 man "Kriegs-Herr," the Kaiser's official military title, is "War 
 Chief and is synonymous with the title "Commander-in- 
 Chief," constitutionally conferred upon and in time of need 
 made operative by our own President. The Kaiser, therefore, 
 occupies exactly the same official position in connection with 
 Germany's military organization on land and sea as does our 
 President in connection with our Army and Navy. 
 
 The Kaiser a Peacemaker. 
 
 The unbiased historian of the future will convincingly chron- 
 icle the as yet not universally conceded fact that Kaiser Wilhelm 
 II did more to create and maintain Peace in the world than any 
 other man of his time. No less a distinguished promoter of 
 World Peace than Andrew Carnegie himself, only a year or so 
 
 47 
 
ago accorded to him the honorable distinction of being of all 
 men the world's greatest and most consistent Peace Advocate. 
 Dr. Benjamin Ide Wheeler, President of the University of Cal- 
 ifornia, says of his interview with the Kaiser at Potsdam in 
 June, 1913, *What Germany needed,' the Emperor said, ^was 
 assurance of permanency for her trade relations so that her 
 manufactured wares might find markets. This was to be 
 made secure by a navy. Force must be available for 
 crimes, but the real empire which Germany was to assert in 
 the world must inhere in the prestige, respect, and influence 
 which were won for her in the eyes of the world by her achieve- 
 ments in art, education, music, medicine, and the like. Ger- 
 many's well-being was peculiarly dependent on peace, because 
 war would immediately close to her all markets, widely dis- 
 tributed over the world. Under no conditions must she think 
 of increasing her territory in Europe. She wanted no more 
 sore frontiers. She had three already. Nothing but trouble 
 could come of such conditions. Germany must have loyal 
 frontiers. It must be a homogeneous body standing firm in the 
 middle of Europe persistent to keep the peace.' 
 
 "The war which all have dreaded for years has come. ♦ ♦ ♦ 
 Whoever is responsible for bringing it about or letting it come 
 about bears before the high court of humanity a heavy indict- 
 ment. History will unerringly assign its verdict. Some day 
 all men will know who it was and what it was. But whoever 
 it was and whatever it was, and however the blame may be 
 apportioned among various men and organizations of men, 
 this much can now be asserted beyond the shadow of a doubt : 
 the war came about against the interests, against the desires, 
 and against the efforts of the German Kaiser." 
 
 Ex-President Taft, in 1913, speaking of the German Em- 
 peror said : " ♦ ♦ ♦ the truth of history requires the ver- 
 dict that, considering the critically important part which has 
 been his among the nations, he has been, for the last quarter of 
 
 48 
 
a century the greatest single individual force in the practical 
 maintenance of peace in the world." 
 
 Germany^s Peaceful Attitude. 
 
 How easily Germany could have crushed France in 1875 
 when she was just recovering from Sedan and Strassburg! 
 Quite as easy would have been the humiliation of Russia while 
 the Czar was vainly trying to defeat the Mikado! What an 
 easy diplomatic problem to have incited war between France 
 and England after Fashoda! Did these critical episodes prove 
 that Germany was anxious for war or that she wanted to be 
 at Peace with the rest of the World? What could any man 
 have done more than the German Emperor did to prevent this 
 war? England could undoubtedly have induced the Czar to 
 allow Austria and Servia to settle their own quarrel without 
 Russian intervention, but did she make the effort? No! She 
 preferred to help Russia carry out her claims to be the natural 
 protector of all Slavs, ignoring the fact that the Austrian Em- 
 pire is as much Slav as German. The hollowness of Russians 
 pretenses of protectorship of all Slavs was shown in the early 
 days of the war when the Poles revolted and welcomed the 
 German and Austrian soldiers as friends. Equally significant 
 is the fact that every Pole in Germany and Austria subject to 
 military duty cheerfully joined his country's colors. 
 
 True Patriotism. 
 
 That brilliant cynic, Madame de Stael, once said "The 
 patriotism of nations ought to be selfish." That may be true 
 of some nations. It is certainly not true of Germany. Love of 
 his country, his Fatherland, is a part of every German's re- 
 ligion. Every German knows all of the words of "Die Wacht 
 am Rhein." Germans instinctively reverence their flag as they 
 do their traditions, their history, the memory of their Schiller, 
 Goethe, Schumann, Beethoven, Wagner, and an almost innum- 
 erable host of intellectual heroes who have left ineffaceable 
 
 49 
 
"footsteps in the sands of time." To most nations music is an 
 accomplishment. It is an integral part of every German's life 
 and is an indissoluble part of his religious life. But even that 
 70-year-old German patriotic song "Deutschland tiber Alles'' 
 has been maliciously mistranslated as "Germany over alP' giv- 
 ing it the sinister meaning "Germany to rule the world." Noth- 
 ing could be much farther from the truth. To the Germans that 
 song means "Germany is the best country of all" or "above 
 all other lands for me." What England is to the Briton, what 
 France is to her sons, what the United States of America is 
 to us, that Germany is to the Germans. "Deutschland Tiber 
 AUes" fervently expresses the Teuton's love of his Fatherland, 
 nothing more, nothing less. It is most emphatically not a song 
 of conquest. It was written long before the Empire was created, 
 long before Germany became a great commercial country. It 
 never was, is not now, and never can be a "war song," a song 
 of conquest. It is a patriotic hymn of Peace. The German is 
 a God-fearing, God-loving man. Even his language is remark- 
 ably deficient in words of profanity. And his patriotism is 
 real, honest and enduring to the end. When, as now, the very 
 existence of his Fatherland is threatened, every German showed 
 the reality and loyalty of his love of country. They did not wait 
 to be drafted into military service. They voluntarily rallied 
 to the colors by the million. Of such citizens is the great Ger- 
 man Empire composed. Cowardice and disloyalty are tabooed 
 words in the German language. 
 
 The Kaiser at the Front. 
 
 What more soul-thrilling example has ever been set by any 
 ruler in ancient or modern times than that set by the Kaiser? 
 He went to the front himself and he also sent his six sons and 
 his only son-in-law to the firing line. Prince Henry of Prussia, 
 the Kaiser's brother, and his eldest son followed the Kaiser's 
 example. Four princes of the blood royal, ten reigning princes 
 and more than fifteen princes of reigning families also went to 
 
 60 
 
the front. Eight princes have given up their lives in defense of 
 the Fatherland. The Kaiser's headquarters were moved from 
 place to place, East and West, but always to the place where the 
 fighting was the hardest and where, by his counsel he could 
 encourage his officers and where by his presence he could en- 
 thuse his loyal soldiers to unprecedented deeds of valor. It does 
 not seem to be a part of the history of this great war to state 
 that either England's King, Russia's Czar or France's President 
 got very near the firing line. That fact may have prompted the 
 remark often quoted — "Germany will fight to the last drop of 
 German blood ; England will fight to the last — Frenchman." 
 
 The German Women. 
 
 And whether the Imperial Eagle shall be victorious or 
 vanquished, the whole Empire and all her sons, will reverently 
 salute and tenderly cherish the memory of the German Women ! 
 No more efficient nurses ever wore the Red Cross emblem. 
 Brave as Uhlans, they forgot self and personal safety in their 
 unceasing ministrations to the sick and wounded on the battle- 
 field and in the hospitals. Others equally self-sacrificing indus- 
 triously plied their needles at home in making bandages, gloves, 
 sweaters, undergarments, etc., for the brave boys at the front, 
 while those living in rural communities garnered the crops and 
 guarded their hearthstones against hunger and want. And be 
 it said they did it well because their hearts were in their work 
 and as they tirelessly worked, their prayers for the safety and 
 victory of their beloved Fatherland were as unceasing as they 
 were earnest. 
 
 Emulating the patriotic example of the Kaiser every Ger- 
 man mother sent all of her sons of military age to fight for the 
 Fatherland and bewailed the fact that she had no more to send. 
 Those who had daughters bitterly resented that they were not 
 sons ; but these very daughters proved themselves worthy by be- 
 coming nurses or by doing the work formerly done by men 
 wherever feasible. 
 
 51 
 
Such deeds reflect the spirit, the patriotism and the deter- 
 mination of a great people! 
 
 All hail to the brave German women ! May the memory of 
 their patriotic devotion to Germany's righteous cause be ever- 
 lasting ! 
 
 Development of Democracy. 
 
 England claims that Germany's victory would retard the 
 development of democracy. She can, however, as an evidence 
 of her willingness to foster democratic growth along practical 
 lines, scarcely point with pride to her recent division of Persia 
 with Kussia, to her persecution and oppression of Ireland for 
 centuries, to her "theft" of Egypt, to her subjugation of the 
 Boers, nor yet to her abject subjection of India. These do not 
 prove British sincerity in the cause of democracy. Compare 
 these English object lessons with the three free German states of 
 Hamburg, Bremen and Ltibeck. While these three form a 
 part of the German Empire, each is a self-governing republic 
 with her own legislative bodies. In 1870 Hamburg had a popu- 
 lation of 250,000. At the outbreak of the war she had 1,000,000 
 inhabitants. Both Bremen and Ltibeck were happy, prosperous 
 republics. Not one of the 26 states comprising the German Em- 
 pire shows even a trace of the so-called "Prussia's blighting in- 
 fluence." Quite to the contrary, before war broke out Germany 
 was a happy, very busy, very prosperous nation with the 
 greatest per capita wealth in the world. And she hoped that the 
 Peace which she so thoroughly enjoyed would last forever. But 
 the Triple Entente willed it otherwise. 
 
 Since the Franco-Prussian War the population of Alsace- 
 Lorraine has nearly trebled. Ireland's population today is 
 about one-third what it was 70 years ago. Alsace-Lorraine has 
 an area about one-sixth as large as Ireland. The Rhine is one 
 of the busiest rivers in the world. Ireland's beautiful Shannon 
 rarely floats a commercial craft. Her harbors are as deep and 
 safe as those of the Rhine and the Shannon's shores are as 
 naturally fertile as those of the Rhine. Yet for every $128.00 
 
 52 
 
owned by an Irishman the Alsatian has |915.00. What better 
 object lesson could anyone want in order to justly compare the 
 English and German methods? One depresses; the other ele- 
 vates. One crushes enterprise ; the other encourages it. 
 
 What Eminent Men Say. 
 
 Lord Roberts shortly before his death said : 
 
 "Fight with your muskets but do not attempt to kill 
 
 the Germans with words. Every educated person knows 
 
 today that Germany leads upon the field of culture, that 
 
 Germany is the advance guard of civilization." 
 
 G. Bernard Shaw, writing from London August 20th, 
 
 1914, to "The International" says among other pithy truths : 
 
 "We are all three — France, Germany and England 
 alike — committing a crime against civilization for the 
 benefit of Russia. . . . For the present there is only 
 one thing to be done besides fighting for all we are 
 worth ... to set to work immediately to draft the 
 inevitable Treaty of Peace, which we must all sign when 
 we have had our bellyful of murder and destruction. 
 
 "France, instead of using her surplus income in abol- 
 ishing French slums and building up French children 
 into strong men and women, has lent it to Russia to 
 strengthen the most tyrannical government in Europe 
 and to secure the interest on her loan. She has entered 
 into an unnatural alliance with Russia against her more 
 civilized neighbors. . . . 
 
 "We made an agreement with Russia of a still more 
 sordidly commercial character for the exploitation of 
 Persia with capital that should have fed our starving 
 children. 
 
 "Now mark the consequences. Germany with hostile 
 France on one side and hostile Russia on the other, is in 
 a position so dangerous that we in our secure island can 
 form no conception of its intolerable tension. 
 
 63 
 
"By our blindness we have brought about the war. 
 We have deliberately added to the strain by making a 
 military and naval anti-Grerman alliance with France 
 without at the same time balancing its effect by assuring 
 Germany that if she kept peace with France we would 
 not help Russia against her nor in the last resource al- 
 low Russia to advance her frontier westward. 
 
 "Is it to be wondered that Potsdam militarism, with 
 its chronic state of panic, with militarism raised to des- 
 peration by the menace of Russia, France and England, 
 made a wild attempt to cut its way out after a despairing 
 appeal to us to let it fight one to two instead of one 
 to three? 
 
