The very secrecy of the plot against the peace of the world and the failure to disclose to the German people the diplomatic communications hereinbefore quoted, strongly suggest that this detestable war is not merely a crime against civilization, _but also against the deceived and misled German people_. They have a vision and are essentially progressive and peace-loving in their national characteristics, while the ideals of their military caste are those of the Dark Ages.
One day the German people will know the full truth and then there will be a dreadful reckoning for those who have plunged a n.o.ble and peace-loving nation into this fathomless chasm of misfortune.
"Though the mills of G.o.d grind slowly, Yet they grind exceeding small, Though with patience He stands waiting, With exactness grinds He all."
Critics Dispute Mr. Beck
_To the Editor of The New York Times:_
It is regrettable that President Wilson"s admirable policy of strict neutrality is not more sincerely and carefully observed by the press and public of this country.
We are a cosmopolitan nation. Citizens of the five great warring countries and their descendants, to a very great extent, const.i.tute our population. Partiality of any kind tends to destroy the elemental ties which bind us together, to disrupt our Union, and to make us a house divided against itself. James M. Beck"s article in last Sunday"s TIMES is of the kind which, serving no good purpose, helps to loosen, if not sever, our most vital domestic ties. While not for an instant doubting Mr. Beck"s sincerity, we must take issue with his inadvertently ill-timed expression of opinion.
The article in question is based on the following statement: "Any discussion of the ethical merits of this great controversy must start with the a.s.sumption that there is such a thing as international morality." How does Mr. Beck define "international morality"? How can he a.s.sume that to exist which each of the contending nations by their diverse actions prove to be non-extant? How can he claim that there is an "international morality" of accepted form when each nation claims that its interpretation must be accepted by the others?
Mr. Beck"s allegation that the question "Was England justified in declaring war against Germany?" is more easily disposed of than the questions "Was Austria justified in declaring war against Servia?" and "Was Germany justified in declaring war against Russia and France?"
proves two things--first, that his interest lies primarily in the vindication of England; second, that he disregards the fundamental causes and recognizes only the precipitating causes of the war.
The precipitating cause of the war between England and Germany is verbosely if inadequately covered by his article. We must admit that a treaty was broken by Germany, yet we contend that this broken agreement was a pretext for a war fomented and impelled by basic economic causes.
At the outset, let us distinguish between a contract and a treaty. A contract is an agreement between individuals contemplating enforcement by a court of law; punishment by money damages in the great majority of cases, by a specific performance in a very few. A treaty is an agreement between nations contemplating enforcement by a court of international public opinion; punishment by money indemnity in the great majority of cases, by specific performance (i.e., force of arms) in a very few.
Germany"s Existence Threatened.
Germany contends that her breach of treaty obligation is punishable by the payment of money indemnity to the aggrieved party. This she has offered to do in the case of Belgium, as she has already done in the case of Luxemburg. Germany"s existence was so seriously threatened that her action seems justifiable, and there remains a sole moral obligation to compensate any neutral country injured by her.
The mere fact that Belgium had made an unfortunate alliance with England is deplorable in that Belgium has suffered terribly; but this suffering is not attributable to Germany. When j.a.pan violated Chinese neutrality, China protested. Though she was ent.i.tled to a money indemnity, there is no valid reason under the sun why the United States as a guarantor of the integrity of China should declare war against j.a.pan. England"s justification, in so far as there can be any justification for adding to the toll of death, is the same as that of Germany, the preservation of national sovereignty.
Further: "It seems unnecessary to discuss the wanton disregard of these solemn obligations." There can be nothing wanton in a struggle for existence, and that this European war is such a struggle is the only possible explanation of its magnitude, ferocity, and vast possible consequences. Then, too, though deplorable, treaty obligations are not solemn, as Italy has proved to the complete satisfaction of so many.
Italy"s contention that this is an aggressive war on the part of Germany and Austria is as untenable as the German contention that it is an aggressive war on the part of England. For this war was not an aggressive war on the part of any nation, but an unavoidable war caused by the simultaneous bursting of the long-gathering economic storm clouds.
