Current misconceptions about the war ...

^ All •^j

»-C.3i

dhoa

Walter Clinton Jackson Library

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Special Collections & Rare Books

World War I Pamphlet Collection

CURRENT

MISCONCEPTIONS

ABOUT THE WAR

Karl H. von Wiegand's Interview with the Crown Prince

What is German *' Culture" ?

Has the U. S. Guaranteed Belgian Neutrality ?

Chaos in THE Rules OF War

The Contribution Levied Against Brussels

1915

THE FATHERLAND CORPORATION, inc.

II 23 Broadway, New York

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2010 with funding from

Lyrasis IVIembers and Sloan Foundation

http://www.archive.org/details/currentmisconcepOOunse

CROWN PRINCE OF GERMANY
INTERVIEWED

** Preparation Was Our Duty," Declares Heir to Kaiser's
Throne — Holds England Responsible

BylKARL^H. VON WIEGAND

United Press Staff Corresponde^it
{Copyright, 1914, by United Press. Copyright in Great Britain.)

Headquarters of the Army of Crown Prince in France
{hy courier via Namur, Aix-la-Chapelle and The Hague to London,
by cable to New York), Nov. 20. — "Undoubtedly this is the
most stupid, senseless and unnecessary war of modern times.
It is a war not wanted by Germany, I can assure you, but it
was forced on us, and the fact that we were so effectually pre-
pared to defend ourselves is now being used as an argument to
convince the world that we desired conflict."

In these words Frederick William, Crown Prince of Germany
and heir to the throne of the Kaiser, opened the first interview
he has ever given to a foreign newspaper man, and the first direct
statement made to the press by any member of the German
royal family since the outbreak of the war,

I arrived at the headquarters of the Fifth German army in
an automobile, shortly before midnight. At daybreak, I received
a call from Major Edler von der Planitz, personal aide de camp
to the Crown Prince, who stated that his Imperial Highness
wanted to welcome me, but that he was leaving for the firing
line and would see me a little later in the day.

When, some time later, the Crown Prince returned, I was
presented. He greeted me cordially and without any of the
stiffness or cool reserve that might have been expected.

"I am very pleased to see you here," he said, "and I hope
that you will find plenty to interest you. I want you to feel at
liberty to go wherever you like."

"I hope your Imperial Highness will pardon my Americanized
German," I said, in stating to him some of the points in which
I thought American readers would be chiefly interested.

3

4 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR

"Then let us talk English, if you feel that we can better thus
express ourselves," was his quick reply. Acting on the sug-
gestion the Crown Prince of Germany proceeded to give his first
interview in English.

An Uncalled-for War

"I am a soldier, and therefore cannot discuss politics," said
the Crown Prince, "but it seems to me that this whole business,
all of this action that you see around here, is senseless, un-
necessary and uncalled for. But Germany was left no choice
in the matter. From the lowest to the highest we all know that
we are fighting for our existence. I know that soldiers of the
other nations probably say, and a great many of them probably
think, the same thing. This does not alter the fact, however,
that we are actually fighting for our national Hfe.

"Since we knew that the present war was to be forced on us
it became our highest duty to anticipate the struggle by every
necessary and possible preparation for the defense of the Father-
land, against the iron ring which our enemies have for years been
carefully and steadily welding about us.

"The fact that we foresaw and, as far as possible, forestalled
the attempt to crush us within this ring, and the fact that we
were prepared to defend ourselves is now being used as an argu-
ment in an attempt to convince the world that we not only
wanted this conflict, but that we are responsible for it.

Germans Are a Unit

"No power on earth will ever be able to convince our people
that this war was not engineered solely and wholly with a view
to crushing the German people, their Government, their institu-
tions and all that they hold dear. As a result, you will find the
German people are one grand unit imbued with a magnificent
spirit of self-sacrifice."

The scene of our conversation was the drawing-room of a
small French villa, located a few miles directly back of the
German fighting-lines and used by the Crown Prince as a head-
quarters for himself and staff. The Crown Prince entered,
accompanied by Major von der Planitz, who, after presenting
me, withdrew.

The young commander of the German forces was dressed
simply in the gray-green khaki of his troops, in a uniform devoid

CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 5

of any decorations save a very small insignia of his rank of
lieutenant-general and his recently-acquired black and white
ribbon of the Order of the Iron Cross. He carried no sword,
but toyed with a short swagger stick similar to those carried by
English cavalry officers.

Holds England Responsible

Our conversation had been in progress but a short time when
it became clear to me that the Crown Prince, like 99 per cent
of the Germans I have met on the firing line and off of it, holds
England responsible for the present war.

The thing that impressed me most, however, was the fact
that despite the intensity of his convictions he displayed none
of the intense hatred or the bitterness toward the English which
I have observed so constantly among people of all walks of life
since the outbreak of the war. On the contrary, there was a
note of regret and almost one of sadness as he discussed this
phase of the great issue.

I quickly gained the impression that the Crown Prince is by
no means the man he has been pictured in England and America.

There is nothing of the fire-eater nor uncompromising warrior
about him. He gave no evidence of gaining pleasure from his
military experience or of delighting in conflict. It was obvious
that the carnage . he has already witnessed has made a deep
imprint on his naturally impressionistic mind, and he referred
frequently to the losses and the suffering, not only of his own
but of the enemy's forces.

He was exceedingly generous at all times in his praise of the
enemy as he had come in contact with them. If he was ever
possessed of a reckless, dare-devil, carefree personality the last
traces of it have apparently been removed by his work of the
past few months.

Surprised by America's Attitude

Early in the conversation his Imperial Highness assumed the
r61e of the interviewer and made evident his deep interest in the
sentiment of America and Americans and his lack of under-
standing of the general attitude of our country toward Germany's
position. Like a great majority of all Germans, he is unable
exactly to understand why there is not more sympathy in the
United States for Germany.

6 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR

"There is no use or no purpose to be served by our closing
our eyes," he said, "to the fact that a very large part of the
world is against us.

"But it surprises me that America, to which we are bound
by ties of friendship and blood as to no other neutral country;
America, where millions of our people have gone and carried the
German tongue and German ideas of liberty and freedom, should
be so totally unable to put itself in our place.

