When we try to find the purpose behind the Armenian massacres, we are confronted with what is, under the circumstances, an eloquent accusation against the German Government and the German people. _The Germans, and the Germans alone, will benefit by the extermination of the Armenians._ I have pointed out above how the Armenians are the essential factor, the guarantee indeed, of Turkish economic and political independence in Asia Minor. By the same token, they appear to be a stumbling-block to German domination. The Armenians, largely educated in French and American schools, speak French and English. Through their commercial relations with western Europe and America, with England most of all, they have naturally been “in the way” of the German commercial travellers. As the one commercial and agricultural element in the interior of Asia Minor, capable of holding its own against a penetration of European colonists, the Armenians are “in the way” of the schemes for the Germanization of Anatolia. It was not for the Bagdad Railway alone, but also for all that the Bagdad Railway implied, that Kaiser Wilhelm II. fraternized with Abdul Hamid, after the massacres of Armenians in 1895 and 1896. I have not the slightest desire to be unfair to Germans as individuals, or to insinuate what cannot reasonably be proved to be in the German mind. Enlightened nations, however, are certainly responsible for the acts of their Governments. The Germans have assumed the responsibility for many terrible things in this war. They may hope, when passions have died down and both sides are known, to clear themselves of some charges. But there is no hope in regard to the charge of allowing the extermination of the Armenians--a crime by which they alone could hope to benefit. CONCLUSION And now, in conclusion, let me pose frankly this question: _Have neutral nations any responsibility in regard to the Armenians?_ For neutral nations in general, the answer depends upon whether the influence and action of a nation ought to be confined wholly to internal affairs. Those who give to their own conscience and to God the answer of Cain, say frankly: “No, we are not our brother’s keeper. We have all that we can do to look after ourselves.” If this type of mentality had controlled the councils of the nations throughout the past twenty centuries, would there be a Christian civilization? Would history be able to record a single altruistic deed to a nation’s credit? Would slavery ever have been abolished? The other type is composed of those who believe that man does not live by bread alone, or for himself alone, and that nations, as well as individuals, have responsibilities towards others--especially if those others are weak and oppressed.