But most people in the countries of Germany’s former enemies are not ready to excite themselves very much, even if my view is accepted. The passage at the head of this chapter describes a common attitude. International politics is a scoundrel’s game and always has been, and the private citizen can scarcely feel himself personally responsible. If our enemy breaks the rules, his action may furnish us with an appropriate opportunity for expressing our feelings; but this must not be taken to commit us to a cool opinion that such things have never happened before and must never happen again. Sensitive and honorable patriots do not like it, but they “more or less shrug” their shoulders. There is some common sense in this. I cannot deny it. International morality, interpreted as a crude legalism, might be very injurious to the world. It is at least as true of these vast–scale transactions, as of private affairs, that we judge wrongly if we do not take into account _everything_. And it is superficial to appeal, the other way round, to the principles which do duty when Propaganda is blistering herd emotion with its brew of passion, sentiment, self–interest, and moral fiddlesticks. But whilst I see that nothing rare has happened and that men’s motives are much as usual, I do still think that this particular act was an exceptionally mean one, made worse by hypocritical professions of moral purpose. My object in returning to it is partly historical and partly practical. New material of high interest is available to instruct us about the course of events. And if for practical reasons we can agree to drop this claim, we shall make a settlement easier. * * * * * Those who think that it was contrary to the Allies’ engagements to charge pensions against the enemy base this opinion on the terms notified to the German Government by President Wilson, with the authority of the Allies, on November 5, 1918, subject to which Germany accepted the Armistice conditions.[93] The contrary opinion that the Allies were fully entitled to charge pensions if they considered it expedient to do so, has been supported by two distinct lines of argument: first that the Armistice conditions of November 11, 1918, were not _subject_ to President Wilson’s notification of November 5, 1918, but _superseded_ it, more particularly regarding Reparation; and alternatively that the wording of President Wilson’s notification properly understood does not exclude Pensions.