"I would not be frank unless I admitted that it has been
a surprise to me that Americans have not seen more clearly up
to this time the position of Germany, entirely surrounded by
jealous enemies, fighting for her existence; that they have not
had a better understanding which would necessarily mean a
higher appreciation of the unexampled sacrifices and heroism of
our people, making this gigantic struggle with no other objective
than the saving of the Fatherland."

He attributed the attitude of America almost wholly to
England's control of the press and the world's channels of com-
munication. He frankly admitted that in the past Germany has
failed to appreciate the important role played by the press in
world poHtics and in international afifairs. He made it clear that
Germany has learned a lesson in this respect, and learned it at
the price of being branded in the eyes of the neutral nations as
a military menace to the world's peace.

Expects Sentiment to Change

"I have faith in the sense of justice of the American people,"
said his Highness, "once we can get to them the actual facts
and the actual truths back of this conflict. I know that up to
this time it has been impossible for them to thoroughly under-
stand our situation, but I believe that when the truth is known
to them the fair-mindedness and the love of fair play, which has
always characterized the acts of your countrymen, will result in
a revulsion of sentiment in our favor.

"I had many friends in America. I believe I still have some
there. I also have many friends in England — or rather had," said
the Prince, with a rueful smile and a shake of his head. Then,
turning abruptly and looking me squarely in ihe eye, he said:

"I want you to tell me exactly what is said about me in
America."

CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 7

I hesitated a moment, trying to figure just how much frank-
ness was compatible with discretion in discussing personalities
with the Crown Prince of the German Empire. Apparently
reading my thoughts, his Highness laughed good-naturedly, and
prompted:

"I Hke frankness and can stand the truth. Go ahead. I
really want to know."

"Well," I repHed, "the fact is that your Imperial Highness
has been very generally represented, or misrepresented, as one
of the Kriegshetzer , a war agitator, leader of the war party, and
exponent extraordinary of militarism."

Do They Believe I'm a Thief?

■'Yes, I know," said the Crown Prince, nodding his head in
assent and giving no evidence of surprise, "and the English
press says all that and much more. The EngHsh papers have
stated that I am a thief and that I have personally robbed and
pillaged these French houses in which we have been forced to
make our headquarters. Really — and I want you to tell me
frankly — is it possible that intelligent people in America or even
in England can honestly beHeve such things of me? Can it be
possible that they believe me capable of stealing pictures or art
treasures, or permitting the looting of French homes?"

I reminded him that in war times sane Judgment often went
by the boards.

"I know, but it is simply incredible that people could believe
what the EngHsh papers have printed about me personally and
about our side of the war. Let's see, how many times have I
committed suicide or been wounded?"

I admitted that I had lost count.

"I am supposed recently to have been badly defeated on the
Russian frontier," chuckled his Highness. "But this whole
business would be much more amusing," he added in a more
sober tone, "if I did not know that as a result of it the pubUc in
neutral countries is being misled. As to my being a war agitator,
I am truly sorry that people do not know me better."

" No War Party in Germany "
"There is no war party in Germany now and there never
has been. I cannot help believing that it will very soon dawn
upon the world that so far as Germany is concerned this conflict

8 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR

is not a war waged by some mythical party, but is a fight backed
by the unity and solidarity of the German Empire. This imity
is the best answer to the charge with which England is endeavor-
ing to terrify the world — that the war is being pushed by an
ambitious military clique."

The young soldier laughed heartily when I told him that the
Russian press bureau had recently reported that their troops
nearly captured the Kaiser during a recent engagement near
Warsaw.

"I must tell father about that. I am sure it will be news to
him and that he will enjoy it," he said.

Praises French Troops

Switching to the subject of the enemy, the Crown Prince
said:

"The French soldiers are surpassed by none for their bravery.
They have fought splendidly. Individually, the French soldier
is equal in every respect to our own intelligence, and in some
things is quicker and more agile. But he is a defensive fighter
and lacks the dogged determination and sta)dng power of our
troops when it comes to offensive work. Events have shown
that French leadership has been excellent, and it has commanded
our admiration."

After a half hour's interview we were interrupted by an
officer who reported to the Crown Prince that his staff was
mounted and waiting outside. First inviting me to have dinner
with him that evening, his Highness excused himself, and, mount-
ing his horse, galloped away to the scene of the day's fighting.

During dinner he returned to the subject of America and his
desire to visit our country.

Had Planned Trip Here

"I had all arrangements made for a visit two years ago," he
said, "but political objections prevented my trip. I had deter-
mined on a visit this year and had planned a himting trip with
Ambassador Gerard, but the war has, of course, spoiled that.
Some time, however, I intend to make the trip. I am especially
interested in your big industrial centers like Pittsburgh and
Chicago, and in your beautiful cities like Detroit, San Francisco
and Portland.

CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 9

" I am most anxious to see one of your baseball games and one
of your baseball crowds. You know I have been greatly inter-
ested in sports and in furthering them with consideration to the
physical training of our young men. Personally, it has been a
big disappointment to me that the war has made impossible the
scheduled Olympic games at Berhn."

A glance at the reading table in the Crown Prince's room
nailed the generally repeated story that he reads only what is
clipped for him. I saw on his table leading American, English,
French and Italian papers, with several numbers of Puck and
Life. I asked him what he thought of American humor, and he
replied that Life was one of his favorite magazines because of its
clever poHtical satire, its wisdom and its faculty for puncturing
conceit. The conversation developed that I have an acquaintance
with Jack London.

He Likes Jack London

"London is one of my favorite American authors," he said,
"and I would like very much to meet him. I think that his
portrayal of nature and the breath of the outdoors, together
with his forcefulness, give his writings great power."

I reminded him that London was a Socialist.

"That would not make me want any less to know what kind
of a man writes such books," was the quick reply.

Our conversation drifted along freely, skipping about from
war to Hterature, to sports and to human nature generally. It
was impossible, however, for me to get from his Highness for
quotation any statement of a political nature. Our general talk,
however, served to convince me that if this young man, who will
in all probability one day rule the German Empire, was ever the
hot-headed and boisterous youth he has been painted, the war
has turned him into a sober, earnest, thoughtful man, with a
deep sense of his responsibility. Despite his boyish appearance
(he does not look his 32 years) the Crown Prince is the most
modern and up-to-date thinker I have met in German officialdom.