 "Let us be just to Potsdam. It may serve Potsdam 
 right that she frightened us all so much that we became 
 incapable of realizing that our terror was nothing to 
 hers, but if we had been true to civilization and kept our 
 capital at home and our honor untarnished by squalid 
 commercial adventures in the East, we should have con- 
 trolled the situation and kept the European peace. His- 
 tory will not excuse us because after making war inevit- 
 able we run round at the last moment begging everybody 
 not to make a disturbance." 
 No more serious nor just arraignment of Great Britain 
 than Shaw's has come from any pen — not even Teutonic. Shaw 
 might have strengthened his case against his own country by 
 quoting from Sir Edward Grey's speech in the House of Com- 
 mons just before war was declared, "Are we not in honor bound 
 to defend the French coasts of the North Sea against an attack 
 by the German fleet, having advised the French Government to 
 send all its battleships to the Mediterranean?" 
 
 Sir Roger Casement, until recently a member of the British 
 diplomatic service, expresses his views on the European war 
 • — before England had joined France and Russia — in the Brook- 
 lyn Eagle. He says: 
 
 54 
 
"I deplore this war. It is a grievous calamity for 
 the whole world. I think it is a crime, but I do not 
 believe that Germany is the guilty party. She did not 
 seek the quarrel and she is fighting for her life. She 
 is fighting the battle on behalf of European civilization. 
 Russia is non-European. To me Germany stands for the 
 efficiency, the culture and the manhood of the white 
 race of Continental Europe. Therefore, as between Ger- 
 many and her great Eastern neighbor my sympathies are 
 entirely with Germany. 
 
 "I sincerely trust and hope that Great Britain will 
 be able to remain neutral. During all my official career 
 my intercourse with German officials, officers and people 
 has been of the kindliest nature. And I can conceive no 
 just reasons which should compel the British Empire to 
 be at war with the German Empire. The two peoples 
 have a great deal in common and should have admiration 
 and regard for each other. 
 
 "But one thing is clear. The German Emperor 
 throughout his reign has steadfastly striven for peace. 
 There have been occasions in recent years when Germany 
 might have precipitated the conflict with every prospect 
 of success. If her ruler had not desired peace above war 
 she would surely have chosen those more favorable occa- 
 sions for challenging her neighbors." 
 
 England's own Wells, in a burst of confidence, wrote before 
 the war: 
 
 "We in Great Britain are now intensely jealous of Germany, 
 not only because the Germans outnumber us * * * but be- 
 cause in the last hundred years while we have fed on platitudes 
 and vanity they have had the energy and humility to develop a 
 splendid system of national education, to toil at science and art 
 and literature, to develop social organization, to master and 
 better our methods of business and industry, and to clamber 
 
 55 
 
above us in the scale of civilization. This has humiliated and 
 
 irritated rather than chastened us." 
 
 Ex-President Koosevelt said in the N. Y. Times: 
 
 "The Germans are not merely our brothers ; they are 
 largely ourselves. The debt we owe to German blood is 
 great; the debt we owe to German thought and to Ger- 
 man example not only in governmental administration 
 but in all the practical work of life, is even greater. 
 Every generous heart, and every farseeing mind through- 
 out the world should rejoice in the existence of a stable, 
 united and powerful Germany, too strong to fear aggres- 
 sion and too just to be a source of fear to its neighbors." 
 Gabasino-Kenda, an Italian writer of note, in analyzing the 
 
 present war writes in the Italian magazine, Minerva, among 
 
 other statements all favorable to Germany's cause : 
 
 "Public opinion in Italy has been deceived as to the 
 origin of this savage conflagration and the conviction has 
 been diffused that Germany longed for this war, that 
 Russia, France and England were drawn into it despite 
 themselves. The truth is just the contrary, and this is 
 shown quite clearly in the collection of diplomatic docu- 
 ments. ... If Servia and Belgium had never ex- 
 isted, the three-fronted attack would have come just the 
 same, either now, or next year, or the year after that." 
 
 England Cuts Cable. 
 
 Even before she had declared war on Germany, England cut 
 the German cables to America. America being the only great 
 neutral power and the nation whose respect, good will and 
 moral support was eagerly sought by all the belligerents was 
 thereby cut off from all direct cable service with Berlin and the 
 only cabled data that she was able to get came through London 
 and Paris. England is the "cable nation" of the world. Of 
 the 545,000 kilometers of submarine cable now laid England 
 controls 450,000, Germany did control 34,000 before her line to 
 
 56 
 
America was cut and the rest of us control the comparatively 
 
 negligible balance. We are a "wireless nation." So, too, is 
 
 Germany. _ 
 
 Censorship. 
 
 Censorship in this war has gone leagues beyond the extreme. 
 Deletion is to be expected. It needs no military acumen for any 
 intelligent person to at once see that for strategic reasons even 
 elimination or alteration of despatches may be laudable. But 
 absolute distortion of some facts and complete suppression of 
 others have been the star features of Britain's censorship of all 
 war news that has reached America since the German cables 
 were cut. 
 
 Col. Edwin Emerson, war correspondent of the N. Y. Worlds 
 says: "I know that the English censor suppressed 74 of my 
 German victory messages. He allowed only 4 to go through 
 and one of them he turned into an English victory." 
 
 It is not only an English or a French attribute — it is human 
 — to distort or color reports when the truth reflects on one's 
 honor, reputation or deeds. Hence all European war new» 
 items of the war, from the very beginning of hostilities up to 
 the present have been so arbitrarily censored as to make them 
 not only improbable, but often actually infamous. To their 
 discredit be it said that many American newspapers basing 
 their arguments upon these crucially censored cabled data 
 developed such vehemently anti-German tendencies as to make 
 their editorial utterances dangerous because of their likelihood 
 to incite popular anti-teutonic uprisings that might in time 
 seriously jeopardize American neutrality. 
 
 All really fair-minded readers must concede that the per- 
 sistently anti-German attitude assumed and maintained by 
 most of the great metropolitan dailies has done more to distort 
 the facts and to either minimize or practically ignore every bit 
 of news that was favorable to Germany and thereby embitter 
 and prejudice the general American public against Germany 
 than all other causes combined. This is to be deplored because 
 
 67 
 
it is as unfair to Americans as it is to Germans, and when the 
 facts come out, as they will after the war, the great American 
 public will then learn that, for reasons unknown to them, they 
 were persistently misled by the editorials and special war 
 articles printed during the war by these great American mould- 
 ers of American opinion. 
 
 Cue Debt to Germany. 
 
 I cannot believe that the great American public has so soon 
 forgotten the valiant services of almost 190,000 Germans in the 
 northern ranks during our own Civil War nor that the mem- 
 ory of Osterhaus, Carl Schurz, Heinzelmann and the immortal 
 Sigel has so quickly dimmed. Neither will I admit that all 
 of us Americans wilfully ignore the statistical facts that more 
 than 85% of the Germans and less than 15% of the Englishmen 
 who live in America are naturalized citizens of the United 
 States of America. 
 
 It cannot be successfully proven that England has ever been 
 more than outwardly friendly to America since we proclaimed 
 our Declaration of Independence. It cannot be successfully 
 denied that Germany has always been an honest friend to 
 America. 
 
 What short memories we Americans have. From the outset 
 of hostilities our papers came out boldly against Germany and 
 ever since many of our most powerful dailies are simply echoes 
 of the big London dailies. The daily hammering against Ger- 
 many has naturally created prejudice in the minds of many 
 Americans against the German cause and sympathy for Eng- 
 land and France. But which of the three has been our best 
 friend in the past? 
 
 It was Germany that sent us Baron von Steuben, the drill- 
 master of our revolutionary army, the man who more than any 
 other enabled our weak little colonies to defeat England. 
 
 When Lincoln, during our Civil War, tried to sell Union 
 bonds in Europe, both England and France refused ; Gladstone 
 
 58 
 
openly assured our envoy that English sympathy was entirely 
 with the Confederacy. But note the contrast — Bismarck told 
 the Berlin and Frankfort bankers to buy all they could and it 
 was German money that helped the North win. 
 
 Who helped us through Secretary Hay to establish "the open 
 door in China?" Germany, only Germany! England and France 
 came in half-heartedly later on. 
 
 When, as inevitable, Japan will encroach upon some of our 
 Pacific possessions, who will help her? England is bound by 
 treaty to help her ally Japan just as Japan is now, by English 
 command, helping England. Who in that event can help us? 
 Germany ! 
 
 Who then has been, is now, and will be our staunch friend 
 in Europe? That very Germany now fighting desperately for 
 her very existence from whom in this unparalleled emergency, 
 we are withholding our sympathy and moral support. This is 
 indeed a sad commentary on the real value of national friend- 
 ship. 
 
 The Tampico Episode. 
 
 None of us has forgotten the incident at Tampico. 
 An infuriated Mexican mob was harassing a number of non- 
 combatant American refugees. We had no man-of-war or other 
 military force there to protect our countrymen. True there 
 were English men-of-war in the harbor but they offered no aid 
 to our people. Fortunately the German cruiser Dresden was 
 also at anchor there. Her commander when informed as to 
 what was going on on shore, gave that Mexican mob just 15 
 minutes in which to stop harassing the Americans or he would 
 sweep the town with enough broadsides to emphasize the mean- 
 ing of his demand. That mob stopped rioting in considerably 
 less than the alloted 15 minutes and the Dresden's commander 
 then transferred all of these American refugees aboard his ship 
 so as to insure their safety. That was humanity. That was 
 German friendship for Americans. 
 
 69 
 
The Manila Incident. 
 
 Enemies of Germany have again stirred up the so-called 
 
 Dewey-Diedrichs Controversy in Manila Harbor to prove that 
 
 Germany at that time tried to cause trouble with the United 
 
 States. From a letter of Admiral Dewey to Admiral von Died- 
 
 richs, dated April 16th, 1898, I quote: 
 
 . . . "I rejoice that our differences have been of 
 
 newspaper manufacture.'' 
 
 That letter is self-explanatory — no further comments are 
 
 required. 4 , * 
 
 ^ Albion^s American Antipathy. 
 
 In morally and sentimentally aligning American sympathy 
 with Great Britain's cause not all thoughtful Americans will 
 forget that England did her utmost to further the disruption 
 of the Union and that our own Civil War would not have taken 
 four long bloody years to have settled the burning questions — 
 Slavery and Secession — had not England very materially aided 
 the Confederacy by purchasing their bonds and in other ways 
 supplying British gold, thus furnishing "the sinews of war" 
 that prolonged the conflict and postponed the birth of the phrase 
 "The Lost Cause." Thousands of northern and southern 
 widows and orphans have England to thank for their bereave- 
 ment, for without England's financial backing that fratricidal 
 conflict would have ended quickly because of lack of funds 
 south of the Mason and Dixon Line. 
 
 It has been asserted that "there is not a man living now 
 who is proud of having been a defender of slavery." The great 
 New South, while justly proud of her "thin line" of survivors 
 of the boys who in the early '60's wore the grey, is just as loyal 
 to and would fight just as quickly for the Star Spangled Ban- 
 ner as any other section of our great Republic. The States are 
 now United by bonds that are mightier than steel. 
 
 Two Englands. 
 I have elsewhere shown that there is but one Germany. 
 
 60 
 
But there are two Englands. One is the England of poets, paint- 
 ers, statesmen, universities. This is the England that we all 
 admire and revere. The other England forced on us the war of 
 1812 and burned our Washington ; that fitted out raiding vessels 
 to prey upon our commerce during our Civil War ; the England 
 that encourages and supports Japan to reach out for Pacific 
 
 P ^' Panama Canal, 
 
 England's quite recent contention relative to the way we 
 should manage the business department of our great inter- 
 oceanic artery — the Panama Canal — is another example of that 
 brand of statecraft where the emphasis falls on the last syllable. 
 
 Interference With Mail. 
 
 Another still more flagrant instance of English disregard 
 of the rights of others was Britain's interference with American 
 transatlantic mail addressed to Germany. In view of the inter- 
 national agreement not to disturb the despatch of postal mat- 
 ter when carried in neutral bottoms her interference with mails 
 from America to Germany is not only unwarranted but de- 
 structive of one of the established privileges of civilization. 
 