Again: "The ethical aspects of this great conflict must largely depend upon the record that has been made up by the official communications."
This is similar to a contention that the ethical rights in a case in court must depend upon the astuteness of counsel in summing up to the jury. "A court would be deeply impressed ... by the significant omissions of doc.u.ments known to be in existence." A court of law, as our former a.s.sistant Attorney General of the United States surely knows, compels no one to give testimony that tends to incriminate, and, furthermore, does not construe failure to testify on the grounds that it will tend to incriminate against the defendant. In the law the defendant is ent.i.tled to every reasonable doubt. It is also conceivable that a reasonable time for the defense to present its case would be granted before pa.s.sing judgment.
Pa.s.sing on: "To discuss the justice of Austria"s grievances against Servia would take us ... into the realm of disputed facts." This seems a delectable bit of humor. We respectfully submit that Mr. Beck"s other a.s.sertions might also be considered as "in the realm of disputed facts."
Mr. Beck admits that Austria had a just grievance against Servia, though he questions her method of redress. Though we conceive that in the unfortunate European tangle Austria relied on German support in the event of international conflict, we submit that reliance on Russian support was a bigger factor in encouraging little Servia to defy her big neighbor than the remoter help that Germany would furnish Austria in the event of the conflict spreading.
Austria, in the exercise of her right to engage in a punitive expedition against Servia, guaranteed that she would do nothing to generalize the conflict by her a.s.surances to Russia and to the world that there would be no annexation of Servian territory or annihilation of the Servian Kingdom. Whether these a.s.surances were genuine or not is impossible of determination. We have no right to const.i.tute ourselves arbiters of their sincerity.
No European Solidarity.
Mr. Beck speaks of "the solidarity of European civilization and the fact that by policy and diplomatic intercourse ... a United European State exists, even though its organization be as yet inchoate." This solidarity is conspicuous only by its utter non-existence. Whatever may have been achieved by policy and diplomatic intercourse has been marred and rendered useless by the lines of demarkation of the spheres of influence of the great powers of Europe and by the racial and temperamental incongruities of Europe"s population.
We read: "Servia had forty-eight hours to answer; ... the other European nations had barely a day to consider what could be done to preserve the peace of Europe. Why should an Austro-Servian war compromise the peace of Europe?" Was it not because of the tangled web of international diplomacy, the Triple Entente as well as the Triple Alliance?
Referring to a German warning in regard to Austria"s demands on Servia, "the German Foreign Office antic.i.p.ates that Servia "will refuse to comply with these demands"--why, if they were justified?" We grieve at the shattered ideal of Mr. Beck, who, in the face of the international calamity which has befallen the world, still can believe that all justifiable demands are complied with.
Again, quoting German "White Paper," Annex 1B, Germany desired "that the dispute be localized, since any intervention of another power, on account of the various alliance obligations, would bring consequences impossible to measure." The explanation of this statement is not--an aggressor threatens his adversary, but, rather, a prudent man begs opposing factions to keep cool.
Great s.p.a.ce is devoted in the article in question to Germany"s unwillingness to place the Austro-Servian controversy in the hands of France, England, Germany, and Italy. As Germany disavows all interest in the controversy, if she speaks truly, it was not within her power to dictate to her ally in a matter which she could in nowise control except by force of arms. Furthermore, had she had the power, how could she be expected to exert pressure on her ally to leave a vital controversy to a court of four, two of whom were bound by alliances with Russia, Austria"s real antagonist, and a third, (Italy,) as subsequent events have shown, Austria"s natural, geographical, and hereditary enemy? At best, had each power held to its treaty obligations, there would have been a deadlock.
Further: "The Russian Minister ... called at the German Foreign Office and asked it "to urge upon Vienna ... to take up this line of conciliation. Jagow replied that he could not advise Austria to yield.""