A Natural Human Being

The keynote of his make-up is his simplicity, lack of affecta-
tion and the faculty he has of impressing you with the idea that
he is just a natural human being, a man among men, with a
quiet dignity, no poses and a hearty and freely-expressed disHke

lo CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR

of pomp. There seems Kttle doubt that his reputation for break-
ing precedents and disregarding traditions, especially if they have
a tendency to hamper progress, is well earned. He is no diplo-
mat, knows and admits it. He gives the impression of knowing
his own limitations, but has a straightforward manner and an
inclination to say just what he thinks, which makes him both
trouble and friends. He has an unusual trait of being able to
hear the unpleasant truth with good grace. His greatest an-
tipathy is to flatterers.

From my conversation with him I gathered that the Crown
Prince is strongly opposed to bureaucracy and everything stand-
ing between the people and their ruler. It developed from my
conversations with members of his staff that it is almost im-
possible to get him to sign the death sentence of a convicted spy
or franc-tireur.

Recently when the French stormed the German trenches in
the Argonne and were hurled back at one point with an unusually
heavy loss, the Crown Prince offered the French a truce in order
that they might gather up their wounded, who strewed the
ground before the German trenches. When I asked the Crown
Prince about the incident, he repHed:

"Yes, there were several hundred dead and wounded in front
of our trenches. I simply could not stand it, thinking of those
brave fellows badly wounded, and lying there, many of them
dying within a few yards of our doctors and nurses, while others
were trying to drag themselves inch by inch toward our or their
own trenches. I almost had a row about it with my Chief of
Staff, who opposed me in the matter, saying the French would
only report that we had asked for a truce because we were
defeated. But I insisted on a white flag bearer being sent to
the French trenches with an offer to give them time to get their
wounded or allow us to get them. They refused, and, as a result,
hundreds of those wounded fellows who might have been saved
perished miserably. Some of them lived three or four days
without food, water or medical attention. The whole thing
seemed to me an instance of senseless and useless cruelty."

As a matter of fact I learned from other officers that the
Chief of Staff was right in his judgment. The French did report
that the Germans had asked for a truce.

I found among the officers of his staff", mostly all young men

CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR ii

like himself, the Crown Prince is an idol. From elder officers,
I learned that the young man has demonstrated an unusual
capacity for strategic problems, and the prediction is made that
the war will serve to place liim in the list of Germany's greatest
generals.

WHAT IS GERMAN "CULTURE''?

Editorial from the "North American," Philadelphia,
Saturday, November 28

111 counting up the adverse influences which have beset Ger-
many in her relations toward the world, most of us consider only
the armaments alHed against her and the moral opposition
aroused against certain of her acts and policies. Yet there is
another thing, a seeming trifle, which has had a potent effect
in causing misunderstanding of German thought and purpose,
and misunderstanding is the parent of injustice and enmity.

This handicap lies in the difficulty of expressing German
ideas with exactitude in other languages, and particularly in
English. Next to a democratic form of government and a some-
what higher conception of international morality, Germany's
most urgent need, we should say, is a competent interpretation.
An expert translator with sufffcient authority to command atten-
tion and sufffcient familiarity with both languages to render into
idiomatic English the phraseology of her public affairs and utter-
ances would be a priceless treasure to the Empire.

The possibilities of confusion that lurk in hasty, ill-considered
translations from one tongue to another are really stupendous.
There are thoughts and ideas quite elementary to one people
which members of another race cannot mentally visualize with
even approximate accuracy.

For example, the Japanese who speaks of his "honorable
grandmother" expresses a pious veneration which reaches back
into the dim regions of antiquity and passes the borderland of
religious sanctity. Yet a fictitious Japanese schoolboy of current
American humor makes the phrase "Hon. grandmother" ir-
resistibly comic.

To give another instance from the same nation, a Japanese
convert to Christianity rendered into his tongue the solemn
words "Rock of Ages, cleft for me." His intent was the most
pious in the world, but his hearers among his own people were
profoundly puzzled by reading the Japanese equivalent of "Very
old stone, split for my benefit."

12

CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 13

That Germany has suffered seriously by the perversity of
transplanted words is not to be doubted. While she was at
peace with all the world, no great damage to her standing was
apparent. But no sooner had she become involved in war than
her foes and her critics made joyous use of distorted translations
which had long been current.

The Kaiser, as the most noted and most picturesque spokes-
man of the nation, has naturally been the chief victim in this
regard. His exalted mysticism and his profound conviction of
his high mission in the world have exaggerated the widespread
misconception of some of his most familiar utterances. Phrases
that to his own people ring true and are filled with kingly nobility
have been so marred in being carried into other tongues that
they have sped round the world amid irreverent laughter.

" Supreme war lord" — thus, as everybody knows, his Imperial
Majesty is sometimes addressed, and thus he is wont to name
liimself in his stirring exhortations to his troops. It is a mouth-
filling term, worthy of the military magnificence and worshipful
pomp that supposedly envelop the Kaiser, and has become so
embedded in popular thought that it would be hopeless to en-
deavor to pry it out.

Yet the fact is that the phrase as it has reached us is wholly
misleading. Wilhelm II. never was hailed and never described
himself as "supreme war lord" of the German people. The title
he uses, with perfect right and propriety, is "Oberkriegsherr,"
and its rea,l meaning is pretty well rendered by " commander-in-
chief," a title which the President of the United States bears in
his capacity as head of the army and navy without arousing
fears of imperialistic designs.

Since the beginning of hostilities, the Emperor's words have
been more closely scrutinized than ever by his foes. A perfect
fusillade of criticism was leveled at him a few weeks ago by
persons whose religious sensibihties had been shocked by a
sentence in an address to a regiment.

"We shall yet destroy our enemies," ran the report of the
imperial speech. "Our old God up there will give us the victory."