 England Paralyzes Commerce. 
 
 Disregarding precedents and ignoring international agree- 
 ments are two typically British traits. Paralyzing the world's 
 commerce, because being the Sea-Sovereign she has the power 
 to do so, is of no moment so long as that enables Great Britain 
 to carry out her determination not only to crush but to starve 
 all Germany — combatants and non-combatants alike. But 
 England probably has not given serious thought to the prob- 
 ability that if she succeeds in making Germany the biggest 
 ^^concentration camp" on record she will thereby subject a vast 
 army of Britons, French, Kussians and Belgians, up to this time 
 well fed and cared for prisoners of war, to an intimate ac- 
 quaintance with that Hunger which precedes the starvation 
 which is the end-result of England's tactics at this writing. 
 
 61 
 
Harbor ^^Hovering/' 
 
 Of our government's neutrality in the present war there 
 can be no more question now than in 1870 at the outbreak of 
 the Franco-Prussian War. Then, as now, belligerents' war- 
 ships hovered near our main seaports and considerably ham- 
 pered our maritime trade. Secretary of State Fish in 1870 
 characterized such "hovering" as an unfriendly act to a friend- 
 ly, neutral nation. What was true then is equally true now 
 and it therefore follows that the Anglo-Franco- Japanese espion- 
 age of our Atlantic and Pacific harbor entrances constitutes 
 a series of unfriendly acts besides seriously disturbing our 
 
 oceanic business. ^, ^7 t r, - ^ 
 
 The Venezuelan Episode 
 
 involving the territorial integrity of Venezuela and the definite 
 settlement of the dividing line between British Guiana and 
 Venezuela was a long-drawn out effort on England's part to 
 grab about 33,000 square miles of Venezuela and add the same 
 to British Guiana. As a last resort in 1895 Venezuela appealed 
 to the United States of America to arbitrate the matter for her 
 with England. Lord Salisbury, England's then Secretary for 
 Foreign Affairs, after sneeringly alluding to our Monroe Doc- 
 trine refused to arbitrate with Mr. Olney, our then Secretary 
 of State. Mr. Olney's reply was "arbitrate or fight" — us, not 
 Venezuela — ^and Lord Salisbury arbitrated. Since then our 
 English cousins have been our "sleeping partner" in maintain- 
 ing the Monroe Doctrine. 
 
 Japan Joins Britain. 
 
 Not content with, in every possible way, planning to realize 
 on her slogan "Crush Germany" England on the flimsiest pre- 
 text imaginable drags into the European catastrophe "her noble 
 ally Japan," and thus interjects the Asiatic "yellow peril" into 
 what was until then — and should be now — a strictly European 
 quarrel. 
 
 The London Foreign Office declared that Japan had come 
 
 62 
 
into the contest against the protest of England ; but the Japan- 
 ese statesman Kato declared in the Japanese parliament that 
 Japan had declared war against Germany at the request of the 
 English Government and that Japan was duty bound by her 
 alliance with England to obey. 
 
 Japan had no reason to quarrel with Germany. Quite to 
 the contrary she acknowledges her great indebtedness to Ger- 
 many for the military training of her staff officers as well as 
 for much valuable teaching of her young men in scientific and 
 technical institutions. 
 
 Kiao-Chow was "easy prey" from the Japanese viewpoint, 
 but it was by no means an easy conquest. The N. Y. Evening 
 Sun, on November 8th, 1914, paid this tribute to the German 
 defenders : 
 
 "It is difficult to exaggerate the moral value of Kiao- 
 Chow defense. British statesmen and journals have de- 
 lighted to tell the world that Great Britain is making 
 war to save the German people from militarism, to bring 
 independence to the oppressed Teutons. Was there ever 
 a more complete, a more crushing answer to such cant 
 than that supplied by Kiao-Chow, by the response of the 
 Germans of the East to a call not to battle but to disas- 
 ter, to a summons not to possible victory but to inevit- 
 able defeat and destruction?" 
 
 Congressman Fred A. Britten, in discussing his Resolution 
 introduced in the House, directing the Secretary of State to 
 advise the Japanese government that the United States views 
 with concern Japan's ultimatum to Germany, said : 
 
 "The taking of Kiao-Chow is merely a prelude to the 
 taking of all Germany's islands which extend half-way 
 across the Pacific Ocean, and this I view as a distinct 
 menace to our possessions in the Philippine Islands, 
 Guam and the Hawaiian Islands. 
 
 63 
 
"This action of Japan is the least defensible move 
 yet made in connection with the European war." 
 
 Japan will not voluntarily surrender Kiao-Chow to China 
 — she will try to keep it as well as the group of German Islands 
 in the Pacific — Ladrone, Marian and Caroline — recently seized 
 by Japan, although definite assurances have been given to the 
 United States by Japan and by Great Britain on behalf of 
 Japan that these islands would only be held by Japan during 
 the war. If Japan intends to live up to her promises why does 
 she send thousands of emigrants to these islands, as reported 
 by the press? 
 
 Not only has Japan been a loyal ally to England in conquer- 
 ing Kiao-Chow, but she has agreed to aid England in subduing 
 any rebellious outbreaks that might occur in any of her Far 
 East colonies and locating and chasing the German sea-raiders. 
 
 After the English troops had failed to quell the mutiny of 
 the Fifth Bengal Infantry Regiment at Singapore, the Japanese 
 warships stationed there landed troops and occupied the bar- 
 racks of the Indian troops. It appears that the mutiny was not 
 confined to the soldiers. According to Russian papers 800 
 Hindus destroyed all the buildings in which German non-com- 
 batant civilians were confined so as to liberate them. The 
 mutineers also prevented the troops of the Sultan of Johore 
 from coming to the assistance of the English. 
 
 At Simla, India, 10,000 tribesmen revolted against English 
 domination and were not again under even temporary control 
 until the English troops had killed about 200 and wounded 
 about 300 more of them. 
 
 I mention these instances to prove that there is a strong 
 under-current of intense resentment among the people of the 
 Far East who "exist" — they do not "live" — under the British 
 Yoke. 
 
 At the Falkland Island battle the British fleet, being un- 
 able to defeat the German squadron, the British signalled to 
 
 64 
 
the Japanese warships for help. The latter gave efficient aid to 
 the British men-of-war and just as the tide of battle turned 
 against the greatly outnumbered Germans, the English asked 
 the Japanese to withdraw and the English finished the job. 
 Official Japanese documents establish the truth of this state- 
 ment and also voice an illy concealed resentment at being thus 
 deprived of their deserved share in this victory. Comment is 
 superfluous. Conclusions will at once be self-suggestive. 
 
 Quite recent developments prove Japan's ambition. She 
 aims first of all to drive the white man from the Far East. An 
 even more ambitious scheme is to quickly develop from an in- 
 sular Power into a continental Empire and China will be her 
 victim. Japan aims to be China's dictator and England does 
 not protest, neither does France. Japan aspires to absorb the 
 great Chinese Empire and when she reaches that goal she will 
 slam the door in the face of other nations. The "open door" 
 will be locked and sealed by the Mikado. 
 
 Perhaps the words of the Japanese diplomat in the early 
 days of the war are prophetic. He said: "In twenty or forty 
 years Indo-China like a ripe fruit, will fall into Japan's lap 
 anyway. France's power in Indo-China is entirely imaginary.'* 
 The pungency of that last remark is appreciated when one re- 
 calls that French Indo-China has about 525,000 square miles 
 and about 30 million inhabitants. 
 
 No matter which side wins in this great war, Japan will 
 be the Shylock and she will not only demand her "pound of 
 flesh," but she will get it. 
 
 What this may yet mean to America none but the Japanese 
 probably know. That Japan covets the Philippines is only too 
 evident. They regard the Pacific as their sea. But whatever 
 Japan may do it is safe to say in advance it will not be without 
 the full knowledge, consent and moral co-operation of Great 
 Britain. 
 
 Albert F. Nathan, sent as a special investigator by the Los 
 
 65 
 
Angeles Times, reports in that paper under date of April 14thy 
 1915: 
 
 *^4,0'00 Japanese marines and sailors, five Japanese warships, 
 six colliers and supply ships, and the English colliers Lena 
 and Protesilaus of Liverpool are occupying Turtle Bay, Lower 
 California, Mexico, just 409 miles from San Diego. I saw them 
 there a week ago. With the harbor mined, a camp on shore and 
 patrol boats for miles out at sea, the Japanese were busy mark- 
 ing out moorings for ships, sending cutters filled with armed 
 men ashore and landing ammunition. Half of the Japanese 
 Navy could anchor in Turtle Bay. * * * According to 
 Capt. Whitelaw of the wrecking ship Greenwood then in the 
 bay, the Japanese Cruiser Asama, which has had her nose in a 
 soft mud-bank near the harbor's entrance since December 31st, 
 1914, could be pulled clear of the mud in a few hours by a good 
 tugboat. ♦ * * Lieut. Tomosada of the Japanese Navy 
 told me that the Asama was ^in a bad way and that the whole 
 fleet would have to stay with her until a transport with more 
 men and large cranes would come from Japan.' This trans- 
 port never comes but warships and armed men continue to 
 appear and settle down.* * * Unhindered by our Govern- 
 ment the Japanese have gained a foothold on the west coast 
 of Lower California that will be hard to shake off. Turtle Bay 
 today would be a hard place for the American warships to enter 
 if the Japanese wished to keep them out." 
 
 War is 
 
 Sherman at Atlanta said — "War is cruelty and cannot be 
 refined." General Phil. Sheridan said: "You must leave the 
 people through whose land you march only their eyes to weep 
 with." The new British Sea-Lord, Lord Fisher, at the 1899 
 Hague Conference said : "War should be made as hellish as pos- 
 sible." Some unnecessary and therefore unwarranted cruelty 
 has always occurred in every war in history. In our war of 
 1812 England paid the Indian savages to commit the most 
 
 66 
 
shocking barbarities. During one engagement Greneral Win- 
 chester of the American army was captured by the British under 
 Col. Proctor. Five hundred young Americans, chiefly Kentuck- 
 ians, were forced to surrender and lay down their arms. Proctor 
 assured them that in return for their surrender he would guar- 
 antee the safety of their American frontier compatriots. But 
 when they were unarmed, Proctor let loose a horde of Indians 
 and the 500 Americans were brained by the Indians' toma- 
 hawks. President Madison in his message to Congress, re- 
 ferred to England's warfare against us as "distinguished by 
 features peculiarly shocking to humanity." 
 
 England so brutally crushed the Boer republic that the 
 Boers were finally forced to surrender to avoid total extermina- 
 tion. England fought the men and imprisoned the women and 
 children. The Boer monument at Bloemfontain unveiled 
 in 1913 is inscribed, "In memory of the 26,663 women and 
 children who died during the war of 1900-1902 in the English 
 concentration camps." 
 
 The same Winston Churchill who is now Lord of the Ad- 
 miralty then said in the London Post: "There is one way to 
 overcome the resistance of the Boers, and that is by a pro- 
 longed process of attrition. In other words, we must kill them 
 out so as to teach their children to love us." 
 
 The same General French, now in command of England's 
 troops on the continent, sent Zulus to fight the Boers and pil- 
 lage their country and for this breach of the usages of civilized 
 warfare was "shifted" from his command because of the violent 
 protests of the Natal government. 
 
 The same Kitchener, now a British hero, then had 54,526 
 children and 38,022 Boer women under his "tender" care. The 
 London Daily Netcs said of this on November 9th, 1901 : "There 
 is nothing to match it even in the mortality figures of the Indian 
 famines, where cholera and other epidemics have to be con- 
 
 67 
 
tended with." And this of England "the protector of the 
 weak," the self -praised Moral Dictator of the Universe! 
 
 The Boer general, de Wet, speaking of the destruction of 
 Louvain by the Grermans, called attention to the terrible and 
 unwarranted destruction of the Boer country by the English, 
 and said "Every Boer village was a small Louvain." 
 
 Allies'' Atrocities. 
 
 This war will justly be chronicled as the most atrocious 
 ever waged by civilized people. Atrocities, to be expected only 
 of savages of the lowest mentality and most bloodthirsty nature, 
 have been perpetrated and are credibly vouched for. A few 
 excerpts from a mass of authentic data will suffice as blood- 
 curdling illustrations — also contrasts. 
 