Elsewhere in the article a statement is made that the Austro-Servian and Austro-Russian questions "for all practical purposes ... were indistinguishable." This inconsistency of having Servia in the light of a princ.i.p.al and then again in the light of an agent is the greatest stumbling block to a clear a.n.a.lysis of the precipitating cause of the war. The logical explanation of Servia"s position is that of Russia"s agent. Hence Germany could not be expected to exert the same pressure on an allied princ.i.p.al that Russia could exert on her agent.
It is true that Germany engaged in many blundering diplomatic quibbles in the final stages of preparation for the war; but it is also true that England quibbled, though with greater diplomatic finesse; for instance, "Sir Edward Grey went so far as to tell the German Amba.s.sador that ...
if Germany would make any reasonable proposals to preserve peace, and Russia and France rejected it, that "his Majesty"s Government would have nothing to do with the consequences."" Here it is apparent to every one that the word "reasonable" begs the questions.
Slav and Teuton.
The German people were encouraged to relish the idea of a war against Russia once that war became likely, for sooner or later it seemed inevitable that Slav and Teuton would clash, and Germany felt confident that at the present time she outmatched her enemy. The Russians, too, were encouraged to desire the Slav provinces of Austria, which racially are a part of the Russian domain. The English people were made to relish this opportunity to strike their great commercial compet.i.tor, especially when they could do so with little likelihood of unfavorable criticisms.
Finally, the impressionable French people were stirred to thoughts of revenge and recovery of their lost provinces.
Sympathy with any country in this most disgraceful yet most inevitable of wars brands the sympathizer as a party to the material and l.u.s.tful purposes of at least one of the combatants. There is no ethical justification of this war from any standpoint. There is no justification of this war from any standpoint. There is only an explanation of the war from an economic standpoint. All these specious arguments on the precipitating causes of the war can be but for the display of brilliant forensic oratory and matchless diction. Let us thrust aside in these dark moments of peril and horror all subterfuge.
England, overburdened with taxation, was on the verge of civil war.
Russia, whose ma.s.ses were overridden roughshod by a bureaucracy weighting down the peasants with onerous national burdens, expected sooner or later the cataclysmic upheaval with which the Nihilistic societies have long been threatening its tyrannical Government. France, seriously financially embarra.s.sed because of crop impoverishment and bad foreign investments in Brazil, Russia, and the Balkans, was subject to continued internal political upheavals, with ever-changing Ministries and a growing Socialist Party.
Austria, "the ramshackle empire," was in danger of disintegrating from a variety of causes, not the least of which was the infusibility of its racially different elements. Germany, in a blind race for commercial supremacy, suffered from industrial overproduction, thus creating an unhealthy financial condition which fortified the Socialist Party to an extent which threatened her imperialistic form of government itself.
So these monarchies whose days were numbered, because of dissatisfaction at the waste and extravagance of a world gone mad with national excesses committed in the name of civilization, in reality the price of our modernization, in a final desperate effort to rally their waning fortunes stampeded their awakening ma.s.ses into a ruinous interracial war in order to stave off the torch and the guillotine.
GEORGE E. BERNHEIMER.
New York, Oct. 30, 1914.
Russia to Blame
_To the Editor of The New York Times:_
Allow me to submit the following in answer to the article of James M.
Beck, ent.i.tled "Case of the Double Alliance vs. the Triple Entente,"
published in THE NEW YORK TIMES of Oct. 25, 1914:
The case of "Russian Mobilization vs. German Mediation." Q.--Upon whom was the duty to yield?
Mr. Beck has spent considerable time and effort to prove, at least by inference, that Germany must have been informed beforehand of the Austrian ultimatum to Servia. Personally, I am convinced that the ultimatum in question was sent with the full knowledge and consent of Germany; and, whether this is true or not, I maintain that it was Austria"s duty to inform her ally before taking a step which was likely to endanger the peace of Europe.
The concession of this point takes me immediately to the ultimatum itself and to the question, "Was the tenor of the ultimatum justified?"