This was really too much. A beHef in the divine right of
kings is bad enough, but it is intolerable that the delusion should
be carried so far that a man, however exalted, should invoke the
Creator with such arrogant familiarity. The reference to "our

14 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR

old God up there" seemed in wretched taste, and that the
German people did not resent it proved, of course, their pagan
depravity.

Unfortunately for the value of this criticism, however, the
Kaiser^s words had no such meaning as was attributed to them.
His religious faith is one of the passions of his life, and his pious
veneration for sacred things a habit founded upon deep con-
viction. What he really said was, "Our ancient God on high
■wall give us the victory," and, whatever may be the thought of
his theory, the most bitter opponent cannot justly complain of
his phraseology.

But these examples of error in regard to German ideas are
trifling compared to a misconception which is even more baseless.
If we were asked to name the one thing most hurtful to the
German cause we should hesitate whether to cite the violation
of Belgium's neutrality, the sack of Louvain or the phrase
"German culture."

Certainly the first two have created a vast volume of un-
favorable judgment, but the third has had an inflammatory
effect upon the public mind that is quite deadly. And all through
a misunderstanding.

The prominence of German "Kultur" in the controversy is
due to its persistent emphasis by all spokesmen for that side.
The Kaiser exhorts his troops to defend the Fatherland and
"Kultur." It was Teutonic "Kultur" that was in peril from
Russian barbarism, necessitating an invasion of Belgium. The
imperial Chancellor used it in his oration to the Reichstag, and
it appears in all the manifestoes of statesmen, diplomats, soldiers,
journaKsts, university professors and other advocates for the
Empire.

German "Kultur," we have been instructed, is the very soul
of Teutonic civilization, the uplifting force in Europe, the one
thing needful to regenerate the world. Beside it, the "Kultur"
of any other nation whatsoever is a pitiable counterfeit. It
sanctified the ambitions of Pan-Gemianism and justified every
device used to spread its beneficent influence.

Now, to most non-Germans, this apparent claim to the
possession of an exclusive "culture" was at first merely amusing.
Students of the glories of genius in art, music, literature and
science, which are the heritage of the Latin and Celtic and

CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 15

Anglo-Saxon peoples, found the solemn assumption of Teutonic
superiority quite exhilarating.

But in time the word became an irritation. The air of bland
finality with which it was uttered by German sympathizers
seemed almost offensive, and by common consent their own
weapon was turned against them.

"Confound your 'culture'!" said the exasperated world.
"Some of us had scholarship and polish and spiritual enlighten-
ment when you were barbarians, and we have works of genius
which tower above your best productions like mountain peaks
above a plain. Moreover, we do not observe in your social
habits, your politics or your international relations any im-
pressive signs of a special refinement which we might profitably
adopt."

Hence it became a habit among Germany's critics to jJing
her "culture" in her teeth. The most inexpert controversialist
could make a telling point by inquiring whether the repudiation
of treaties and the burning of cities were evidences of German
"culture" in operation.

Yet all this is lamentably unjust. Germany has not arrogated
to herself the possession of the highest " culture." Her " Kultur "
is something quite apart from the popular meaning given to the
term used to express it in English.

Culture, in the narrow sense in which most of us use it implies,
development of the mind, refinement of the sensibiKties, enlarge-
ment of the spiritual vision, encouragement of lofty aspirations.
"Kultur," on the contrary, is intensely practical and material-
istic. It is an all-embracing term for advanced civilization.

When the German speaks of "Kultur" he means not only
scholarship and artistic genius, but all the developments in
governmental, social and economic betterment.

He includes expert and honest municipal rule, scientific
efficiency in industry, education and military training, high
standards of service in pubhc utilities, conservation of natural
resources, effective measures of public sanitation, an aggressive
commercial policy, the amelioration of poverty and the elimina-
tion of uneconomic living conditions, old-age pensions, industrial
insurance and a thousand other results of German thoroughness
in dealing with the problems of existence.

"Kultur" means not only achievements in the arts and sciences,

i6 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR

hut in everyday progress. It embraces not only poems and sym-
phonies, hut dirigible airships, sanitary tenements and scientific
sewage disposal. It covers the whole range of German civilization.

It is for this that the German people are fighting.
Rightly or wrongly, they are possessed with the idea that other
nations have plotted to destroy it, and they have proved them-
selves ready for any sacrifice to preserve it.

Humanity may properly deplore and resent the theory that
this "Kultur," magnificent as it is, justifies the ignoring of
treaties as "scraps of paper" and efforts to impose it upon free
nations by force of arms. But it must be conceded that the
cause is not so trifling as generally supposed.

How much Germany has suffered from the worldwide mis-
conception of her favorite word, it would be impossible to estimate.
But our Judgment is that she might profitably exchange her
whole fleet of armored Zeppelins for a plan that would blot out
the fatally misunderstood word "culture" from her propaganda
and from the memory of mankind.

HAS THE UNITED STATES GUARANTEED
THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM?

{New York Sun, Nov. 23, IQ14.)

Judge George Chandler Holt, formerly of the United States
District Court for this district, has raised again in the Independent
the strange question whether our Government, as a signer of the
Treaty of The Hague, is therefore a responsible guarantor of the
neutrahty of Belgium. Let us be careful to state this remarkable
proposition in Judge Holt's own words:

"But the gravest infringement of the Hague Convention
which has taken place in this war is the violation of the neu-
trality of Belgium. The neutrality of Belgium was originally
specifically guaranteed by a treaty between the principal Powers
now at war, but to which the United States was not a party.
But it is also guaranteed by the following general provisions of
the Hague Convention, to which the United States is a party:

"'The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

"'Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of
either munitions of war or supplies across territory of a neutral
Power.

"'The fact of a neutral Power resisting, even by force,
attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile
act.'"

We do not see exactly what this estimable jurist and juris-
consult is driving at. Apparently all that he desires is that the
United States Government, as a signer of the Convention of The
Hague, should register without further delay a formal and
physically innocuous protest against Germany's violation of
Belgian territory and the other alleged infringements of the
general compact concerning the rights of neutrality.