 The world at large sympathizes with Belgium in her days 
 of sorrow and distress. That is both human and humane. 
 While it is self-evident that it is human to err, it is also true 
 that "it is human to forget." In the case of Belgium in the 
 Congo, the inhuman cruelties perpetrated on children for their 
 parents' failure or inability to bring in the quantity of rub- 
 ber demanded by the Belgian overseers are too well established 
 by facts to be denied now by even the most altruistic sympathiz- 
 ers with that brave little nation. But not all students of his- 
 tory have forgotten the unspeakable outrages then inflicted 
 upon the helpless Congo people nor the starvation of non-com- 
 batants in the horribly unsanitary concentration camps estab- 
 lished and maintained by Belgium in the Congo country. 
 
 In all wars there have been some sporadic cases of atrocious 
 inhumanity. Fiends are not confined to the armies and navies 
 of the world. They are not infrequently found in all grades of 
 society in private life and during peace. There is a degree of 
 degeneracy that is normal in some men under the most favor- 
 able circumstances. Such men, under the excitement of war, 
 become the ravishers, the blood-thirsty brutes and the perpetra- 
 tors of unspeakable outrages on women, children and other men. 
 
 68 
 
From the viewpoint of the "invaded," the "invader" is al- 
 ways "atrocious." 
 
 But for the persistent propaganda of the Allies I would not 
 devote so much space to these "atrocities." 
 
 The sensational tales that are so persistently reiterated by 
 the Allies and through them by the Allied Press are doing an 
 incalculable amount of lasting harm by poisoning the minds of 
 people here as well as abroad and thus fomenting a hatred of 
 Germany that is infamously unfair to Germany and also unfair 
 to those whose minds are in that way poisoned. 
 
 It is only after the Facts have been sifted from the False- 
 hoods through the unbiased and unbribable Sieve of Truth that 
 the actual atrocities stand out undeniably. The impartial his- 
 tory of this unparalleled war will throw the searchlight of calm, 
 unimpassioned analysis on the tangled mass of "tales of atro- 
 cities" now burdening current newspaperdom and then we 
 shall know the truth. 
 
 The following incident occurred at Antwerp right after war 
 was declared and is vouched for by three reputable men. "Even 
 German women in childbed were dragged by the hair from 
 their beds, inhumanly beaten with canes and chased down- 
 stairs. A German, his wife and two children, all scantily 
 dressed, were attacked by a Belgian mob. The wife, semi- 
 conscious in her husband's arms, was stabbed to death, as were 
 both children. I saw two children — about three and six years 
 old — flung from a fourth story window, their little bodies being 
 shattered on the pavement." Prince Henry of Reuss, on 
 August 15th, writing to Count von Bernstorff, the German 
 Ambassador to America, said in part — "German guards are 
 treacherously killed by peasants and even women of the lower 
 classes gouge out the eyes of wounded German soldiers, cut 
 out the tongues, cut off the limbs and murder the wounded 
 lying on stretchers ready to be taken to field hospitals." 
 
 It is an authentic fact that 600 German Army surgeons 
 were killed by Belgian non-combatants while attending wound- 
 
 69 
 
ed soldiers; also that Belgian officials entertained German 
 officers at dinner and after the coffee and cigars murdered 
 their guests while yet at the table. What a commentary on 
 Belgian hospitality! 
 
 Russian Ravages, 
 
 In East Prussia, the Cossacks are committing most das- 
 tardly cruelties. They ravish and then cut off the breasts of 
 women and impale the children on the fences. Forty thousand 
 civilians are missing in these districts of East Prussia — they 
 were murdered by the Russian troops. The Russians them- 
 selves have acknowledged that prior to their crushing defeat by 
 von Hindenburg their troops laid waste that section of East 
 Prussia where they had gained a temporary foothold. At 
 Goldap they did not leave a house, store, hospital or church 
 standing. Lyck was also annihilated. 
 
 Sadoveanu, the well known writer, publisher in the Bucha- 
 rest "Universul," a paper friendly to Russia, a description of 
 cruelties committed by the Russian soldiers upon the peace- 
 loving inhabitants of Bukowina, a province of Austria. He 
 lives close to the border of this country, and has actually seen 
 the terrible misery of the refugees. He tells how the Cossacks 
 burned all the houses, impaled the men and ravished the women 
 and girls. He saw many men and boys with their noses, ears 
 and hands chopped off. 
 
 Hordes of Russian militia recently crossed the German 
 border at the most extreme northeastern corner of East Prussia 
 burning villages and estates, pillaging and murdering. This 
 expedition can have no military value whatever. It is merely 
 a case of vandalism. 
 
 The Austro-Hungarian Embassy at Washington made pub- 
 lic a statement on March 10th, which briefly stated is that ^the 
 Russian commander had notified the Austrian commander near 
 Nadwornia, Galicia, that on the following day he would send to 
 the Austrian troops about 1,500 Jewish families, then as- 
 
 70 
 
sembled near Namiona and Tysmienczany. These Jews had 
 been driven from their homes by the Russians. As this proposal 
 was both to get rid of the poor people they had robbed and also 
 to use them as a living "flag of truce^' so as to approach the 
 Austrian lines without being attacked, the Austrian comman- 
 der promptly and properly refused to permit the Czar's officer 
 to thus perpetrate one of the most dastardly crimes against in- 
 nocent non-combatants on record! Russia deserves, for this 
 cowardly attempt, to be stigmatized by the whole world.' 
 
 Edward Lyell Fox, a neutral correspondent who was with 
 Gen. von Hindenburg's army in East Prussia, took and has 
 published many photographs of wrecked hospitals, sacked 
 homes, destroyed Red Cross supplies, and of gross outrages on 
 defenseless women and children. 
 
 Here are two vouched-for pictures of REAL conditions. 
 
 First look on this — Cossacks with pocketsful of jewelled 
 fingers and hands cut from women and children in East Prus- 
 sia. "We leave no one behind who will be a soldier'' was the 
 Cossack war cry. 
 
 And now look on this — Thousands of packages in Berlin 
 containing coins, crosses, etc., taken from Russians and French 
 killed in battle, and a corps of German officials whose sole duty 
 it is to locate, if possible, the families of these dead soldiers 
 so as to return to them the carefully collected personal belong- 
 ings of their dead. (See article in Saturday Evening Post, 
 April 17th, 1915, by Ernest Poole). Could a stronger contrast 
 be conceived? On one side Barbarity — on the other Human- 
 ity. 
 
 The Turcos' Triumph. 
 
 Count Karolyi saw Turcos — the Algerian French fighters — 
 
 with necklaces of ears, noses and fingers. What a credit to 
 
 France I 
 
 Dum Bum Bullets. 
 
 On the other hand, how can any fair-minded American ig- 
 nore the Kaiser's protest to our President against the use of 
 
 71 
 
dum dum bullets by the Allies, projectiles prohibited by inter- 
 national law. They were in possession of French soldiers who 
 were made prisoners. These bullets had also been supplied to 
 the English troops as proven by affidavits of Col. W. E. Gor- 
 don and Lt. Col. Neith of the Gordon Highlanders. At Schirmek, 
 Montedy and Longwy large quantities of these bullets were 
 found in original cases and at the latter place a mechanical 
 contrivance for the manufacture of these bullets was discovered. 
 
 French Brutality. 
 
 N. Y. Herald, October 14, 1914, publishes the following let- 
 ter of "A Neutral American" : 
 
 "The argument used by the French Embassy to dis- 
 credit the German accusation of the use of dum dum 
 bullets by French soldiers, that the kind of men who 
 risked their lives to save the German wounded har- 
 bored in the Rheims cathedral, set on fire by German 
 shells, *are unlikely to commit atrocities,' is a dum dum 
 argument that tears their stand to bits, for, according 
 to the statement of the Abb6 Cammae, French priest, 
 these ^brave' French soldiers, backed by an excited mob 
 of civilians, not only did not raise a hand to help in the 
 rescue but met the pitiful struggling band, led by the 
 brave priest, those wounded in the arm or leg carrying 
 the helpless as best they could, with levelled guns trying 
 to drive them back to die in the flames." 
 Maurice Barres, French writer, in "Echo de Paris," says 
 that 8,000 Alsace-Lorraine non-combatant citizens have been 
 taken to France as hostages and are kept in unsanitary build- 
 ings and practically without proper food and warm clothing. 
 
 Germany Protests to France, 
 
 The German government sent a protest to France ac- 
 companied by fifteen affidavits from soldiers, physicians and 
 Catholic priests regarding violation of the rules of the Geneva 
 
 72 
 
convention. It was claimed "that the French have killed or 
 mutilated wounded German soldiers, fired on ambulances with 
 wounded and bearing the Red Cross flag, invaded German hos- 
 pitals, robbed the hospital staff and stole the equipment, fired 
 on German physicians who were attending to the wounded, 
 killing many and taking others captives, etc., etc." 
 
 Concentration Camps, 
 
 Those triple barbed wire enclosures within easy auto dis- 
 tance from Trafalgar Square, overcrowded with under-fed, half- 
 clad civilians whose only "crime" is that they are Germans, are 
 an infamous blot on modern civilization. Men of all walks in 
 life are imprisoned there and subjected to almost incredible 
 hardships and indignities. Russia's mistreatment of some 
 150,000 German non-combatant civilians is credibly reported to 
 be inhuman. Among these unfortunate Germans are bank 
 presidents, factory owners, merchants, professional men and 
 others of means and social prominence. All are treated like 
 criminals, their money is taken away and each is "allowed" each 
 day a munificent sum equivalent to eight cents in our money 
 with which to buy food. Germany has asked the American 
 Consuls to look after these people but apparently they are 
 powerless to help. Such inhumanity in England and Russia 
 is a fitting corollary to the concentration camps during the 
 Boer War and a vivid reminder of Siberia. 
 
 Now by contrast let us see how Germany handles similar 
 problems. French soldiers in German Army Hospitals are 
 voluble in their thanks for kind, skillful medical and surgical 
 treatment. Prisoners of war are fed as well and as liberally 
 as are her own soldiers. The German concentration camps, 
 established only after England ignored Germany's request to 
 change their tactics towards German civilians, are sanitary 
 and those detained therein are treated humanely as is proven 
 by the evidence of oflficial visitors authorized to inspect and 
 report. And yet Germans are denounced as "Barbarians!" 
 
 73 
 
To which nation does that name most accurately apply? Think 
 it over. 
 
 Antwerp Appreciates England^s Aid. 
 
 One of the most inexplicable cases of misdirected energy 
 ever recorded is shown by the following authentic incident. 
 After Antwerp was ready to surrender, because there was no 
 other alternative, the English troops played havoc with her 
 buildings and destroyed enormous stocks of merchandise and 
 a claim for damages to the extent of $46,000,000 has been filed 
 against England by the merchants of Antwerp. 
 
 German Atrocities. 
 
 Besides so distorting facts as to make the real truth about 
 everything pertaining to the origin, the responsibility and 
 preparation for, as well as the daily progress of the war un- 
 recognizable to Americans, the Anglo-Franco-Russian combine 
 has persistently burdened the cables with the most infamous 
 misrepresentations and the most highly colored tales of "Ger- 
 man Atrocities." 
 
 Bombs from Aircraft. 
 
 Germany has been severely criticised for the dropping of 
 bombs by German aviators in Antwerp, and other fortified 
 towns. Nothing has been made of the dropping of bombs 
 by French aviators in the open, unfortified towns of Nurem- 
 berg, Freiburg, (Breisgau), Dtisseldorf, Dortmund, Mtill- 
 heim and others, international law and the methods of 
 warfare among civilized nations to the contrary, notwithstand- 
 ing. 
 
