Origins of the Great War : or The British case

igins of the Great War

Case

By John Kirkpatrick

M.A., LL.D.

Emeritus Professor of History
— University of Edinburgh

D
517

IKS

19J4

|c. 1
ROBA

* I harles Black, Ltd,
Soho Square, London
1914

PRICE ONE PENNY

j&S£m

m

'm

Origins of the Great War

The British Case

ft

By John Kirkpatrick

47 IM r

M.A., LL.D.

Emeritus Professor of History
University of Edinburgh

D
517

K5 Adam & Charles Black, Ltd,

1914 Soho Square, London

C. 1 1914

ROBA

PRICE ONE PENNY

Origins of the Great War

or

The British Case

By

John Kirkpatrick, M.A., LL.D.

Emeritus Professor of History, University
of Edinburgh

ERRATUM.

On page 10, line u, for '1912' read

Adam & Charles Black, Ltd.

Soho Square, London

1914

Origins of the Great War

or

The British Case

By

John Kirkpatrick, M.A., LL.D.

Emeritus Professor of History, University
of Edinburgh

Adam & Charles Black, Ltd.

Soho Square, London

1914

Preface

THE War and its origins have been treated of from
many different points of view, notably by the in-
structive " Why we are at War " (Clarendon Press,
Oxford) and by the excellent Oxford Pamphlets, but,
in all its essentials, the British Case as here submitted
is short and simple. In a court of law Germany
would probably be held to have " no case " ; yet she
still protests and appeals to neutrals so persistently
that she surely " protests too much." Qui s' excuse
s'accuse.

While the following pages were in the press con-
firmations of their accuracy have been almost daily
coming to light. Thus, in the Times of 9th December,
appears a notice of the sixth Report of the Belgian
Commission on the violations of international law
by the Germans. Like its predecessors, this report
proves to the hilt that the wholesale massacres of
innocent civilians, women, and children, the pillage
and destruction of open towns and villages, and other
outrages were deliberately planned and ruthlessly
carried out. It forms a complete answer, borne
out by abundance of other evidence, to the assertion
by twenty-two German Universities that no atrocities
were committed by the German troops ! The same
Times also contains a letter from Mr Ernest Barker

showing the futility of a German criticism of " Why
we are at War." *

The bad faith shown by Germany and Austria
long before the present war is strikingly proved by
Signor Giolitti's recent statement in the Italian
Chamber that Austria, backed by Germany, con-
templated a " defensive " attack on Servia a year ago.
Why Italy denounced Austria's design as aggressive
is fully explained by the Times of nth December

It is a deplorable fact that Germany has blindly
entrusted all her higher civil interests, professional,
commercial, agricultural, and others, to the irrespon-
sible "noble" and military caste, whose love of power,
of war, glory, and booty are hostile to all peaceful
progress. As well might the lamb seek the protec-
tion of- the wolf, or the dove that of the eagle.

One may perhaps briefly describe the causes of the
German war delirium as ambition, vanity, jealousy,
and cupidity, exploited by the Government for its
own ends, and utterly unrestrained by moral principle
or common sense. J. K.

* In that volume is quoted from the German White Book (Exhibit 17)
the incredible statement by the German Chancellor, on 29th July, to
his Ambassador in Paris, that "we continue to hope for the preserva-
tion of peace," whereas on that very day he made his "infamous"
proposal to Sir Edward Goschen at Berlin, proving that Germany had
already planned an invasion of France through Belgium (see infra,
p. 8). The same volume (3rd ed. ) also contains extracts from the
Russian Orange Book. Two of these (Nos. 36 and 46) record a sus-
picious delay of telegrams by Austria and the suppression of important
news by Germany. The suppression or miscarriage of Sir E. Goschen's
momentous telegram from Berlin to London on 4th August is noticed
below (p. 10).

j6M December 1914.

Origins of the Great War

So much has been said and written about the Great
War of 1914-19 — , so many conflicting and often
untrue statements have been made regarding it, so
countless are its various aspects, and so stupendous
the issues at stake, that no ordinary observer can
possibly master all its details or fathom all its
mysteries. It is, however, possible, as well as highly
desirable in the interests of truth, to inquire into its
origins and to sum up in few and simple words its
causes, which may be conveniently called immediate,
indirect, and constitutional.