Judge Holt Wrong
But if Judge Holt were right in his view of this nation's ob-
ligations under the Treaty of The Hague, something more than
futile accusations and ineffective protests would be our im-
mediate duty. If the United States Government by solemn
contract with the other Powers had made itself responsible for
the maintenance of Belgium's neutrality it would be our plain
duty to participate in the physica.1 business of driving the invader
from Belgian soil, of punishing him for his unlawful aggression^

17

i8 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR

of collecting from him by lorce of arms the penalty of his offense
and the solatium justly due to the innocent people he has injured.

In other words, if Judge Holt were right, it would become our
duty to make war on Germany for precisely the same reason
which Great Britain has declared as her cause of war.

There can be no doubt of this. Contract responsibility for
Belgium's neutrality once being admitted on our part, there is
no middle course between the cowardly repudiation of treaty
obligations and the full performance, no matter at what cost,
of that duty which Judge Holt says we have undertaken as one
of the responsible underwriters of Belgium's neutraHty.

But it happens that Judge Holt is not right in his view of this
nation's obligation under the several conventions of The Hague.
Every one of these successive conventions was signed by the
American delegates and ratified by the Senate of the United
States under reservation of the declaration originally presented
to the conference on July 25, 1899, and reiterated in almost
identical words in the plenary session of the Conference of
October 16, 1907, as foUows:

"Nothing contained in this Convention shall be so construed
as to require the United States of America to depart from its
traditional poHcy of not intruding upon, interfering with or
entangling itself in the political questions or poHcy or internal
administration of any foreign State; nor shall anything contained
in the said Convention be construed to imply a reHnquishment
by the United States of its traditional attitude toward purely
American questions."

There are two sides of the Monroe Doctrine, and both sides
are here stated in qualification or modification of any responsi-
bihties we undertook at either of the Peace Conferences at The
Hague. The first reservation amply covers the question which
Judge Holt raises.

That intelligent jurist will be quick to perceive the distinction
between our undertaking to observe on our part the international
rules laid down in the several treaties of The Hague and our
undertaking to enforce the same rules in the case of European
nations. He will be quick to see that in view of the broad
reservation just quoted we cannot, by any stretch of imagination
or parchment or paper, be regarded as a responsible guarantor
of the neutrality of Belgium.

CHAOS IN THE RULES OF WAR

{New York Sun, Nov. 25, 191 4.)

There is current just now much loose talk about the responsi-
bility of the United States, as a signatory of the various con-
ventions adopted at The Hague in 1907, for the appHcation and
enforcement of the rules as to war on land, the rules as to war
on sea, and the rules as to the rights and duties of neutrals which
were enacted at that memorable Conference of forty -four Powers.

Of the general sleaziness of thought and imperfection of
knowledge concerning the status of these codes of war and
neutrality we are having every day amazing illustrations by the
dozen. Yesterday, The Sun commented on the proposition of
Judge Holt, in the Independent, that the neutrality of Belgium,
in addition to special treaties, was guaranteed by one of the con-
ventions adopted at The Hague and that the United States
Government was a party to that guarantee, with consequent
responsibility and duty in the present situation. Now comes
the Rev. George W. Douglas, the senior canon of St. John the
Divine, with remarks which exemplify with sufficient inaccuracy
the widespread misunderstanding on the subject. For that reason
they afford a convenient text, and we accordingly use them as
such. Canon Douglas is thus reported by the Tribune:

"The United States was a party to The Hague Convention
at which certain articles were signed by all the great Powers.
As a party to such a contract, it is the duty of the United States
to live up to the terms of the agreement, and to insist that other
nations do the same. It was expressly stated that no armies
should be moved across neutral territory, and that floating or
ujianchored mines should not be sown in the open sea.

"For the United States to proclaim neutrality is right and
proper. But neutrality does not mean that we shall see the
terms of such articles violated without protest. Therefore, it
is our duty when the terms of The Hague Convention are dis-
regarded to remonstrate and hold up to censure the offending
party^or parties. Any other course will brand us as cowards."

19

20 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR
The Exact Truth Stated

It is about time that the exact truth should he stated about these
rules of war and neutrality, supposed by almost everybody to be
in force in the existing contest, and likewise supposed by some people
to devolve upon this nation responsibility for their assertion; at
least to the extent of vigorous protest.

The rules now generally believed to be binding upon the
belligerents in Europe were embodied in the series of fifteen
treaties or conventions signed by the representatives of the
forty-four Powers at the second international Peace Conference
at The Hague seven years ago ; these instruments being revisions
and extensions of the original treaties signed at the first Peace
Conference in 1899. Some of the more flagrantly disregarded of
these provisions we extracted from the Several conventions and
printed on this page yesterday under the heading "Scraps of
Paper?" It may have been observed by those interested that
to this exhibit we appended a note saying that many of the pro-
positions were not ratified by "all" the Powers now belhgerent,
and that there was a question as to their force in the present war.

It is somewhat of a coincidence that there also came yesterday
from Washington the news that our State Department has
reached the conclusion that the so-called Declaration of London
is no longer to be regarded as vahd f or the regulation of the pro-
ceedings of belKgerents in naval warfare.

The broad fact is that none of the codes formulated at The Hague
in igoy for the mitigation of Die horrors of war, for the preservation
of the rights of private property, for the safeguarding of non-
combatants, for the protection of neutral individuals and com-
munities, can be regarded as legally valid or in force under the
present circumstances. This means that the charge of perfidy or
violation of a deliberately undertaken agreement drops out of
sight in all such cases as where one or another of the belligerents
has overrun neutral territory, or bombarded unfortified towns,
or pillaged defenseless villages, or dropped bombs without warn-
ing on unarmed places, or exacted enormous blackmail from
helpless cities. These are all removed from the category of viola-
tions of treaty faith.

No Treaties Violated

They may still be deplored on general grounds of humanity and
public policy, they may be rebuked as contrary to that vague

CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 21

thing known as "international law," hut they can no longer he
denounced as the deliherate repudiation of engagements undertaken
by solemn contract in treaty form recorded at The Hague. This is
true whether the offenses in question have been committed by
Germans, by British, by Austrians, by Russians, or by French.