 When Germany gave the English sea-coast towns of Hartle- 
 pool, Whitby and Scarborough a "surprise party' ^ Winston 
 Churchill at once called the Germans "baby-killers'' and the 
 world was solemnly assured that these were unfortified towns 
 and that this was another proof of "German Barbarity." While 
 we all regret that a single non-combatant life was lost as a re- 
 
 74 
 
suit of this raid, it is not true that these were or are unfortified 
 towns. The contrary is proven by the indisputable evidence of 
 the official records of Great Britain, evidence that must con- 
 vince everyone that Germany was strictly within her rights as 
 a belligerent when she attacked them. Hartlepool in the British 
 Monthly Army List is designated as a "coast defense town." 
 Whitby in the official British Monthly Naval List is recorded 
 as a "coast guard town." Scarborough according to the same 
 official record has a battery of 15-inch guns, military barracks 
 and a wireless station. 
 
 Is it not strange that while so much adverse criticism has 
 been hurled at Germany for the raid on these towns that almost 
 nothing, other than that written in and by Germany, has been 
 said about the air-craft attacks of the Allies on German un- 
 fortified towns where civilians have perished from the bombs 
 dropped by the Allies? Apparently it is British logic to regard 
 "killing German babies" as "a legitimate warfare," but it is 
 "barbarous" when innocent British lives are lost. As a matter 
 of fact in both cases — in all cases — it is war as Sherman epito- 
 mized it. 
 
 Rheims Cathedral. 
 
 Much has been said and written about the comparatively 
 slight damage done by the German artillery to the Great Ca- 
 thedral at Rheims. The German commander claims that the 
 greatest care had been exercised to spare that beautiful struc- 
 ture and only after the French military authorities at Rheims 
 had refused to accept the German offer — made under a flag of 
 truce — to spare the Cathedral provided the French desisted 
 from the use of the towers of the Cathedral as an observation 
 post and directing the fire of the French artillery from these 
 towers, a warning shot was sent at the tower of the church. The 
 German generaPs contention is confirmed by the Vicar-General 
 of Rheims, who admits that the towers of the Cathedral were 
 used as an observation station for military purposes during the 
 bombardment. 
 
 75 
 
The Kheims Cathedral has not been seriously injured by 
 the German artillery. The greatest damage to it was caused 
 by fire. The London Times on September 25, 1914, said : "One 
 reason why the Cathedral caught alight so quickly was that on 
 one side of it was some scaffolding which had been erected for 
 restoration work. Straw had also been laid on the floor for the 
 reception of Grerman wounded.'^ 
 
 Is it at all credible that if Germany had really "bombarded" 
 the Cathedral and been guilty of "vandalism" as charged by the 
 Allies, there would be anything left of the building standing 
 above its foundations? There are not two grades of gunner- 
 ship in the German army and the marksmen who without much 
 difficulty pounded their way through Liege and Namur could 
 have annihilated the Cathedral much more easily and quickly. 
 That they did not do it is a fact. No wonder that Spain — no 
 doubt recalling French destruction of Spanish works of art in 
 other years — refused to ^'protest against Germany's vandalism 
 at Kheims" as she was requested to do by France. 
 
 The universally accepted history of the German Empire as 
 well as of Prussia and other German states, before and after 
 the establishment of the Empire, absolutely proves that the 
 Germans have never desecrated church property. Only in a 
 few instances, and those of great emergency, have they used 
 churches as temporary hospitals. Germany has always re- 
 spected, and wherever possible protected from harm all 
 churches and church property. That is History. 
 
 That the contrary is true of France is equally historic. 
 French records absolutely prove that French soldiers have not 
 infrequently burned Church property and the French govern- 
 ment, after confiscating the church properties, has leased them 
 to theatrical men for playhouses, vaudeville theatres, moving 
 picture houses, etc. If this has been done in times of Peace 
 what can we expect from them in times of War? With that 
 as a precedent, France did not hesitate to use the Rheims 
 Cathedral for military purposes. 
 
 76 
 
The German Bayonet, 
 
 One of the most infamous calumnies charged against Ger- 
 many is that her infantry is armed with bayonets having a saw- 
 edge from point to hilt so as to make a ragged wound of great 
 severity. The truth is that in each company a few non-com- 
 missioned officers carry bayonets on which, from the hilt end 
 and extending about three or four inches from the hilt several 
 saw teeth have been filed to be used solely for sawing pieces of 
 wood for building camp fires. The entire bayonet is never 
 converted into a saw-edged weapon. 
 
 These lurid tales of "German atrocities'' emanate from the 
 pens of men seated at desks in the editorial offices of the Lon- 
 don and Paris newspapers. 
 
 Asphyxiating Gases. 
 
 Early in the War France used explosives that produced 
 these gases. It created only slight comment among American 
 newspaper men. The German war office has officially called 
 attention to the use of these gases not less than five or six times 
 during the last weeks. It is a matter of record that materials 
 which can be used only for the production of these gases are 
 shipped from the United States to the Allies. If it be a fact 
 that Germany has now followed the example set by the Allies 
 and is employing similar methods, why so bitterly denounce 
 Germany and practically ignore identical tactics employed by 
 the Allies? 
 
 American Journalists^ Statement. 
 
 Compare these hysterical outbursts of frenzied fiction with 
 the calm convincing statements made by wireless (the cable 
 censor at London had no chance to suppress it or blue-pencil it 
 out of all resemblance to the original) to America by five well 
 known, reputable, veracious, reliable American newspaper men. 
 These five authorized American correspondents, keen-witted, 
 trained interviewers, careful observers and accurate analyzers 
 
 77 
 
of facts and rumors, were in Belgium for two weeks with the 
 German army and during that time travelled slowly through 
 the very territory where many of the most horrible of these 
 "atrocities" were claimed to have been perpetrated by the Ger- 
 man troops. 
 
 They make the following statement: 
 
 "After spending two weeks with and accompanying 
 the troops upward of 100 miles, we are unable to report 
 a single instance unprovoked. We are also unable to con- 
 firm rumors of mistreatment of prisoners or of non- 
 combatants with the German columns. This is true of 
 Lou vain, Brussels, Luneville and Nantes while in Prus- 
 sian hands. 
 
 "We visited Chateau Soldre, Sambre and Beaumont 
 without substantiating a single wanton brutality. Nu- 
 merous investigated rumors proved groundless. Every- 
 where we have seen Germans paying for purchases and 
 respecting property rights, as well as according civilians 
 every consideration. 
 
 "After the battle of Biass (probably Barse, a suburb 
 of Namur), we found Belgian women and children mov- 
 ing comfortably about. The day after the Germans had 
 captured the town in Merbes Chateau, we found one 
 citizen killed, but were unable to confirm lack of provo- 
 cation. 
 
 "Kefugees with stories of atrocities were unable to 
 supply direct evidence. Belgians in the Sambre Valley 
 discounted reports of cruelty in the surrounding coun- 
 tries. The discipline of the German soldiers is excellent, 
 as we observed. 
 
 78 
 
"To the truth of these statements we pledge our pro- 
 fessional and personal word. 
 
 Roger Lewis, 
 
 The Associated Press; 
 
 lEviN S. Cobb, 
 
 Saturday Evening Post and Phila- 
 delphia Public Ledger; 
 
 Harry Hansen, 
 
 Chicago Daily News; 
 
 James O'Donnell Bennett and 
 John T. McCutchean, 
 Chicago Tribune." 
 
 Ex-U. S. Senator Wm. A. Clark, of Montana, emphatically 
 denied the story told that he had been giving shelter to persons 
 maltreated by the Germans. He stated that he neither wit- 
 nessed nor knew of any "German atrocities.'' 
 
 A German Army Ruley-^ 
 
 Now, it is an indisputable fact that when a German army 
 invests a town, a proclamation is at once posted on the prin- 
 cipal buildings and explained to the inhabitants by local offi- 
 cials, guaranteeing the integrity of the town itself, the safety 
 of the property and person of the inhabitants and the payment 
 for all supplies furnished by them to the Germans for so long 
 as the people of that town deliver all their weapons and refrain 
 from attacking or molesting the German troops. 
 
 German Soldiers Orderly. 
 
 English newspapers in chronicling the orderly passage of 
 the German troops through Brussels, compared it to a magnifi- 
 cent military parade, and conceded that all purchases in Brus- 
 sels by German officers and troops were promptly and fully 
 paid for. Even at lamented Louvain, whose partial destruc- 
 
 79 
 
tion was brought about by the fact that the Belgian municipal 
 authorities had organized the civilian population, armed it 
 even with machine guns, and forced this mob to make furious 
 onslaughts upon the unsuspecting German troops, German 
 soldiers carried priceless paintings from burning buildings and 
 stored them safely beyond the fire zone. Even English and 
 French critics could not and did not find any fault with the 
 conduct of the German troops who occupied Liege and pleas- 
 antly mingled with her citizens after successfully bombarding 
 some of her encircling forts. 
 
 The German army symbolizes ethical seriousness and iron 
 discipline. The scientist and the artist stand shoulder to 
 shoulder in the ranks with the farmer and the mechanic. 
 Arno Dosch, a correspondent of World's Work, says: 
 
 "I have no personal knowledge of the horrible Ger- 
 man atrocities reported from Belgium and I am inclined 
 to discredit them. The Germans tell many stories of 
 Belgian atrocities, most of which I believe. In Brussels 
 and elsewhere Belgian civilian men were executed for 
 firing on German soldiers from the inside of buildings, 
 but I know of no women or children being killed because 
 of their having been found in buildings from which shots 
 were fired.'^ 
 Lieut. A. E. Brown of the 16th Infantry, U. S. A., says : 
 
 "I saw Capt. Parker of the U. S. Army, who had also 
 been in the Meaux district, and he told me that the Ger- 
 mans were very friendly with the French peasants while 
 they were in the district. As all of the men had gone to 
 the front, the German soldiers helped the women chop 
 wood and draw water, and aided them in every way. As 
 for atrocities, I saw no indication whatever of them." 
 
 Punishment Due ^^Snipers/' 
 
 According to the recognized and universally accepted prin- 
 ciples of international law, severe punishment is justifiable and 
 
 80 
 
therefore due to any town or territory whose non-combatant 
 citizens indulge in any "sniping" or other offensive attacks 
 against the invading army. 
 
 An impartial analysis of every instance of actual punish- 
 ment of communities by the destruction of property by fire or 
 the shooting of individuals will always show that the Germans 
 acted only in their own defense and strictly within their legal 
 rights as prescribed by the laws of war governing all civilized 
 nations. Brussels and Ghent did not share the fate of Louvain 
 because their inhabitants did not offer any resistance to the 
 German troops. 
 
 The atrocities were perpetrated as a rule against the Ger- 
 mans by non-combatants and the punishment inflicted by the 
 Germans on these guerillas was strictly in line with the rules 
 and regulations of legitimate warfare. In this connection it is 
 especially noteworthy to record the fact that the British war 
 office states officially that it knows of no barbarities committed 
 by the Germans. That of itself is the best possible evidence in 
 favor of German humanity and against the absolutely un- 
 founded "German Barbarity." 
 
 The Uhlans, 
 
 While The Ananias Club months ago hung out the sign 
 "Standing room only," the reincarnation of Baron von Mtinch- 
 hausen has recently been heard from. He has "discovered^' that 
 the Uhlans are a semi-cannibalistic tribe of bloodthirsty cut- 
 throats that are assembled by the Kaiser only when pillaging, 
 arson, thievery and murder are to be perpetrated — ^in short a 
 horde of dare-devil desperados that even such unsavory gun- 
 men as the Cossacks, and Turcos would not deign to notice. As 
 a liar this man has few equals and he himself knows it. The 
 facts are — the regiments of Uhlans belong to the crack cavalry 
 corps of the regular army organization — the Uhlans are trained 
 to ride like Centaurs and, in time of war, to fight like gentle- 
 men. Fortunately this prevaricator has made the lie so in- 
 
 81 
 
famously monstrous that in the majority of cases it will defeat 
 its own purpose. 
 
 ^ Character of German Soldiers. 
 
 No one with a criminal record can become a soldier in the 
 German army. Men of the mental and moral calibre of the 
 German rank and file do not stoop to such ignoble cruelties as 
 are the fiendish delight of the barbaric Cossacks and Turcos, 
 and the savage Indian troops now fighting with the English. 
 
 The latter are reported to be so bloodthirsty as to often be 
 uncontrollable, even murdering German war prisoners on sev- 
 eral occasions. 
 
 Mines. 
 