I. IMMEDIATE CAUSES

Its immediate causes are fully stated in the Blue
Book, published by the British Government at the
end of September 1914. ("Great Britain and the
European Crisis," H.M. Stationery Office. Wyman &
Sons, Ltd., or T. Fisher Unwin, London. Price one
penny.)

The statement it contains is unimpeachable, because
it is founded on the whole official correspondence
passing between the British Government and France,
Russia, Germany, Austria- Hungary, Italy, Belgium,
and Servia, from 2Oth July to 1st September. That
correspondence, printed in the Blue Book, speaks
clearly for itself, and it is followed by a full report of the

principal speeches delivered in the House of Commons
on 3rd to 6th August ; but, as the official volume may
not always reach persons residing abroad, we beg leave
to submit to them a short summary of its contents.

First, however, let us answer the question often
asked by those whose sources of information are
imperfect : What are we fighting for ? We are
fighting, and shall never cease to fight, for loyalty
to solemn treaties, for national and international
honour. We and our Allies promised to guarantee
the neutrality and independence of Belgium, and
we have tried to keep our promise. We are fighting
to defend small, peaceful, and highly-civilised states
against wanton attack and destruction by larger and
more powerful states. We are fighting in order to
crush a military despotism which aspires to world-
wide conquest and empire. We are fighting, not in
order to gain territory or booty or glory, but to safe-
guard the rights and liberties, perhaps the very ex-
istence, of ourselves and our Allies. Such is the case
that we submit to the judgment of impartial inquirers.
But before they deliver judgment let them study the
facts of the case and hear the German arguments also.
" Treaties," we are told, " are mere scraps of paper,"
which may be torn up by any one of the parties if he
thinks fit. The safety of Germany was threatened
by Russia, France, and Britain. It was necessary to
violate the neutrality of Belgium lest it should be
violated by the French and the English. For the last
twenty-six years the Kaiser has striven to preserve
the peace of Europe, but was compelled at last to
declare war in self-defence.

The first of these four pleas proclaims a new gospel,
destructive of those principles of truth and honour on
which the welfare and happiness of mankind mainly
depend. The other three are untrue. Germany, how-
ever, has been led by her rulers and her enslaved
Press to believe that she is waging a war of self-defence,
and that her very existence is at stake. On that
ground alone, had it been true, her tremendous military
campaign, though not the " frightfulness " of her war-
fare against civilians, would have been justifiable.
Such, briefly, is the British case with the German
answer to it. Our readers will now be good enough
to mark and digest the chief facts of the case, to
enable them to give their verdict in favour of the
party " that has his quarrel just ! "

The facts recorded in the Blue Book are already
familiar to most of our readers. On 28th June 1914,
Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the thrones of
Austria and Hungary, and his wife were assassinated
at Sarajevo, capital of the Austrian province of Bosnia.
The Government of Servia was accused by Austria
of complicity in this atrocious crime. On 23rd July
Austria (at the instigation, it is said, of Prussia) sent
an ultimatum to Servia, making very stringent
demands, and requiring an answer within forty-eight
hours. Within that time Great Britain, along with
Russia, asked Austria in vain to extend the time
limit. She also asked Germany to intervene, but
without success. Servia, however, on 25th July,
yielded on every point, except where her sovereign
rights were to be infringed. In spite of this Austria
was dissatisfied and broke off diplomatic relations

s

with Servia, On 26th July Sir Edward Grey
proposed mediation by Germany, France, Italy, and
Great Britain in a conference to be held in London,
but Germany dissented. On 2/th July Russia again
tried to mediate, but intimated that she would
intervene if Servia were attacked. Austria replied
that it was too late, and she declared war on Servia
next day, whereupon Russia ordered a partial
mobilisation in her southern provinces. On 28th
and 29th July Germany said she was trying to
mediate both at Vienna and St Petersburg, and on
the 29th both Russia and Great Britain made a
further similar effort.