The practical a,nd legal exemption of the fighting Powers from
the operation of the rules of war enacted at The Hague may be
illustrated by the one case already referred to, namely: the
treaty prohibition of entrance upon neutral territory:

"The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

"Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of
either munitions of war or suppKes across the territory of a
neutral Power.

"The fact of a neutral Power resisting, even by force, attempts
to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act."

These particular "rules of war" are contained in the fifth
Convention of the series of fifteen signed by the forty-four
Powers at The Hague in 1907. It is entitled "Convention
Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons
in War on Land." Under other circumstances the foregoing
prohibitions might be operative; but Article XX of this Con-
vention says:

"The provisions of the present Convention do not apply
except between Contracting Powers, and then only if aU the
belligerents are parties to the Convention."

Now, although all the present belligerents may have signed
this Convention, in the persons of their respective representatives
at The Hague, only those Governments which subsequently rati-
fied the Convention became parties to its engagements. In this
case, Convention V was ratified only by Germany, the United States
of America, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Mexico, the Netherlands,
Russia, Sweden, Bolivia, and Salvador. It was not ratified by Eng-
land or France. When France, therefore, became a belligerent, the
German Government, by the very terms of this particular compact
and contract, was released from its obligation not to violate neutral
territory, not to move troops or convoys of munitions or supplies
across neutral territory, not to regard as a hostile act resistance on
the part of the violated neutral. We are speaking, of course, of
Germany's violations of neutrality only so far as they relate to

22 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR

obligations contracted at The Hague; not to other treaty ob-
stacles to freedom of war action.

About Bombs and Explosives
In the same way, the treaty prohibition of the bombardment
of undefended towns, of looting, of outrages on the non-combatant
population, of the levy of excessive penalties on captured cities,
of the destruction of historic monuments, and so on, is contained
in the various articles of Convention IV, "Respecting the Laws
and Customs of War on Land." The second article of that Con-
vention is as follows :

"The provisions contained in the Regulations [annexed to
the Convention], as well as in the present Convention, do not
apply except as between Contracting Powers, and then only if
all the belHgerents are parties to the Convention."

This Convention was ratified by Germany, the United States,
Austria, Great Britain, and Russia, hut not by France. So far
as it was a binding contract its requirements were suspended
when France entered the fight.

What we have said of the fifth and fourth Conventions is
equally true of these others in the series :

"VIII. Relating to the laying of automatic submarine contact
mines. Ratified by Germany, Austria, and Russia, but not by
Great Britain and France.

"IX. Concerning bombardment by naval forces in time of
war. Ratified by Germany, Austria, Great Britain, Russia, but
not by France.

"X. For the adaptation of the principles of the Geneva
Convention to maritime warfare. Ratified by Germany, Austria,
and Russia, but not by Great Britain and France.

"XL Relating to the right of capture in naval war. Ratified
by Germany, Austria, and Great Britain, but not by Russia and
France.

"XIII. Concerning the rights and duties of neutral Powers
in case of maritime war. Ratified by Germany, Austria, and
Russia, but not by Great Britain and France.

"XIV. Prohibiting the discharge of projectiles and explosives
from balloons. Ratified by Great Britain, but not by France, Russia,
Germany, and Austria.''

In each of these Conventions, covering as the}^ do almost the
entire range of questions of mooted propriety of conduct during

CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 23

i

war, there is an article identical with or similar to that which is
printed above, nullifying the entire Convention unless all the
contestants are parties to the same.

Thus the entire fabric of prohibition, restriction, regulation
in the interest of humanity and more civilized methods of war-
fare, is thrown into chaos, so far as the conventions of The Hague
are concerned, by this pervasive article obhterating the contract
obligations in all cases where any one of the belKgerents happens
not to be a contracting party.

In the present war, therefore, the ambitious attempt at
codification becomes a mere scrap of paper, legally invahd and
void.

And what becomes of the persistent idea that the United States
Government, as a party to these several Conventions, is in duty
hound to intervene hy act or protest to enforce regulations which
have been made inoperative hy the provisions of the treaty itself ?

NO RULES OF WAR

Remarks on the Discovery that Practically All of The Hague Conventions

Are Suspended by the Failure of Some of the Present Belligerents

to Ratify

(New York Sun, November 27, 1914)

To THE Editor of The Sun — ^^V; Permit me to thank you
for the article on the "Chaos in the Rules of War." The Sun
may Hve in a small building, but it has a big head for getting at
the facts. The Sun surely shines for all. My first impression
of the war was that Germany was responsible for starting it,
and that she had acted the part of a desperate highway robber,
violating every treaty and every law of civiHzed warfare. This
impression was, of course, created by means of the news certified
to us by way of London.

Your article of to-day puts Germany in the right, in so far
as the Conventions of The Hague of 1907 are concerned; and
it is rather astonishing to find that while Germany ratified five
out of the six articles named by you. Great Britain refused to
ratify three of the six.

If we assume that England was as well informed as you are
regarding these articles, and it is inconceivable that Sir Edward
Grey was not, then what must we think of the attitude of Eng-
land, trying to make the people of the United States beheve
that Germany violated Belgium's neutrality, and that she entered
this war for the purpose of protecting Belgian neutrahty, which,
by the way, she has not done, and which we are forced to believe
she must have known she could not do?

I feel sure many others will thank you for your splendid
article of to-day, for I know the American people, of whom I
am one, are desirous of giving a square deal to all the belligerents.

George H. Gudebrod.

Hartford, Conn., November 25, 1914.

Perhaps Canon Douglas Does Not Quite Get the Point

To THE Editor of The Sun — Sir: Inasmuch as in your
editorial article of November 25 you have done me the honor
of referring to a newspaper report of a recent address of mine,
it is proper that I should correct an inaccuracy in that report.

24

CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 25

The reporter failed to catch the important preamble to the
passage of my speech which he took down. My preamble was :

// the articles of The Hague Convention are not a negligible
scrap of paper, then each of the contracting parties has a serious
responsibihty.

Then followed my remarks, which in substance are correctly
given.

If I understand it, the conj:ention of your editorial article is
that, although some of the ablest jurists and diplomats of our
generation endeavored to draft a document which would be of
permanent service to the world in international warfare, never-
theless they failed, at least so far as this war is concerned, to
m.ake it binding.