 Among the most important accessories of modern marine 
 warfare mines rank very highly for defense and the mining of 
 certain sections of the North Sea by the Germans has been car- 
 ried out as a defense against an onslaught by England's navy. 
 The laying of mines by Germany has been done strictly in ac- 
 cordance with the provisions proposed at the Hague Confer- 
 ence of 1907. While England loudly decries Germany's min- 
 ing methods she not only does not object when any other coun- 
 try adopts the same protective method but she now uses mines 
 herself, thereby endangering neutral shipping in those waters. 
 
 Of the 84 mines reported in February, 1915, to have drifted 
 on the shores of Holland from the North Sea, 9 are officially 
 reported to be French, 2 Dutch and the rest, 73, British. 
 
 The Norwegian Admiral Dawes reports that the mines 
 drifted on the South Coast of Norway are English mines. 
 
 England's Starvation Tactics. 
 
 This tremendous international struggle beginning with 
 Servia in the focus of the searchlight, dragging in nation after 
 nation until practically all of Europe, the most of Asia and a 
 part of Africa were at each others' throats is gradually but 
 surely resolving itself into a death-grip between England and 
 
 82 
 
Germany. Forgotten is the Servian assassination — forgotten 
 is the violation of Belgium's hypothetical neutrality; to their 
 "crush Germany" has now been added "starve Germany." 
 
 A former Dutch War Minister says in the Hague "Niewe 
 Courant" "The attempt to starve out a whole nation as it is used 
 in the present war is new and unheard of and so cruel that 
 it is hardly believable." 
 
 That starvation slogan is a two-edged sword; it can 
 cut both ways. Booth proved that one-third of England's 
 population is always on the verge of starvation. England's 
 pantry is none too well-stocked now. Let Germany stop the 
 influx of foodstuffs into England for only a few weeks and 
 London's bread riot would double-discount Zeppelin in disturb- 
 ing the placid stolidity of that anti-Teutonic triumvirate, As- 
 quith, Churchill and Kitchener. 
 
 In retaliation for England's declaration of a "starvation 
 zone" around Germany with the avowed purpose of absolutely 
 isolating Germany and Austria from all direct maritime busi- 
 ness with the rest of the world and cutting off all food and other 
 supplies from them, Germany encircled "the tight little isle" 
 England with a "submarine zone." By a specious brand of logic 
 typically British, England confiscated many shiploads of meat 
 products, valued at |15, 000,000, consigned by American shippers 
 to neutral ports, claiming that these cargoes were really in- 
 tended for "the enemy" and therefore contraband and not to 
 be paid for — a neat little contribution to England's kitchen. 
 The "starvation zone" is England's development of her inhuman 
 "concentration camps" idea. It is Boer-ism plus Weyler-ism in 
 Cuba. But unless my personal knowledge of foodstuff condi- 
 tions in Germany and Austria is wrong, this English embargo 
 on food, medicine and other supplies to Germany and Austria 
 will not be any more effective than has been the fighting of her 
 parti-colored troops. Not only has Germany conserved her 
 food supply but her money supply is abundant and is a surprise 
 
 83 
 
to the world's bankers, as is shown by the latest financial re- 
 
 ^^^ ^' Germany's Submarines. 
 
 No nation has so many or such efficient submarines as Ger- 
 many. Their utility as "Commerce Destroyers" has been 
 abundantly established in this war. The Laws of Humanity 
 govern the operations of these minor craft just as they do the 
 major arm of the German navy. When the British Censor 
 allows such data to pass as that "before sinking an enemy 
 the German submarine commander gives time and opportunity 
 for both passengers and crew to leave their ship and even in 
 many cases gives these lifeboats a *tow' to safe waters at the 
 imminent risk to the Germans of attack by British and French 
 warships" no stronger proof can be asked or could be given 
 of the truth of the statement that the Germans "fight fair" and 
 are humane to a previously unheard of degree. This is over- 
 whelming evidence in favor of Germany and her respect for 
 Humanity and her invariable practice of humaneness. 
 
 England's Yacillation and Retaliatory Methods 
 in matters pertaining to contraband — declaring contraband, 
 articles always heretofore non-contraband — have caused 
 great annoyance and worse hardships to the shippers of 
 America and other neutral countries. This British policy dis- 
 regards international precedents and rulings made at the Lon- 
 don convention. While it is true that 20th century warfare 
 adds for the first time air-craft and the submarine, thereby 
 creating new and unprecedented conditions and that these con- 
 ditions are the direct reason for the retaliatory methods that 
 have been adopted by both sides, it cannot be too strongly em- 
 phasized that these conditions, because new and heretofore un- 
 tried and therefore not perfectly understood by non-combatant 
 nations have not in a single instance been put into operation 
 by Germany Until full and definite information has been given 
 to the world by Germany. Humanity is unchanged and Hu- 
 maneness should not be changed even in time of war. Food- 
 
 84 
 
stuffs and other supplies to and for non-combatants heretofore 
 considered non-contraband by all nations should for Human- 
 ity's sake not be treated as they are now by England. 
 
 The New York Sun says editorially on May 5th, 1915: 
 * * * "Great Britain has knocked the principle of free 
 ships, free goods, and other principles dear to neutrals, into 
 cocked hats; and has intimated that if the neutrals don't like 
 it, why she is sorry, but cannot change her plans. Protest in 
 Great Britain's view is academic and an inconsiderate waste 
 
 of time." 
 
 American Neutrality. 
 
 The Duke of Abruzzi, speaking for the American citizens 
 spending the winter of 1914-1915 in Italy made this significant 
 protest to the mayor of Boston : "Never in the history of nations 
 have orders of such gigantic proportions been accepted by any 
 country as those now being executed in America for the con- 
 tinuance of the European war. America's unlimited supply of 
 death-dealing machinery will cause an indefinite prolongation 
 of this murder of mankind." 
 
 Belgian Belief. 
 
 Our own American people with that generosity always 
 typical of this country quickly opened purse and granary and 
 sent vast stores of food, medicine and clothing to the stricken 
 Belgians, without which millions of these people must have 
 starved, for it was and now more than ever is impossible for 
 Germany to feed the large number of people absolutely de- 
 pendent upon public charity for their existence. And to their 
 credit it must be said that General von Bissing, the military 
 Governor of Belgium under German rule, has rigidly enforced 
 the rule that everything sent to the Belgian Relief Committee 
 must be protected. Placards are placed on all trains bearing 
 such supplies and on all central stores reading: "This food is 
 under protection of the Commission. It must not be disturbed." 
 Dr. Percy H. Williams of the College of Physicians and Sur- 
 
 85 
 
geons, Columbia University, who was in charge of the distribu- 
 tion of food at Liege, says : "During the time I was feeding these 
 900,000 people in the province of Liege I never saw one German 
 soldier take a single particle of food from the Belgians." He 
 further states : "As a surgeon, I made a point of visiting some 
 of the hospitals, and I saw no wounds of atrocity on the persons 
 of the Belgians. So far as I know there had been no atrocities." 
 
 Pan-Germanism. 
 
 Every country houses a number of prolific pens that are 
 directed by bright but erratic brains. These writers are they 
 who father the many eccentric "cults" and "isms." As a rule 
 they are not taken seriously in their own homelands except by 
 a negligible minority of adherents. Of such movements are the 
 Alliance Frangaise, the Irredentists of Italy and the Pan-Ger- 
 manists. 
 
 The Pan-Germanistic movement, in which England now 
 sees a more direful danger to the world^s peace than anyone 
 has yet discerned in the culmination of Eussia's Pan-Slavic pro- 
 gram, has never had the endorsement of the Kaiser, the Ger- 
 man Government, nor indeed of many of the truly representa- 
 tive thinkers of Germany. General von Bernhardi, a prolific 
 writer on military matters and the "prophet, priest and king" 
 of the Pan-Germanistic movement, never spoke or wrote on 
 that topic with Governmental authority, either while he was an 
 officer in the German army or after the Kaiser removed him 
 from the army some five years ago. Bernhardi expressed his 
 own views, not those of the Kaiser, nor of the Imperial Gov- 
 ernment, nor yet those of the German people as a whole. The 
 proposed plan to incorporate with the German Empire the Ger- 
 man-speaking sections of Austria, and to assimilate as well the 
 Germanic parts of Russia's Baltic provinces as well as to unite 
 all Germans in all foreign countries for the common good of 
 the German race was never endorsed but was frequently re- 
 buked by the Kaiser, the Government and the most representa- 
 
 86 
 
tive Grermans in both o^cial and private life. It was Bern- 
 hardi's persistent Pan-Germanistic propaganda that led to his 
 dismissal by the Kaiser. The fact that only about 6,000 copies 
 of Bernhardi's book were sold, should be an absolute proof that 
 Germany with her 65,000,000 inhabitants was not especially 
 interested in Bernhardi's doctrines. But for this war even 
 England would probably not have tried so strenuously to make 
 it appear that Bernhardi's utterances were inspired by the 
 Kaiser and expressed officially the Imperial Government's plans 
 for an immense territorial expansion. 
 
 Pan-Slavism vs. Pan-Germanism. 
 
 Pan-Slavism is a reality heartily endorsed by the Czar and 
 the Russian Government — the 165,000,0-00 semi-barbarian Rus- 
 sian people, seven-eighths of whom can neither read nor write, 
 have no direct voice in the matter. 
 
 Pan-Germanism is the irridescent dream of a few erratic 
 writers and political agitators and is neither endorsed nor 
 tacitly tolerated by the Kaiser, the German Government, nor 
 the great majority of the cultured, educated German people. 
 
 The enormous difference between these two "isms" will be 
 at once apparent to all fair-minded men. Bernhardi and his 
 co-operators do not now and never have voiced the aims, aspira- 
 tions or ambitions of Germany or the German spirit. The 
 favorite slogan of the war party of which Bernhardi is one of 
 the most eloquent mouthpieces, i. e., "World Power or Down- 
 fall," is not the creed of the Kaiser nor the German Empire. 
 In all fairness, why hold the Kaiser and Germany responsible 
 for the preachments of discredited, unauthorized, irresponsible 
 individuals, publications and organizations? All that Germany 
 asks for is fair play. 
 
 Turkey's Reason for War, 
 
 Turkey did not go to war primarily to help Germany. She 
 was "between the Devil and the deep blue sea." She knew that 
 
 87 
 
if Germany won, her own territory would be safe, hence to 
 protect her own interests and territory she fights against the 
 Allies. She also only too well knows that if the Allies win 
 "the handwriting on the wall" in Russian letters will be "Take 
 Constantinople and what is left of European Turkey," and that 
 thus Peter the Great's "will" would be probated and the cen- 
 turies-old Cossack dream would come true! 
 
 Talaat Bey, the most important young Turk of the day, said 
 in an Associated Press interview in February, 1915 : "Persia is 
 a living symbol of what Turkey would have become if we had 
 not taken part in this present war." 
 
 iTALY^'s Neutrality. 
 
 That Italy is indebted to Germany for her integrity as a 
 Kingdom is historic and we are reminded of that fact by 
 Edoardo Scarf oglia in Mattini (Naples), who says: "Germany 
 never did anything but kindness to Italy. We owe her Venice 
 and Rome and our success in 1859. For 30 years we were allies 
 of Germany. Why should we now fight Germany?" 
 
 Professor George B. McClellan, of Princeton University, 
 says: 
 
 "In justice to the Italian people it must not be forgotten that they 
 regard their countr/s attitude to the war in the light of a purely national 
 business proposition in which neither altruism nor sentiment ought to be 
 nor is allowed to enter. A considerable number of Italians who today 
 advocate intervention on behalf of the Entente believe that a mistake 
 was made by the Government in not adhering to the Triple Alliance. 
 They think that had this been done the war would have ended months 
 ago and Italy would have received as her share of the spoils, not only 
 the Trentino and Trieste, but also Corsica, Tunis, and part of Algeria 
 and Egypt. They argue that as it is too late to fight with the central 
 empires the next best thing is to fight against them. It is entirely a mat- 
 ter of business." 
 
