The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-04-25

historian, and not every belligerent
historian, would want to prepare a
brief for the defence OF tho entire
foreign policy Of England or any other !
European nation since tho sixteenth |
century, or even during the nineteenth |
century. but discussion OF the follow |
ing questions is opposite to this phase |
OF the German case and necessary to |
complete their plea on IL.
az why had not England as much |
moral right to form a secret league
with France and Russia through Ed
ward VII. as Germany had to main |
tain q secret league with Austria
Hungary and Italy through WILL
lam H.?
ca Why was ono any more Of "a
devilish PLAN" "treacherous throt-
Ting of any European country than
the other?
None OF the German apologies ea-
amined seems to be even aware that
these questions will inevitably arise in
a neutral mind. (The word secret"
applies in both cases to the terms of
the league and not to the fact Of its
existence.)
The answer Of Germany TO the Eng
ltsh ultimatum about Belgian neutral
ity. strved simultaneously on France
was the invadon Of Belgium, which
brought a declaration OF war from
England. The first German explsna-
ton Of It was given by the Chancellor
in the Reichstas on August 4. "Neces-
sity knows no law. The in
vasion Of Belgium u in contradiction
to the rules Of international law. 80
But we know that France stood
prepared for an inroad which would
have been fatal. The wrong
Il speak openly-the wrong which we
now do We win try to make good again.
When ono 10 threatened as
We Are and all 10 at stake he can only
think Of how he can hack his way
out"
This position Of the Chancellor was
not. as in tho case Of the war with
Russia and France. accepted by the
| other German Apologies. Prof. Har-
mack says: II cannot follow the 1udg-
ment OF our Chancellor that there is
certain unrighteousness in our action
against Belgium). For we
were in a situation in which formulas
cease to exist and only tho moral duty
remains. There Is a law OF
necessity which breaks iron. and how
much more does Il break a treaty"
Prof. wundt. expressing his indignant
grief over the fact that England, "our
closest spiritual relative" Is fighting
Germany, continues: I'm comparison
what do We care about the Belgians,
who in their reckless blindness have
waged this war TO finally demonstrate
before ell the world their tncapacity
to maintain their existence as q
State?"
Prof. Onclten says: the fate which
Belgium drew upon herself ~ hard for
the single Individual. but not too hard
for the State itself because the destiny
OF the great immortal States Is worth
too much not 10 have I. permitted 20
them TO walk over existences which
are not able 20 defend themselves, but
which Ike parasites. keep themselves
alive by the differences OF great States.
Belgium had become long before the
satellite Of France and Russia
Let US leave Belgium 10 her destiny"
The court Of the neutral mind
would ask the distinguished psycholo-
gist Prof. wundt. to complete his
argument by discussing this question
Does the display by a nation Of a
, willingness 10 take the chance OF
, material destruction in order 70 defe nc
=. what seems to II a point OF homo,
really prove IN his Judgment the IN
capacity OF that nation 20 maintain a
State?
And the court OF the neutral mind
would like to ask the Distinguishes
historian. Prof. Onckcn. II the littl'
; kingdom Of Prussia when first created
' was, in his Judgment. "a parasit,
= state. which kept itself alive by M
differences between It's more powerful
y neirhbors who had the right TO wall
T over such nm existence?"
l But the first statement OF the Ger
man Chancellor IN regard 10 the wa
with Belgium and England was un
satisfactory not only TO the leai!n:
i German apologies but In the end 4
:. the Chancellor himself At the mex
meeting OF the Reichs,ag In December
he explained that he had not been abb
before 70 express himself in regard Z,
7 the position assumed by England an,
Il he now wished to modify his prev,ou
statement In regard TO the course o
: the great war.
The outward responsibility rests O.
: those men IN Russia who put throuc
10 the general mobilization OF the Russia
, army. But THE inner responsible
rests upon the British Government,
' The English Cabinet could have mad
\ war impossible by saying clearly tina
! ENGLAND was not willing 10 see
European war grow out OF the Austro
ScrVlan conflict. This would hav
compelled France 20 hold ha OK RuSsl
from all warike preparations The
"oUr Couciliatory Efforts (vormlt
lungsactionenl between Vienna an
-. Petersburg would have been sue
ccssful and there would have been n
war.
Bur England gave Russia 10 III Der
stand that she stood on the side 4
France and therefore Of Russia. Eng
land Is therefore "anSWerable hofrr
God ard mankind for this catastroph
which has befaller Europe and NAV
kind"
The full meaning OF tho stint,
ment that England ought ITO hay
declared in unm,stalSable words {
Russia that she was not willing" :
have European war, SC, "an utteranc
which would have compelled Franc
&C." is not quite clear. Its apparer
meaning IS that England ought {
a. ,,n,n.I,Al ~,