The Evidence in the Case: A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records of England, Germany, RussiaBeck, James M. (James Montgomery)
Philosophy
The Evidence in the Case: A Discussion of the Moral Responsibility for the War of 1914, as Disclosed by the Diplomatic Records of England, Germany, Russia
Beck, James M. (James Montgomery)
World War, 1914-1918 -- Causes
to defend Belgium's neutrality if attacked_. That solemn
compact simply had to be kept, or what confidence could any
one have in engagements given by Great Britain in the
future? The Chancellor said, "But at what price will that
compact have been kept. Has the British Government thought
of that?" I hinted to his Excellency as plainly as I could
that fear of consequences could hardly be regarded as an
excuse for breaking solemn engagements, but his Excellency
was so excited, so evidently overcome by the news of our
action, and so little disposed to hear reason, that I
refrained from adding fuel to the flame by further
argument....[94]
[Footnote 94: British _White Paper_, No. 160.]
Here again it is most significant, in view of the subsequent clumsily
framed defense by German apologists, to note that the German Secretary
of State, Herr von Jagow, and his superior, the German Chancellor, did
not pretend to suggest that the invasion of Belgium was due to any
overt act of France.
With even greater frankness von Jagow stated the real purpose, which
was, "to advance into France by the quickest and easiest way," and to
"avoid the more Southern route," which, "in view of the paucity of
roads and the strength of the fortresses," would have entailed "great
loss of time."
The damning conclusion as to the guilt of Germany, which irresistibly
follows from these admitted facts, is sought to be overborne by a
pamphlet entitled "_The Truth about Germany_," and subscribed to by a
number of distinguished Germans, who are in turn vouched for in
America by Professor John W. Burgess of Columbia College. He tells
us that they are the "salt of the earth," and "among the greatest
thinkers, moralists, and philanthropists of the age." To overbear the
doubter with the weight of such authority we are told that this
defense has the support of the great theologian, Harnack, the sound
and accomplished political scientist and economist, von Schmoller, the
distinguished philologian, von Wilamowitz, the well-known historian,
Lamprecht, the profound statesman, von Posadowsky, the brilliant
diplomatist, von Bülow, the great financier, von Gwinner, the great
promoter of trade and commerce, Ballin, the great inventor, Siemens,
the brilliant preacher of the Gospel, Dryander, and the indispensable
Director in the Ministry of Education, Schmidt. (The adjectives are
those of Professor Burgess.)
The average American, as indeed the average citizen of any country,
when his natural passions are not unduly aroused, is apt to take a
very prosaic and dispassionate view of such matters, and when he has
reached his conclusion based upon everyday, commonplace morality, he
is not apt to be shaken even by an imposing array of names, fortified
by an enthusiastic excess of grandiloquent adjectives. The aristocracy
of brains has no monopoly of truth, which is often best grasped by the
democracy of common sense.
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