On the night of the 29th the negotiations entered
on an entirely new phase. Germany asked if Great
Britain, in the event of a European war, would remain
neutral, giving Germany a free hand with regard to
the French colonies. Germany would respect the
neutrality of Holland, but her attitude towards
Belgium would depend on the action of France. To
this Sir Edward Grey replied that such a bargain
would be a disgrace to Great Britain, " from which
the good name of this country would never recover."
(On 6th August Mr Asquith publicly denounced it as
infamous.)

Germany's designs against France were thus clearly
revealed. As she professed that her attitude towards
Belgium would depend on the action of France, Sir
Edward Grey, on 3ist July, inquired both of France
and Germany if they would respect their treaty
obligations towards Belgium. On the same day
France replied that she would, while Belgium next

day declared that she would maintain her neutrality to
the utmost of her power. Germany gave no answer.

We now return to Servia. Austria had attacked
her and would at first brook no intervention ; she
had even moved troops towards the Russian frontier,
in reply to which, on 3 1st July, Russia ordered a
general mobilisation. On that day, however, at the
instance of Sir Edward Grey, Austria agreed with
Russia to reconsider the ultimatum to Servia, whereby
peace might yet have been secured. On the same
day Germany suddenly sent an ultimatum to Russia,
calling on her to demobilise within twelve hours, and
she declined to consider the Servian question unless
she received a satisfactory reply from Russia. She
received no reply to this peremptory demand, and
on the 2nd of August she declared that she was in a
state of war with Russia. On 3ist July she had
called on France to define her attitude in view of
the ultimatum sent to Russia, demanding an answer
by one o'clock next day. France replied that she
failed to understand this menace, as there were no
differences between her and Germany, whereupon the
German Ambassador left Paris, and Germany formally
declared war on the 3rd of August. On ist August
Germany, Austria, and France mobilised. On that
day the Russian and the British Ambassadors met at
Vienna and still strove for peace, but they were both
" convinced that Germany desired war."

On 2nd August Germany invaded the neutral
duchy of Luxemburg, and on 4th August violated
the neutrality of Belgium by marching against
Liege. On the same day Germany offered " friendly

10

neutrality " to Belgium in return for a free passage
through Belgian territory, but that offer was declined.
These facts speak for themselves. It may also be
noted that, on 1st August, Italy had declined to join
Austria and Germany in what she declared to be
an aggressive war, as her alliance with them was
purely defensive. These facts are fully confirmed by
the French Yellow Book of 1st December, which
adds the significant declaration made by the Kaiser
and General von Moltke to King Albert in November
1912, that " it faut en finir avec la France" This
proves that the Kaiser had already quite abandoned
the peace policy he had previously professed.

The die was cast. Germany and Austria were
at war with France and Russia. Germany had
violated the neutrality of Belgium, which both she
and Great Britain had guaranteed. On 4th August
Great Britain informed Germany that, if Belgium's
neutrality were not respected, the British Government
would do all in their power to uphold their treaty
obligations.

The sequel is instructive. On the same afternoon
Sir Edward Goschen, British Ambassador at Berlin,
was told by the German Secretary of State that
Germany had already invaded Belgium, and could
not possibly now draw back. He also interviewed
the Chancellor (Dr von Bethmann-Hollweg), who
expressed bitter indignation that Great Britain should
go to war against Germany "just for the word
neutrality, just for a scrap of paper." Sir Edward
then telegraphed his report to the Foreign Office,
but the telegram never reached its destination.

II

The European conflagration was now fully ablaze ;
by whom and why kindled, it is for our readers and
for posterity to judge.

II. INDIRECT CAUSES OF THE WAR

The chief indirect or preparatory cause of the war
is to be found in the politics of Bismarck, in
Nietzsche's philosophy, in Treitschke's " Politics "
and " German History," and in General von
Bernhardi's military and political works (1911-13),
particularly his " Germany and the Next War," and
his " Our Future, or Warning to the German Nation "
(entitled by its translator, Mr Ellis Barker, " Britain
as Germany's Vassal ").