 The Italian paper "Concordia" says : 
 
 "To preserve Italy's honor, her immediate interests and to further 
 her future developments, we should remain an ally of Germany. Noth- 
 ing can justify our sedition after we have declared our neutrality and 
 have completed our mobilization. Only the senseless mania for expan- 
 sion and aggrandizement of our Nationals and the perfidious plans of our 
 
 88 
 
revolutionists clamor for the most dastardly treason that could be com- 
 mitted. We must not forget that Eussia will never consent to our sole 
 domination of the Adriatic, even if it is promised to us by the Allies. In 
 case of the defeat of Germany and Austria the slavish imperialism will 
 have clear sailing." 
 
 Further, it is credibly stated that the King of Italy has 
 given his word of honor to the German Emperor that rather 
 than countenance Italy's fighting against Germany — recogniz- 
 ing that he may not be able to control the extremists — ^he will 
 abdicate his throne. 
 
 It is now reported that Austria has practically granted 
 every demand made by Italy. It is to be presumed that Italy 
 put in these demands the maximum price for her maintenance 
 of neutrality. If in spite of Austria's absolute acquiescence 
 in Italy's demands, Italy still joins the Allies there can be but 
 one construction put on it. The Allies bid higher. 
 
 The Wak^s Lessons. 
 The New York Evening Post says editorially on March 6th, 
 
 1915: ^^It is the mobilization of the German people rather 
 than that of the German army which will he best remem- 
 bered when the lessons of the war come to be studied 
 * * * . The great lesson is not concerned with the arts 
 of war, but with the arts of peace. It is a higher pre- 
 paredness which takes in every aspect of the national 
 life ♦ ♦ ♦, The really impressive thing is the way 
 in which German national unity was translated into 
 national co-operation and practical effect. To dismiss 
 it all as the result of Prussian drill would be idle.'' 
 
 How Long Will this Wae Last? 
 England says "until Germany is crushed." France says, 
 ^'until we have had our complete Revanche." Russia says, 
 "until our Cossacks gallop down Unter-den-Linden." Ger- 
 many and Austria say, "until Right conquers Wrong." Who 
 knows? Perhaps as long as bullion, bullets, bread and brave 
 boys last. 
 
 89 
 
The longer it lasts, the greater the carnage, the more abso- 
 lute the ruin, financial and social, and the weaker will be both 
 victor and vanquished, for no matter how it ends the effects of 
 this awful war will be felt for generations. 
 
 And the End? 
 
 What will be the end of this war none can even approxi- 
 mately foresee or prophecy. 
 
 Germany's success would be the triumph of civilization over 
 intrigue and threatened Russian despotism. 
 
 Germany's defeat would be the eventual consummation of 
 centuries of Cossack scheming, for "crafty Russia" would ere 
 long outwit or outfight "perfidious Albion" and then the Czar 
 would rule all of Europe and the crack of the Cossack's knout 
 and the clanking of Siberian chains would replace the "rattle 
 of the Prussian sabre" which the anti-militarists have so bit- 
 terly denounced during the past twenty years. Thus would 
 Barbarism crush Civilization. Thus would the Sword prove 
 to be mightier than the Pen. 
 
 The bodies of the flower of her young and middle-aged man- 
 hood will litter her fields already soaked inches deep with their 
 life blood. The tears of her widows and orphans will drop 
 unceasingly for many years to come in the sorrowful shadows 
 of their disrupted and dismantled hearthstones. Civilization 
 will be crucially crippled for generations. The hands of the 
 clock of peaceful destiny will be irrevocably turned back for 
 half a century and the irreparable loss of life and treasure will 
 be a crushing yoke on the necks of generations yet unborn! 
 
 One thing we all know 
 
 Europe will he hied white. 
 
 90 
 
The Sinking of the Lusitania. 
 
 Just before going to press with this edition the giant Cnnarder 
 Lusitania was torpedoed a few miles off the southeast coast of Ireland 
 and within about fifteen or twenty minutes sank, carrying with her over 
 1,000 persons, including more than 100 Americans. No one can more 
 deeply regret than I that a single American life was lost ; nor can anyone 
 more profoundly regret than I that this submarine attack not only 
 sounded the death-knell of so many innocent non-combatants but also 
 precipitated an avalanche of unreasoning vituperation aimed against 
 Germany and immeasurably intensified an anti-German animosity that, 
 among thinking men, had begun to be replaced by a well-founded belief 
 that the German Cause was the Cause of Right. 
 
 From my personal view-point — and that is a strictly unbiased one — 
 it is very imfair to both sides to go off at a tangent and bitterly denounce 
 Germany as a nation of Pirates and Murderers without waiting for the 
 evidence that should, and no doubt will result from an impartial interna- 
 tional investigation of the causes that led to this deadly climax of sub- 
 marine activity. 
 
 Some of our great metropolitan dailies present only the English 
 viewpoint to which is added much editorial invective and virulence. All 
 this tends to obscure the main point at issue — the retaliatory methods 
 forced upon Germany for the operation of her submarines as Commerce 
 Destroyers. 
 
 No argument that would throw a ray of light upon the reasons for 
 Germany's adoption of the existing methods for operating her submarines 
 in the "war zone/' which like a hidden steel girdle encircles England's 
 main seaports, ever finds space in the columns of these papers. In justice 
 both to the land of my birth and to my adopted country, I have collated 
 and here present a digest of legal and other opinions worthy of careful 
 consideration, for I am more convinced now than ever that what my 
 fellow-Americans want above all else are the REAL FACTS on which 
 to base their own judgment. 
 
 The New York Sun of May 13th, '15, thus succinctly presents the 
 German viewpoint : "The war has become a war of supplies. England 
 hopes to make Germany yield by starving her out. Germany intends to 
 deprive England, as far as possible, of the war supplies she is getting 
 from neutrals. Which is the more humane, trying to starve 60,000,000 
 people — in violation of the Declaration of London and international law 
 — or torpedoing ships carrying contraband of war? The Lusitania was 
 
 91 
 
carrying contraband of war. Warnings had been given of what might 
 happen, and as the British Government had ordered its merchant vessels 
 to ram German submarines no further warning could be given. The 
 loss of life is regretted but it does not alter the German point of view." 
 
 In the London "Illustrated War News" for April 7th, 1915, appears 
 an illustration of one of the English passenger boats, showing one of 
 the cannons used in arming that branch of the service and this is accom- 
 panied by this inquiry : "Why could not every merchant vessel be armed 
 against the attacks of our enemy^s submarines ? This is one of the two 
 cannons which certain of our passenger steamers are carrying." 
 
 "The Pioneer Press" of St. Paul, Minn., in its issue of May 12, 
 1915, publishes this dispatch from Iowa City, Iowa: 'William D. 
 Peterburs, formerly connected with the military department of the 
 Iowa University, now residing here, declares that the Lusitania has 
 always been armed, and that she carried two cannons during the five 
 trips when he was Deck Officer. Peterburs is ready to swear that as 
 long as he was engaged on board the Lusitajiia she was flying the flag of 
 the Marine Eeserve of Great Britain, and that she was recorded in the 
 list of armed vessels." 
 
 How is Germany to know which of these passenger steamers are 
 thus armed or not? Bear in mind that at the order of the British 
 Admiralty all English merchantmen were ordered to "ram'^ all German 
 submarines on sight. A number of these submarines have already been 
 rammed or destroyed according to the English reports. They are all 
 liable to the same sort of attack. Further it is generally conceded that 
 it is not possible, except at an unjustifiable risk for the submarine, to 
 attempt to stop these vessels for the purpose of making a search of the 
 manifest and cargo, for to do so would in the great majority of cases 
 result in the destruction of the submarine. 
 
 The Germans could undoubtedly have selected a point for their 
 attack on the Lusitania much farther from shore and the fact that they 
 selected a point comparatively near to the coast is an argument in favor 
 of the German contention that it was not their purpose to do more than 
 slowly sink the Lusitania which would have allowed an abundance of 
 time for the safe debarkation of all of the passengers. 
 
 As is emphatically pointed out elsewhere in this addendum, but one 
 torpedo was fired at the Lusitania. The reported statement of Capt. 
 Turner confirms this. 
 
 From all available sources of information the real cause of the 
 sinking of the Lusitania was the explosion of the highly inflammable 
 ammunition in her holds. 
 
 While the single torpedo, crashing against her outer skin was the 
 primary cause of the disaster it will no doubt be eventually established 
 that the real cause was the subsequent explosion, for in no other way 
 
 92 
 
could this oceanic leviathan have been so quickly and completely over- 
 powered. 
 
 It has also been most emphatically pointed out that the British 
 Admiralty was most severely censurable for permitting non-combatants, 
 in such numbers, to take passage on the Lusitania when she was practic- 
 ally a floating arsenal, and therefore, in international law, liable to attack. 
 
 From that unimpassioned view-point, this dereliction on the part of 
 the British Admiralty makes another calamitous chapter in the history 
 of English Diplomacy which, speaking now of the causative factors 
 of this war, has been crucially epitomized by Prof. John W. Burgess, who 
 in his monograph "The European War of 1914; Its Causes, Purposes and 
 Probable Results," says: "And so when the Russian puppet in the Bal- 
 kans touched the match to the train that had thus been laid, and Austria- 
 Hungary sought to defend its own house against the conflagration, the 
 British Government encouraged Servia to resist, encouraged Russia to 
 interfere, encouraged France to support Russia and promised her own 
 support to France/' 
 
 We thus see a continuity of action that makes the questions that have 
 been recently asked by many Americans and particularly by Congressman 
 Hobson of peculiar significance. 
 
 Congressman Richard Pearson Hobson, of Alabama, the weU known 
 naval constructor, makes the following statements in a published inter- 
 view (New York Times, May 15th, 1915) : 
 
 "A widowed cousin of mine applied at the New York office of the 
 Cunard Line for passage on the Lusitania," Congressman Hobson said. 
 "The booking agent, an old friend, took her apart and told her that the 
 vessel was acting under Admiralty orders and that she simply must not 
 take passage on it. He pledged her to secrecy until after the trip. This 
 fact brings up pertinent questions. 
 
 '^hy did not the Cunard Company give to all parties applying for 
 passage the same human advice its agent, for old friendship sake, gave 
 to my cousin, instead of loading the vessel down with a full passenger 
 list, including many distinguished Americans, whose loss would neces- 
 sarily strike the American imagination? 
 
 'TK^nowing that German submarines were operating south of the 
 Irish coast, why did not the British Admiralty, which controlled the 
 Lusitania's movements, order her to use the uninfested route around 
 the north of Ireland? 
 
 "Why was the ship, having a speed of twenty-five and a half knots 
 — a very substantial aid to security — ordered by the British Admiralty to 
 slow down to seventeen knots in the danger zone ? 
 
 'rSow could a torpedo sink such a ship in twenty minutes? An 
 elementary knowledge of naval architecture would convince any one that 
 
 93 
 
such a thing is impossible unless there was a contributing cause inside 
 the vessel, such as open water-tight doors or inside explosion. 
 
 "Why was there no protecting convoy in the danger zone? 
 
 "Why was there no consort for the great ship's passengers' lives, 
 ready for rescue work? 
 
 "Why was there no preparation along the shore? Why was rescue 
 work so slow in reaching the scene? 
 
 "Why was it possible, in a smooth sea, within sight of land, in the 
 middle of the day, to lose so many lives ? 
 
 "Why was the censorship thrown open to all the harrowing details 
 throughout the slow and inexplicable work of the recovery of the bodies, 
 while secrecy was ordered for the Admiralty instructions, under which the 
 ship proceeded to its doom ? 
 
 "The order of the British Admiralty, instructing British merchant- 
 men to attack with the ram German submarines on sight, makes all the 
 British merchant vessels armed and resisting toward Grerman submarines 
 and nullifies their claims in international law to warning and immunity 
 of life from these submarines. 
 
 "Maintaining our position toward Germany, as defined by the Presi- 
 dent's note, without insisting on revocation of the British Admiralty's 
 instruction, is equivalent to demanding that German submarines shall 
 not attack British merchant vessels with American lives on board, while 
 these British vessels are free to attack, and are under orders to attack, 
 German submarines. So Great Britain could maintain a fleet of mer- 
 chant vessels^ hunting and destroying German submarines with full im- 
 munity. The submarine is the weapon of the gallant and weak against 
 the strong, and cannot and should not be thus abolished. 
 