I have seen many statements of the case pro and con., but
none that I can remember puts your view of it as clearly as your
editorial article does.

I have not seen Judge Holt's article, to which you also refer,
and from what you say of it I gather that he does not agree with
you. But even if your contention is altogether correct, may we
not hope that the efforts of the next Hague Conference will be
more effective after the awful lessons which the world is learning
now? George William Douglas,

Member of the World's Alliance for the Promotion oj
International Friendship.

New York, November 25, 1914.

The present suspension of nearly all the rules of war, so far
as the Conventions of the second Conference at The Hague are
concerned, is accomplished not by neglecting but by strictly
regarding the. terms of that compact. In each case specified
some one or more of the Powers now belligerent failed to ratify,
and, therefore, as the Conventions provide, the rules become
inoperative. For the United States Government to undertake
to protest, as Canon Douglas urges, agajnst the non-observance
of rules voided by the treaty itself, would be to protest against
the treaty itself. Canon Douglas can hardly persist in maintain-
ing that to refrain from so doing is a course that will "brand us
as cowards." As for Judge Holt's view of our treaty obKgations,
and as for the circumstance that it does not agree with The Sun's
view, we are quite content to let the Judge take care of the dis-
crepancy in his own way. But we certainly share Canon Doug-

26 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR

las's hope that the efforts of the next Peace Conference may be
more effective.

The Extent of This Nation's Responsibility for Protest or Enforcement

To THE Editor of The Sun — ^^V; Permit me, as an old and
appreciative reader of The Sun, a few remarks bearing upon the
editorial article in The Sun of yesterday headed "Has the United
States Guaranteed the Neutrality of Belgium?"

It would appear from this article that Judge Holt is of the
opinion that as one of the signatories to the treaty of 1 ^.e Hague
forbidding the violation of neutral territory by belligerents,
America is for that reason bound to enter at least a formal pro-
test against Germany's invasion of Belgium.

Commenting on this view, you seem to take the ground that
for the reservation under which the American delegates signed
and the United States Senate ratified this as well as other Con-
ventions of The Hague it would be incumbent on the United
States Government not only to protest against the invasion but
to join hands with other signatory Powers in their efforts to
expel the invader from Belgian soil. You also declare that "If
Judge Holt were right it would become our duty to make war
on Germany for precisely the same reason which Great Britain
has declared."

As a matter of fact, the provision of The Hague Convention
quoted by Judge Holt amounts to no more than the formal
expression and adoption of a principle of international law re-
garded as well estabHshed for a century or longer by American
as well as other pubKcists. But it has never been held, so far
as I know, that a violation of the principle imposes upon neutral
nations accepting it the duty of also enforcing it. Neither does
the provision of The Hague Convention under consideration do
so; and had America subscribed to it without any reservation
whatever it would not be obliged to take up the cudgels for
Belgium.

In its insistence, as disclosed by the White Paper, that
Germany keep out of Belgium, Great Britain did not rely on
the principle mentioned, but upon the contract she entered into
in 1831 with certain European Powers, including Prussia — the
German Empire was then non-existent — guaranteeing the neu-
traHty of Belgium, a newly formed and weak State. Indeed, she
could not consistently have invoked this rule or principle, since
in passing through Portuguese territory she had disregarded it
in order to get at the Boers; and perhaps she foresaw also that

CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 27

her Asiatic ally might find it convenient if not necessary to
violate the territory of China for the seizure of the district
Germany held under lease from that country, a task Great
Britain had imposed, or intended to impose, upon the said ally.

It may not be amiss to point out here, though outside of this
discussion, that Great Britain's declaration of war on Germany
was not altogether motived by her desire to keep Belgian soil
inviolate, for, as again shown by the White Paper, she declined
to commit herself when asked by Germany whether she herself
would remain neutral in the war on condition that Germany
regarded Belgium's neutrahty.

It would seem then that if Judge Holt's view were correct,
even as limited by The Sun, heavy responsibilities would be
added to those Uncle Sam has already incurred by the main-
tenance of the Monroe Doctrine. Any attempt to carry such
a view into effect would be an attempt to beat down wickedness
all over the world, a manifestly impossible undertaking.

A Constant Reader of The Sun.
Washington, D. C, November 25, 1914.

If the eminent and respected gentleman who here modestly
presents himself as "Constant Reader" will look again at the
editorial article which in one particular he criticises, he will find
that the extent of responsibihty on the part of the United States
was only conditionally discussed by The Sun. We said, "// the
United States, by solemn compact with the other Powers, had
made itself responsible for the maintenance of Belgium's neu-
trahty, etc." The supposition is no longer worth discussing,
except academically. As our esteemed "Constant Reader" will
have seen since he wrote his letter, all question as to the extent
of this nation's duty of interference or protest, either with or
without the Monroe Doctrine reservation, is removed by the
broad fact that so far as the compact of The Hague is concerned
there has been no breach of treaty faith by Germany. Conven-
tion V, "Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers
and Persons in War on Land," expressly provides that its pro-
hibitions shall not apply "except between Contracting Powers,
and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Conven-
tion." It is a somewhat noteworthy fact that in this instance
the prohibitions fall because England and France failed to ratify,
although Germany, Austria, and Russia did ratify.

28 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR

Nobody to Fight; Nobody to Protest Against

To THE Editor of The Sun — Sir: After reading your lead-
ing editorial article to-day, based on Judge Holt's remarks as
to the attitude which the United States should take because of
the violation by a belligerent of the territory of a neutral, it
has occurred to me that there is one considerable difficulty which
neither you nor Judge Holt mentioned.

Against whom should the United States protest or fight?
Against Japan and England for their violation of the unques-
tioned neutraHty of China, or against England for her alleged
violation of Switzerland by her airships and of neutral waters
by her cruisers, or against Germany for her invasion of Belgium,
or against all three?

Would it not be rather difficult, as well as practically in-
effective, for the United States to fight against nations actually
engaged in fighting each other? If the idea should be to fight
one side until it should be beaten and then turn and fight the
other side, why should we commence with Germany rather than
with England and Japan? Their disregard of China's neutraHty
was without the excuse of the belief of necessity, and was directed
against a country which has not even been accused of secretly
intriguing with their enemies.