As General von Bernhardi, an author of undoubted
ability and industry, derives his inspiration largely
from the sources just named, it may suffice to remind
the reader that Nietzsche scoffed at Christianity, and
held that power is the most desirable of earthly
possessions, that Bismarck resorted to mendacity
in order to provoke a war, and that Treitschke's
" History " is of the " patriotic " type, exhorting
Germany to vigorous self-assertion. That Bernhardi
was a great military authority and a shrewd observer
of European politics is generally admitted, but we
need only refer to him now as a preacher of the
gospel of war. Much that he says is wise and sound,
and his warning might well be laid to heart by
England as well as by Germany, but Germany has
since rejected his good advice and followed the bad.
He tells us that it takes a year to make a good

12

soldier, and of course much longer to make a good
officer ; it takes a year to make a big gun, and
necessarily several years to equip and organise a
large army. An army cannot therefore be hastily
improvised. He advocates universal military service
as an excellent mental, moral, and physical training
for the nation. He disapproves generally of duplicity
and intrigue as unworthy political instruments. An
honourable policy forms an element of strength. A
state which followed deceitful methods would soon
fall into disrepute. A fine frankness is the character-
istic of great statesmen. He admits that peace is the
normal and desirable condition of a nation, but he
insists that it can only be purchased by war. Every
nation should be always prepared to defend itself by
physical force. If it is so weak, so decadent, or so
negligent as to be incapable of self-defence, it must
fall under the domination of some more powerful
state. He denounces the dream of universal peace as
Utopian, as it would inevitably lead to national
stagnation and decadence, whereas war is a whole-
some stimulus to human progress and the greatest
of all " instruments of culture."

Culture, by the way, is a very favourite word with
Bernhardi, recurring hundreds of times in his books.
He means, of course, culture as the word is understood
in Germany, but, as he does not define it, we may
venture to do so with the aid of his own writings,
and in the light of subsequent events. It rightly
comprises the high rank of Germany as a cradle of
industry, science, philosophy, music, and the various
arts of peace and war, but it seems entirely to lack

13

the ethical elements of justice, honour, loyalty, and
humanity, usually comprised in the word. Like Mrs
Shelley's " Frankenstein " it resembles an inhuman
monster without a soul. " What a falling off is
there" since the days when we learned to love the
delightful poetry, fiction, and romance for which
Germany was famous, since the many happy days
we formerly spent among our kind and hospitable
German friends !

Although this is a digression, we may endeavour
here at once to account for the recent very palpable
and deplorable deterioration of the German national
character. This deterioration has been caused partly
by the teaching of the above-mentioned apostles of
might, self-assertion, and war — a teaching daily re-
iterated by a servile Press — partly by the hasty and
artificial building up of the twenty-five Germanic
States into a new empire in 1871, to the detriment of
their independence and individuality, and above all,
by the general national surrender of body and soul
to Prussian militarism, which the deluded nation
vainly believed would lead them into the promised
land of world-wide empire. Down to 1870, or even
down to 1911, we had reason to admire and esteem
the Germans, and we believed them to be our friends
and well-wishers, but of late their friendship has
been turned into furious and fanatical hatred by our
opposition to their fondly cherished ambitions. We,
for our part, are far from hating the Germans as a
nation, but we abhor the policy which has plunged
half the world into sorrow and mourning, and will
probably cause the ruin of Germany herself

14

To return to Bernhardi, we gladly approve of his
words of wisdom already quoted, and we admire the
nai've frankness and bluntness of his style, as where
he tells us that his books were reviewed unfavourably
almost everywhere except in Germany ; but those of
our readers who have not studied these books will
now judge for themselves which of his reviewers
were right. They will probably also be amused
by some of the General's bombastic utterances and
historical misstatements. A few of these, in his own
words as far as possible, may no\v be given as
specimens.