 "There could be no possible motive for Germany wishing to destroy 
 American lives. In fact, Germany sought by extraordinary warning not 
 to destroy American lives, and her commander torpedoed the vessel at a 
 point nearest the shore, where it was presumable there would be ample 
 time for the rescue of life. 
 
 "On the other hand, there is a full motive for England wishing such 
 a tragedy — the motive for thrusting America into war with Germany. 
 Our own self-respect, and our position in history demand, at least, that 
 we should find out the facts by regular, impartial investigation of a naval 
 court. We could not condemn the basest criminal without a fair trial. 
 We cannot pass judgment on a fellow Christian people simply from the 
 charges of their enemy, given by a burning motive to embroil us in war. 
 
 "The American people are not afraid of Germany and her allies, nor 
 are they afraid of England and her allies, but we are God-fearing people, 
 afraid of His righteous wrath. We are not too proud to fight, but we are 
 too brave and true knowingly to do wrong." 
 
 94 
 
Oswald G. Yillard, of the New York Evening Post, says in 
 that paper on May 17th, 1915 : ''Even by some who were entirely sym- 
 pathetic with the actions of the Administration heretofore it has been 
 felt that there was a certain element of justice in the German- American 
 contention that the Government was not quite so severe with England 
 as with Germany/' 
 
 Philander C. Knox, ex-Secretary of State, says: "Our positive 
 action has at times approached dangerously near to open partisanship. 
 . . . I am unwilling to believe that this was intended as a partisan 
 act in favor of the Allies as against Germany; and yet, unfortunately 
 for us, there is much in the situation that gives ground for such a charge 
 upon the part of the German government and the German people." 
 
 Senator Works of California says : '^I have believed from the first 
 that we should be neutral and furnish no war materials to any of the 
 belligerents. When the British government blockaded the ports of Ger- 
 many and declared its intention of preventing any foodstuffs from being 
 shipped to that country, we should have said to England, *If you blockade 
 the ports of the Germans against our people, we will place an embargo 
 against the shipment of arms to you and your allies.' 
 
 "The British blockade destroyed our trade with Germany. We have 
 been furnishing war material to the other belligerents. This is not 
 neutrality." 
 
 In this connection, and to illustrate the Teutonic idea of neutrality, 
 it will be food for thought to recall that passage in the biography of our 
 Ambassador to Berlin during the Cuban War, in which it is pointed out 
 that when he was informed by the U. S. Consul at Hamburg, that a 
 boat laden with ammunition was about to leave Hamburg for Cuba — the 
 ammunition being intended for use against our troops — ^his representa- 
 tions to the German Foreign Office were listened to, and although by that 
 time the boat had already left Hamburg, she was at once ordered back 
 and was forced to unload her cargo. 
 
 Former Congressman Eichard Bartholdt says: "The American citi- 
 zen who in time of war takes passage on the ship of a belligerent, with- 
 draws himself for the time being from American jurisdiction and per- 
 sonally assumes all the risks of such a venture as he would if he took 
 a walk between the French and German trenches. It was on this theory 
 that our Government warned Americans to leave Mexico." 
 
 Dr. Reynolds A. Spaeth of Clark College says : 
 
 '^ar must be primarily effective. In the case of the Lusitania the 
 observations of the rules of humanity would have rendered war ineffec- 
 tive. When a submarine attempts the "capture" of a vessel of approxi- 
 mately her own speed or slower she may, after warning the vessel to 
 stop, follow her until she does stop. If in this case the challenged 
 vessel attempts to escape she may legitimately be torpedoed. The Lusi- 
 
 95 
 
tania, as we know, depended upon her speed to escape submarine attacks. 
 It is a physical impossibility for a vessel of her size, running at full 
 speed, to stop at the order of a submarine. Even if it were possible 
 instantly to reverse her engines, her initial velocity would still be so 
 great that she would pass the challenging submarine even though the 
 latter should follow at full speed. And once beyond her adversary under 
 these circumstances, there would be nothing to prevent her ordering full 
 speed ahead." 
 
 Capt. Turner, who was in command of the Lusitania, is reported to 
 have made the following statement when before the Coroner in Ireland at 
 the inquest : "There was a slight shock when the torpedo struck us. Im- 
 mediately there was another report, but that may possibly have been in- 
 ternal." It is credibly reported that the Lusitania carried as cargo 
 large quantities of ammunition and materials for the production of 
 asphyxiating gases. Capt. Turner of course knew about this and that 
 knowledge made his reserved reference to an "internal explosion'^ good 
 logic from cause to effect. 
 
 The official German report, as published in the metropolitan papers, 
 says "that one torpedo was fired at the Lusitania and that the second 
 explosion must be traced back to the ignition of quantities of ammuni- 
 tion inside the ship." 
 
 Dr. Foss of Montana is quoted as saying: "There was no panic 
 among the passengers. Indeed, there was more excitement among the 
 crew. If the officers and crew had gone to the boats and handled them 
 properly 500 more persons, possibly 1,000, might have been saved. 
 Some of the boats were badly caulked and their seams were starting. 
 
 Governor Brewer of Mississippi says "Americans were given fair 
 warning to stay off. They knew what to expect and took the risk." 
 
 Senator William E. Borah : "That disaster and the loss of the lives 
 of American citizens would be calculated ordinarily to arouse great feel- 
 ing throughout the country, and doubtless the American people do feel 
 deeply upon the subject; but to my mind, the sinking of the steamship 
 of a foe upon which happens to be found American citizens is by no 
 means to be compared with the act of hunting out, robbing, assaulting 
 and murdering American citizens in a neighboring country. We have 
 lost more citizens in Mexico than we will lose on the Lusitania, and 
 as our policy with reference to Mexico seems to be well settled and 
 accepted, there is no possible reason why we should apply a different 
 policy toward Germany. I don't anticipate any change of policy because 
 of this unfortunate affair." 
 
 Representative W. L. Jones, of Washington: "Our citizens have 
 rights, but they should not insist on exercising them in a way likely to 
 involve us in war. When they sail in foreign ships into dangerous terri- 
 tory they should understand that they take the risk. Innocent people at 
 home should not be embroiled in war on their account." 
 
 96 
 
Representative Caleb Powers, of Kentucky: "This country is not 
 the insurer of either the lives or the safety of the citizens, especially 
 aboard foreign vessels, who of their own volition subject themselves to 
 the dangers and perils of the war zone, and, while this country does and 
 should deeply deplore the sinking of the Lusitania, yet it should not be 
 involved in war by reason thereof/^ 
 
 Vice-President Marshall said that anyone who puts his foot on a 
 ship flying the English flag is practically on English soil. 
 
 Senator William J. Stone, Chairman Committee on Foreign Rela- 
 tions: "American citizens, it must not be forgotten, went aboard a 
 belligerent ship with full knowledge of the risk and after official warning 
 by the German Government. When on board a British vessel they were 
 on British soil. Was not their position substantially equivalent to being 
 within the walls of a fortified city? It appears to me that from our 
 standpoint as a neutral nation, the Gulflight case presents a more delicate 
 and serious complication than the case of the Lusitania." 
 
 Senator T. J. Walsh : "Our citizens must yield to the warning given 
 to keep out of the waters surrounding Great Britain or we must take the 
 other alternative and make war. I am not yet prepared to declare that 
 either interest or honor requires that we choose the latter." 
 
 As completely summarizing conservative American thought that is 
 not swayed by insensate hatred of everything teutonic and as a deserved 
 tribute to the loyalty to the land of their adoption, of the American 
 brethren of the men who are desperately fighting for their very existence 
 under the widespread wings of the Imperial Eagle, I quote in part a 
 signed article, written by Herman Ridder, and published in his paper, 
 The Staats Zeitung, on May 14, 1915, under the heading 
 
 "Press, President and People.^^ 
 
 . . . "A large section of the press of this country has been doing 
 its best during the last six days to dictate to the President the course 
 which he shall follow in handling the extremely delicate situation which 
 has arisen in our foreign relations. 
 
 These papers . . . have filled their columns with incendiary 
 communications which neither represent public opinion nor have the 
 redeeming features of logic or truth. They have reproduced at a critical, 
 and as they perhaps think a psychological, moment, extensi^'e extracts 
 from the British report on "German atrocities" in Belgium, seeking by 
 the circulation of this rehash of stories long since twice told and long 
 ago disproved to further inflame the passions of the people. 
 
 They have, moreover, attempted to further their designs of pro- 
 voking war by publishing extracts from German papers commenting on 
 the sinking of the Lusitania, intended to maintain popular passions in 
 
 97 
 
this country at white heat. While the wireless installation at Sayville is 
 not in operation these extracts come to us through London and are well 
 chosen to serve the purpose of the British Government. They are but 
 isolated paragraphs torn from their context in certain of those pestilential 
 organs of which Germany has her share as well as we, and in no way 
 represent the feelings of the German people over the loss of the Americans 
 who went down with the ill-fated vessel. 
 
 The people of this country are overwhelmingly for peace, yet a large 
 section of the press which claims to serve them is clamoring for war. 
 This element was successful in achieving its design in 1898 ; but in 1915 
 it has to deal with a President who bows to nothing but the will of the 
 people. 
 
 The American press seems to be incapable of understanding that 
 this is no time for war talk. The people of the country have been suffi- 
 ciently aroused by events. There is no occasion to further inflame their 
 passions by specious argument or baseless insinuations. The President, 
 with great wisdom and strength of mind, has striven to maintain the 
 peace of the country while upholding its honor, and if the battle goes 
 against him and we are plunged into a war, the full meaning of which 
 no one can foresee but the horror of which is patent to all, it will be due 
 to the clamor of a few irresponsible papers." .... 
 
 In marked contrast to this sincere appeal to all thinking Americans 
 to maintain unbroken that tie of brotherhood between America and Ger- 
 many that has existed ever since the birth of this nation I quote the 
 following from the "London New Witness" of Jan. 21, 1915 (published 
 in the ''Freeman's Journal" of May 29, 1915) : 
 
 ''We may go on fighting for a quarter of a century — not as we are 
 fighting to-day over hundreds of miles of trenches, nor as we fought 
 Napoleon. We may have to fight the United Stated and subsidize 
 South America and Japan. We may have to help Roumania, Italy, and 
 Servia with loans. We can only go on fighting and loaning money if we 
 heep London the centre of the money of the world, lending everywhere, 
 supplying goods everywhere, stretching out our hands to grasp whatever 
 we can, making money to fight with/* 
 
 Sir Percy Scott, an Admiral of the British Navy and a lord of the 
 admiralty, who received his knighthood from the British crown, writing 
 in the "London Times" on July 16, 1914, fifteen days before the war- 
 cloud hurst over Europe, quoted this from an un-named foreign naval 
 
 98 
 
writer : "If we went to war with an insular country, depending for its 
 food on supplies from overseas, it would be our business to stop that sup- 
 ply. On the declaration of war we should notify the enemy that she 
 should warn those of her merchant ships coming home not to approach 
 the island, as we were establishing a blockade of mines and submarines. 
 Similarly we should notify all neutrals that such a blockade had been 
 established, and that if any of their vessels approached the island they 
 would be liable to destruction either by mines or submarines, and there- 
 fore would do so at their own risk." 
 
 Commenting upon this Sir Percy Scott said in the course of his 
 article: "Such a proclamation would, in my opinion, be perfectly in 
 order, and once it had been made, if any British or neutral ships disre- 
 garded it they could not be held to be engaged in the peaceful avocations 
 referred to by Lord Sydenham, and if they were sunk in the attempt it 
 could not be described as a relapse into savagery or piracy in its blackest 
 form. If Lord Sydenham will look up the accounts of what usually 
 happened to blockade runners into Charleston during the Civil War in 
 America, I think he will find that the blockading cruisers seldom had 
 any scruples about firing into vessels they were chasing or driving them 
 ashore, and even peppering them when stranded with grape and shell. 
 The mine and the submarine torpedo will be newer deterrents." 
 
 This ante-bellum opinion of a British Admiral, as applied literally 
 to the sinking of the Lusitania, affords additional food for most serious 
 thought. 
 
 99 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 SEP 10 W» 
 
 MAY 4 1939 
 
-^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 05, " ■ 
 
 — 
 
 57 
 
 
 -5'" " 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY