New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 5, August, 1915Various
History
New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 5, August, 1915
Various
World War, 1914-1918
Meanwhile the insecurity of the international attitude of neutrals is
only a symptom of the difficulties to which neutrality of view is
subject. These begin with the outbreak of the war. Each belligerent
government believes itself to be in the right, and publishes a
collection of documents which seem to it fitted to prove this right.
This literature appearing in all the colours of the spectrum is really
aimed at neutrals. For the belligerent nations themselves have
weightier matters in hand than to sit in judgment upon their own
governments. But the neutrals find themselves to decide which side is
right. Yet this whole idea of a "just war" (coming to us from the
moral philosophy of the Schoolmen) which shall expiate an injustice,
as the judge punishes crimes, is antiquated. When, in the middle ages,
the citizens of a town were maltreated or robbed by the authorities or
citizens of another town, and the guilty party refused satisfaction,
then the consequent feud might be viewed as a modified criminal case,
and the right of the wronged town to help itself must be recognized.
In exactly the same way, differences over questions of inheritance
between independent states could only be decided by force, where, as
in a civil suit, each party was convinced of its own justice. But the
great wars of our time arise from causes which are different from
their immediate occasions, from opposed interests which can only be
decided by discovering which side has the power to enforce its will.
If one wishes to ascribe the blame for a war to one of the parties,
one need only ask which of them pursued an aim which could not be
reached through a peaceful understanding. In the present war, we
Germans have clear consciences, for we know, concerning ourselves and
our government, that we strove for nothing but the maintenance of our
position as a world-power, bought with heavy sacrifices, and the free,
peaceful expansion of our sphere of action in the world. On the other
hand, Russia desired to get to Constantinople ahead of Berlin and
Vienna, France desired to win back Metz and Strassburg, England
desired to destroy our sea-power and commerce--goals which could only
be reached over prostrate Germany. On this understanding, it would not
be difficult for neutrals to arrive at a clear and just judgment. But
as the belligerents themselves did not announce their purposes, but
much rather took pains to turn public attention from the causes to the
occasion of the conflict, the judgment of neutrals is affected by
this, and if they are really impartial in their view, they suffer
morally under the burden of an insoluble problem. But if outspoken
sympathy draws them toward one of the belligerent powers, then their
judgment is as little objective as that of the belligerents
themselves. Their pretended neutrality gives to their expressions a
loathsome Pharisaical aspect, because they come to a decision
according to their opinions as if they stood on a height above the
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account