The German people, says the General, are the
greatest civilised people known to history. Right,
between nations, is respected only when compatible
with advantage. Strong and healthy nations require
territory for their surplus population, and must obtain
it, as a rule, by conquest at the cost of its possessors,
which thus becomes a law of necessity. (" Necessity,"
we interpolate, " is the tyrant's plea," and is often the
plea of the robber and assassin.) Might gives the
right to occupy or to conquer ; it is the supreme
right ; war gives a biologically just decision. (That is,
law, rendered powerless by might, is incapable of pro-
tecting the weak.) War is a moral necessity to protect
the highest interest of a State, which is to increase its
political power. It is only in a State with a large
sphere of influence that mankind develops into
splendid perfection. The condition of small States
that cannot expand is pitiable. " War," said Frederick
the Great, " opens the most fruitful field to all virtues."
Weak nations have not the same right to live as

powerful nations. War may be forced on a nation by
the state of its home affairs. Bismarck, at the decisive
moment, had the boldness to begin a war on his own
initiative. Great statesmen resolutely make war when
the issue is likely to be successful. The Great Elector
founded Prussia's power by war deliberately incurred,
and Frederick the Great followed his example. (But
such wars are sometimes unsuccessful !) To extend
the dominion of German thought is one of our great
duties to the human race ! Germany is fully entitled,
not only to demand " a place in the sun," which Prince
Biilow modestly claimed for her, but an adequate
share in the sovereignty of the world. We require
space for our increasing population and markets for
our growing industries. We must grow into a World
Power, and stamp a great part of humanity with the
impress of the German spirit — " World Power or
Decline," is Germany's motto. (May we ask, by the
way, if German, one of the most cumbrous and diffi-
cult of living languages, is likely ever to become a
Weltsprache ?)

It seemed necessary to make these quotations from
Bernhardi for several reasons. His books produced a
profound impression in Germany on their publication,
and were received there with almost universal approval ;
his policy (with the omission of its better features) has
since been adopted by the German Government ; and
to this day numerous German professors and divines
are unwearied in extolling their culture, their superi-
ority, mental and moral, to the rest of mankind, their
institutions, their liberty ! Never in the world's history
were drums beaten or trumpets blown with such

i6

astonishing vivacity. Some of the interesting grounds
of this self-laudation may be gathered from Bernhardi's
works.

Germany, says Bernhardi, attaches more import-
ance to right and justice in international relations
than do most other States. Since her first appearance
in history she has been a civilised nation of the first
rank, nay, the civilised nation. The Reformation was
born from the soul of the German people. (But he
ignores the Waldensians, its first pioneers ; Wycliffe,
who proclaimed all its chief doctrines and translated
the Bible about a hundred and thirty-five years before
Luther ; the Wycliffites and Lollards, who preached,
taught, and suffered in the cause for more than a
century before Luther ; Huss and Jerome of Prague,
who taught Wycliffism at Prague and were burned at
the stake at Constance. None of these were Germans.)
The philosophy of Kant became the foundation of all
philosophical speculation. (Kant's father was a Scot.
And what of the great Greek philosophers ?) German
civilisation reposes on the impartiality and universality
of the German mind. No other nation thinks so
clearly and so historically. But Germany is cramped
and must expand. In the interest of the world's
civilisation she must extend her colonial empire.
(The German colonies can, or could, support many
millions. Whence, then, the notorious fact that they
are shunned by those numerous German emigrants
who flock to the United States and to British and
other colonies ?) The Congo State is only exploited
financially by Belgium. Has not Germany a moral
right to such colonies? It is practically useful and

morally necessary for Germany to follow an honest
and energetic policy of force.

Quotations in the same strain from Bernhardi and
writers of his school might easily be multiplied.
Other military writers, it may be added, inculcate,
not only a " policy of force," but a policy of " fright-
fulness" in actual warfare, in order to strike terror
into the civilian population. Such, then, is the new
German gospel, which, directly or indirectly, has given
birth to the present war with its unparalleled horrors.

III. CONSTITUTIONAL CAUSES

The remoter, but scarcely less real, causes of the
war may be called constitutional or historical, though
dating from 1870 only. The down-grade of the
German national character seems traceable to the too
easy triumph of Germany over France in that year,
with the milliards in its train, and to the hasty and
mechanical erection of the twenty-five independent
German States into a single new Empire. These
events were followed in 1871 by the framing of a new
imperial constitution, which " keeps the word of
promise to the eye, but breaks it to the hope." Being
in almost every respect the reverse of "constitutional,"
it has enabled Prussia to establish a powerful military
autocracy of the mediaeval " divine right and passive
obedience" school, a form of government which in
most civilised countries has been abolished as intoler-
able. The Stuarts, " gods upon earth," to use the
phrase of James I., who claimed "a divine right to
break every law, human and divine," were dethroned