The fact that the Belgians have suffered terribly, while the
Chinese have not, may have been due to errors of judgment by
the Belgians themselves, and in any event does not affect the
moral issues or the rights and duties of the United States.

Henry Bennett Leary.

New York, November 24, 1914.

As already stated, the general suspension of responsibility
to observe the rules of war embodied in the several Conventions
adopted at The Hague, and rendered inoperative in the present
conflict by the failure of one or the other of the present belliger-
ents to ratify, makes it idle to discuss the extent to which this
Government ought to go in another case where the compact was
operative.

Not Germany's Fault That the Conventions Are Inoperative

To THE Editor of The Sun — ^^V; Will somebody please
tell me why England, which is fighting for the protection of
neutral Belgium, did not ratify The Hague Convention V, "the
territory of neutral Powers is inviolable," etc., and why the
German "Huns" did sign it?

CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 29

Will you please tell me why England, which is fighting for
civilization, humanity, etc., did not ratify The Hague Con-
ventions VIII, IX, X, XI and XIII, and why the German
barbarians did?

Would it not have been human and civilized if England had
then acted in these matters by deeds instead of hot air?

Frederick Peters.

New York, November 25, 1914.

We take it that Mr. Peters will be satisfied to have his ques-
tions printed, even if nobody attempts to answer them. It is
only fair to say that of the' eight principal conventions, to the
present status of which The Sun has called attention, seven were
ratified by Germany, and Hkewise by Austria. The eight con-
ventions fail in the present war through the circumstance of
non-ratification by France in all eight cases, by Great Britain
in four cases, and by Russia in two cases. The one convention
which Germany did not ratify is that relating to the discharge
of projectiles and explosives from balloons. This failed of rati-
fication by France and Russia, as well as by Germany and her
ally Austria.

We acknowledge the receipt of a number of other interesting
communications on this highly important and decidedly en-
lightening subject. These letters either closely parallel those
printed above or, on account of their length, must await the
opportunity of space and special attention.

THE CONTRIBUTION LEVIED AGAINST
BRUSSELS

{From " German ' Atrocities ' and International Law." By James G. McDonald,
Assistant Professor of European History in Indiana University. Pub-
lished by the Cermanistic Society of Chicago.)

Very important is the charge of illegally levying vast assess-
ments against the city of Brussels and the province of Brabant.
The amounts, $40,000,000 and $90,000,000, respectively, are
named, but practically nothing has been given as to the exact
terms of assessment or collection. The second assessment has
been denied. The first has been admitted, though the exact
amount, it is said, has not yet been fixed.

The international law of such "contributions" was defined
in 1907 by The Hague Convention, regulating the "Laws and
Customs of War on Land," as follows:

Article 49. " If, besides the taxes referred to in the pre-
ceding article, the occupant levies other money contributions
in the occupied territory, this can only be for military pur-
poses or the administration of such territory."

Article 51. ''No contribution shall be collected except
under a written order and on the responsibility of the Com-
mander in Chief. The levy shall only take place, as far as
possible, in accordance with the rules in existence and the
assessment in force for taxes. For every contribution a receipt
shall be given to the payer."

These articles seek to hmit the amount of "contributions" to
what is needed within the territory actually occupied, either for
miUtary necessities or for administrative purposes. Contribu-
tions so limited are undoubtedly legal.

This war-right has been held "to be peculiarly unjust and
wanting in that spirit of sympathetic concern for national feeling,
which informs the modern usages of war so largely." It is true
that "it seems cruel" to allow the Germans occup3dng Belgium
to make Belgians contribute to the support of that army which
is holding them in subjection. It is true that "contributions"

50

CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 31

are "a relic of the vested rights which an invader once possessed
to money, goods, and labor of the people he had temporarily
conquered." But is war itself not a reHc of barbarism?

In reality, "contributions," if not extortionate, and if levied
in lieu of requisitions (demands for suppHes, e.g., horses, cattle,
etc.), and to supplement or substitute for the regular taxes, may
be the most humane method of supporting a conquering army
in an enemy country. A concrete case, cited by a German repre-
sentative at the international conference at Brussels in 1874, will
illustrate how "contributions" may be a valuable method of
equalizing a heavy military burden: "An array arrives at a rich
town, and demands a certain number of oxen for its subsistence.
The town repHes that it has none. The army would be compelled
in that case to apply to villages, which are frequently poor, where
it would seize what it is in want of. This would be a flagrant
injustice. The poor would pay for the rich. There is, therefore,
no other expedient but to admit an equivalent in cash. This is
likewise the mode which the inhabitants prefer. Moreover, it
cannot be admitted that a town which is unable to pay in kind
shall be exempted from paying in money."

The last edition of the British Field Service Regulations echoes
this same defense, when it authorizes commanders to raise ^^con-
tributions in order to distribute the burden of levying the supplies
more evenly over the whole population," for otherwise it is only
the inhabitants immediately or near the line of march who feel
it. "By levying contribution," this article continues, "in large
towns, which are principal administrative centers or districts,
and, by expending the sums so obtained in the purchase of sup-
pHes in outlying districts, the latter may be made to bear their
share as well."

"Contributions," then, are normally legal, as a measure of
necessity to meet administrative or mihtary needs within an
occupied territory. If levied as a supplement to or as a substitute
for other and sometimes more onerous means of support these
money assessments are perfectly legal. One authority on inter-
national law has argued that these levies were illegal because,
"according to The Hague rules, it is forbidden to penahze by
pecuniary indemnity or personal punishment any general body
of people for violation of the laws of war by a few. So that even
if the Belgians had violated the rules of war, unless you can show

32 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR

that the entire population of Brussels was, as a body, responsible,
it is illegal to levy a heavy fine upon them."

This is true. But the German military officers seem not to have
levied a fine upon Brussels. Rather they seem to have imposed these
levies, ''in place of taxes,'" and "m place of requisitions in kind."
Hence their system of ''contributions" may prove to be highly com-
mendable.

(i