i8

in 1689, and a century later the Bourbon monarchy
was overthrown by the French Revolution. Yet at
the present day the German Kaiser claims the right
to say, like Louis XIV., "TEtat c'est mot." By all
constitutional and democratic peoples such an auto-
cracy is justly held to be subversive of freedom of
speech, freedom of the Press, oneness of law and
equality before that law, even-handed justice, and
responsible government. These most cherished of
popular rights are practically unknown in Germany,
although outwardly law and order are well maintained.
This form of government has been extolled by German
writers as the " perfection of liberty," with the
Reichstag, or imperial Diet, as its great bulwark ; but
when the reader looks a little below the surface he
will discover few traces of the liberty enjoyed and
prized by most other nations.

The German citizen lives under three distinct codes
of law. The common law governs the everyday
relations of citizen towards citizen. But if a citizen
is wronged by a policeman or other government
official, common law can afford him no redress ; he
may submit his case to the administrative courts, but
there the wrongdoer is favoured and protected by
"administrative law," a code designed to uphold
officials in the execution of their duty, so that the
injured party rarely obtains redress. All civil officials
thus form a privileged class, above the ordinary law
of the land, and they treat private citizens as inferiors.
This system is obviously repugnant to the principles
of fair play and equality before the law. Instead of
being the servants, government officials are the masters

19

of the people. But there is a third code of law, far
more stringent, to which unquestioning obedience
must be rendered. This is the military law, imposing
on all men of military age the "general duty of
defence" (allgemeine Wehrpflicht\ which the Kaiser
interprets as including a " duty of offence " also. But
he and the Imperial Chancellor, in order to give
the war a semblance of legality, have persistently
reiterated pleas of self-defence and danger to the
Fatherland. It is worthy of note, however, that Italy
declined to regard the war as defensive.

Besides the Kaiser, the military caste, and the
bureaucracy, another class partakes to some extent
of the privileges of divine right. This is the
*' nobility," who are numbered by tens of thousands
as against a few hundred British and Irish peers.
When a peer's eldest son becomes a peer and the
others are commoners the title carries with it a
certain prestige ; but when a German baron's sons
and male descendants are all barons the title has
little value. In Germany, however, a hard and fast
line is drawn between Adlige and Bilrgerliche (nobles
and citizens), which causes a good deal of soreness
and friction, especially as almost all the officers
belong to the former class, while most of the eminent
men in other professions belong to the latter. This
mediaeval distinction, now an anachronism, forms
another bar to the fusion of all classes into one
community.

Next comes the vital question, how the Kaiser
can enforce passive and unquestioning obedience. He
enforces it partly by administrative, partly by military

20

law, but chiefly by the potent oath of military
allegiance. As commander-in-chief of the army he
exacts from every man this crowning oath of blind
and passive obedience which renders him practically
omnipotent.

As already indicated the civil official is shielded by
robur et ces triplex against the arm of the common law,
but the military officer enjoys a still larger share of
the divinity that doth hedge a king. His political
and social status is monumental. He towers on a
pedestal far above the profanum vulgus. For military
offences he may of course be punished, but in all
other cases he is almost as immune as his master.
This was well exemplified by the recent military
scandals at Zabern, in Alsace. The high-handed
aggression of the officers was in the end approved by
the military authority (and the colonel is said to have
been embraced by the Crown Prince) ! The pretext
for such travesties of justice is that officers must be
protected in the discharge of their duties, and that
they must be entirely exempt from the jurisdiction
of any civil authority.

The following characteristic incidents, which might
easily be multiplied a hundredfold, indicate the great
gulf fixed between the German citizen and the pro-
tected official and military classes. Shortly before
the war of 1870 an English student in Germany
proposed to give his big surly mastiff the name of
Bismarck, but his German friends earnestly warned
him that he might be severely punished for lese-
majeste\ A little later Bismarck himself had a dog
which he is said to have called Reichstag to show his

21

contempt for that body. Some years ago the present
writer was similarly warned by a friendly porter at
Herbestal on the Prussian frontier against speaking his
mind too freely to a rude custom-house officer: "urn
Gotteswillen, don't, for he is a government official!"

Later on, at Wiesbaden, the writer saw a cyclist
slowly rounding a street corner, but too near the
kerb, when a gendarme suddenly thrust the scabbard
of his sword into the wheels and upset the rider.
Luckily unhurt, the rider got up and, though he
looked daggers at his assailant, trundled off his
machine without a word. He knew of course that
remonstrance would have been worse than useless.
On another occasion the writer met a Prussian
lieutenant undergoing a year's imprisonment in a
fortress for killing an unarmed civilian. An unwritten
military law requires a Prussian officer to " draw
blood " if he thinks his cloth insulted. In such cases
the criminal law has no jurisdiction. In the present
instance a court-martial, holding that the assailant
had gone further than necessary, pronounced the
above sentence. The "prisoner" had a comfortable
room in the fortress and was free to go out all day on
parole.

Let us now glance at the Germanic Constitution
of 1871. The system of Government is nominally
bicameral and representative. The Reichstag, or
imperial Diet, consisting of 397 members elected by
all Germans over twenty-five years of age, votes taxes
for the army and navy and legislates in matters of
imperial importance, but it lacks the essential
attributes of a constitutional assembly. It has no

22

control over the executive, it has no initiative unless
by permission of the Federal Council (Bundesrat),
and it may be dissolved by that Council before the end
of its five years' term of office. There is no cabinet,
no ministerial responsibility, no government to turn
out. The Federal Council, composed of fifty-eight
delegates from the twenty-five German states, is at
once the executive, an upper chamber, and a kind of
cabinet. It is presided over by a Chancellor appointed
by the King of Prussia, who is also German Emperor.
It prepares bills to be submitted to the Diet, which
it entirely dominates, and is itself dominated by the
Emperor. A declaration of war by the Emperor re-
quires the consent of this Council, "unless the frontiers
of the Empire are threatened." A significant side-
light is thrown on this power of the Emperor by a
clause in the Prussian Constitution, which gives the
king the sole executive power and the sole right to
declare war or peace. This system of government is
therefore a very thinly veiled autocracy. If the
autocrat is wise and benevolent, the nation may
thrive fairly well ; but if he is mentally or morally
deranged, or if he is a mere puppet in the hands of
designing sycophants and favourites, his rule is cer-
tain to be disastrous.

This kind of government invariably begets intrigue,
bribery and corruption, servile officials, tyrannical
officers, and a brutal soldiery.

In order to remedy this terrible evil, and to
regain their fair fame among nations, the Germans
will do well to replace their antiquated and irre-
sponsible form of government by some constitutional

23

form, which will at once promote their own welfare
and secure the respect and good-will of the rest of
the world. They have imprudently entrusted their
sovereignty to an autocrat, his sycophants, and his
military caste, who, as they fondly hoped, would lead
them to glory and world-wide empire ; but they
will discover some day that all the most civilised
nations in the world wisely delegate their sovereign
power to representative and responsible rulers.

Their remains to be noticed a hideous indictment
against Germany for her treacherous and fiendish
methods of warfare, such as the slaughter of countless
civilians, men, women, and children, the pillaging and
wanton destruction of peaceful homes, the bombard-
ment of open towns, the poisoning of wells, and
mutilations and outrages too horrible to describe.
To these crimes must be added the secret armaments
and other hostile preparations treacherously made
in friendly countries long before the outbreak of the
war, besides the world-wide circulation of false and
slanderous news, which continues to this very day.

As we are now inquiring into the origins of the war
we must also ask who is responsible for all these
horrors. Those of us who have studied, and travelled
much, and lived long in Germany, a country we had
learned to love and admire, refuse to believe that
the people, as a whole, could possibly have been the
guilty parties. No. The guilt is distinctly traceable
to their rulers, whose unexampled cunning and
treachery in plotting against their unsuspecting
neighbours, and whose " frightful " methods of warfare,
have unfortunately brought infamy on the whole

24

nation. But how, it is often asked, can the people
be ignorant of all this ; can they be unaware that
they are merely " food for cannon " in the eyes of a
military caste bent solely on glory and booty ; do
they not suspect "something rotten in the state"?
Let the impartial reader kindly note and weigh
the simple answer, that th^_vyjiole_of^Jhe German
Press is either inspired or rigorously censored by
Government. Where there is neither freedom of
Press noFTreecIbrn of speech there can be no genuine
public opinion. News and opinions displeasing to the
Government are suppressed, while the reader is spoon-
fecl^on " patriotic^ history and politics. For scurrility,
whicH Is often thrown in, there is neither gag nor
boycott. For years past the reader of German news-
papers has been told that a great and glorious
future is in store for Germany, that she is destined
to dominate the whole world with her power, her
cultureTand her tradeT He is taught that decadent
nations like France and Britain, besides smaller and
weaker nations, must be crushed, that the barbarous
Slavs must be sternly repressed, and that Germany
must have a greatly extended seaboard on the north-
west, and free access to the Mediterranean on
the south. All this he believes, for he belongs
to the great German genus Simplicissinius. (The
comic journal of that name, by the way, once
fairly outspoken, has been obliged of late to become
" patriotic.") Most noteworthy of all the members
of that genus are the professors and divines, to the
number of about one hundred and thirty-five, be-
sides the rectors of twenty-two universities, who have

25

recently signed appeals " to Evangelic Christians " and
"to the Civilised World/' and who evidently " walk by
faith" (in the Kaiser), "and not by sight" of facts.
How they came to set their names to these extraordin-
ary documents is accounted for by the fact that the
German scholar is a singularly guileless and credulous
person, entirely without political or constitutional
training, and ready, as a believer in " divine right and
passive obedience," obediently to sign any statement
submitted to him by his superiors. Nor is he quite
insensible to the charm of those titles and decorations,
dear to the German soul, which are so lavishly be-
stowed by the Kaiser with his " own all-highest hand "
on his good and faithful servants.

A few short extracts from the address (undated)
" to the Civilised World," signed by ninety-three " re-
presentatives of art and science," and recently circu-
lated broadcast in different languages, will suffice to
enlighten the reader who has not seen the document
itself. We translate from the Dutch edition : " We
protest against the lies and slanders uttered by the
enemies of Germany's righteous cause. It is untrue
that Germany is responsible for the war. The Germans
have done their utmost to prevent it. It is untrue that
we violated the neutrality of Belgium. France and
England agreed to do so with Belgium's consent, and
Germany was obliged to anticipate them. (Let the
reader note, parenthetically, that this last statement is
even more glaringly untrue than all the others. The
German Chancellor, in his recent speech to the
Reichstag, said that " Belgium had surrendered her
neutrality to England before the war." What England

26

did was to assure Belgium that, if her neutrality were
violated by another power, England would, as in
honour bound, come to her help.) It is untrue
that a single Belgian was attacked except in self-
defence. The populace shot our soldiers, maimed our
wounded, and murdered our surgeons. It is untrue
that our troops showed brutality in Louvain. With
heavy hearts they bombarded it to punish the infuri-
ated inhabitants ; but the greater part of the town
was saved ; the famous Hotel de Ville is uninjured ;
our soldiers, in a spirit of self-sacrifice, protected it
against the flames. It is untrue that we have infringed
international law. Lawless cruelty is unknown to us.
In the East the earth is saturated with the blood of
women and children murdered by the Russians. In
the West dum-dum bullets rend the breasts of our
warriors. It is untrue to say that an attack on
militarism is not an attack on our culture ; we require
an army to defend our culture. We trumpet forth to
the world that our enemies bear false witness against
us ! Believe us ! We shall fight to the end as a
people of culture ! "

Instead of attempting to criticise these statements,
we leave it to our readers to say whether they can
discover a single one of them that is true.

The origins of the great war and the main facts in
this cause cdebre^ the greatest yet known to history,
have thus been respectfully submitted to our readers
all over the world, who form a jury of millions of
"good men and true." Whatever may be their
verdict, it will become historic ; it will assuredly be
on the side of justice and truth, and it will conclu-
sively determine whose was the righteous cause.

Printed at

THE DARIEN PRESS,

Edinburgh.