Newspaper Page Text
Chesterton
on the Dangers
of the Wrong
Kind of Peace
“Before a Truce Is Declared
. It Is Essential to Remember
How the War Was Begun and
What Must Be Done to End
the Menace of Another War."
By G. K. Chesterton
The Noted English Publicist
HE chie! danger of the world today I»
I that Germany, which eannot now have
s military victory, should yet have a
diplomatic success. The great physical assault
bas filled. Europe has not been conquered
by Germany and Austria; and ls certainly not
golng to be conquered by Bulgaria and Turkey,
Put these later complications do tend to make
possible something else, which Is not & peril of
war, but a peril of peace; and it Is Just pos
sible that such a calamity may still come about
by the combined pressure of the three forces
which, whether or not they work from the
same motive, certainly produce the same re
sult—the Pacifists, the Pessimists and the
Prussisns.
It is & good rule of philosophy when regard.
ing an end to refer to the beginning That
dangerous irrelevance in the mind whereby
things seem more real which are only more
recent may today make men more bitter
sgainst Bulgaria than against Prussia, and to
porrow more bitter against Greece than against
either. But the perspective of time Is no more
\unl than that of space. And this attitude
18 every atom as unpractical as it would be for
s soldier sighting hls rifle over a molehill to
think it was larger than the mountain dotted
with the forts of his foes,
What we have to treat with at the end of
the war is what we had to fight with at the
beginning of the war. And the very first thing
to do Is to be quite certain that we realize
what the war Is about. It is a question that
ean very easily be answered wrongly, or even
stated wrongly.
The Germans, for lnstance, are now hard at
work manufacturing a legend that Germany
fought with her back to the wall against the
whole world, and that therefore even her par
tially successful resistance must be regarded
as a moral victory. In mere history this, of
course, is gquite farcically false. The (wo
gigantic Central Empires took the fleld when
they had, and because they had, an enormous
superiority not only in munitions, but in men,
over any forces that could be brought against
them from anywhere during the most probable
period of the campalign.
Upon the Meuse, upon the Marne, and again
upon the Alsne, they were quite double thelr
enemy. So far from it being the fact that a
Frenchman and an Englishman combined to
aftack & German, it was In cold arithmetis the
fact that two Germans attacked one English
man, and four Germans attacked two French
men. Any one maintaining that Germany fought
the world is committed to the remarkable
theory that in the late Summer of 1914 Ger
many was twice as big as the world. This,
however, was not the case.
What went to war with France and Russia
was s sufficlently large part of Europe to be
for the greater part of the war the larger and
stronger Power of the two. But what was this
section of Burope? How shall we define it
and how explain its unity of action? This
fs a really interesting question. In answering
it we must also dismiss those priggish gener
alizations about race which are themselves
the dregs of the dingy Prussian culture. They
were made by professors who lay down the law
about prehistoric man because they know no
This 1s nct a war of Teutonism against the
Slavs, unless the French are Slavs; nor a war
of Teutonism against the Latins, unless the
Russians are French; nor a war of Teutonism
‘@t all, unless the Turks are Teutons. The
Prussians themselves have never taken any
notice of these racial distinctions in practice;
" except that they were always ready to grab
one kingdom because it was Teutonic nad
another because it wasn't. The thing we have
“to fight is a thing much better known to
~ history.
Prussian Imperialism
Analyzed and Exposed.
~This 1s a war between those European
’t. who are willing to submit to a sort
of pire ruled from Berlin izstead of Rome,
and those who refuse to submit to it. The
‘Catholic Bavarians submit; the Catholic Bel
w refuse to submit. The Protestant Swedes
; to submission; the Protestant Danes tend
_to resistance. The Orthodox Bulgarians sur
render; the Orthodox Serblans resist. The
Mabometans of Constantinople are fighting to
~ establish this suzerainty;*the Mahometans of
#I and Algeria are fighting to frustrate it.
The Emperor of Austria consents to be a
- ; the Emperor of Russia refuses to be
i m e democracy of France never entered this
; the democracy of Italy has broken
~out of it. And England, long paralyzed also
_by Prussian cynicism, has yet somehow stepped
,v sMe, so suddenly, but so splendidly,
_ that an Englishman can only thank God he has
lived to see this dreadful day.
‘ being necessary agalnst any weak
-8 in treating with this enormous ambition,
jow suffering from a partial failure, which, it
‘hopes, will be a temporary failure, I think our
st urgent requirement is a full realization
_what Prussia is, and of what, therefore, a
ussianized world would be. But it is neces
' first to be quite clear about how narrow
e rule, however wide may be the realm
I 8 not a question of German leadership any
' than of Hungarian leadership. The Ger
maps and the Hungarians are not leading, but
B A ;:%memon of the Hohenzollern
g ns of Constantinople are fighting to
g and teaching all kinds of vague com
les, and which especially bends all its
oline upon teaching them that they are
yery well taught. That the whole will
~direction comes, and always will come,
* trom Prussia (or, rather, solely from
sdam) can be proved by any test whatever,
g .:& oretical or practical.
_d'he complet: theoretic avowal of it can be
nd in the fact that the King of Prussia
initely refused to be Emperor of the Ger
ns, exactly as he would have refused to be
esident of the United States; upon the dis
tinct ground that he must rule them and not
represe) it them. The complete practical proof
“of it can be found in Catholic priests mur-
“Is It Impossible for Us to Imagine
Jesus Bayonetting Anybody?”
Rev. Dr. Campbell, the Distinguished English Clergyman, Discusses the
Point of View of the Pacifists and Declares That Christ Never Forbade
War. Nor Should Christians Refuse the Call to Arms of Their Country
By Rev. R. J. Campbell
The Distinguished English Clergyman.
HE time is drawing rapidly near when
may be necessary for the Rritish Prime
Minister to make good his word and ex.
ercise compulsion upon those men of military
age who have not voluntarily joined the Colors
to defend their country in her hour of need
Put It compulsion does come, ! am told we
may have difficulty with some—there cannot
surely be very many—who are conscientiously
opposed to the shedding of blood whether In
their country’s cause or any other, and whether
that cause is a socalled righteous one or not
No cause can be righteous, these persons would
arzue. which Involves strife and the exercise
of brute force between one people and another
any more than between one individual and
another.
War, they hold, is a barbarous and wicked
method of settling international disputes. It
ts as Mr. Norman Angell would say, irrelevant
to the issue. Even If it were not, even If its
cost to the victors were not out of all pro.
portion greater than any material gain likely
to be achieved, they hold it is still repre
hensible from every ethical point of view
Better lose all than fight to keep any.
S 0 reasoning, certaln among these good
people are prepared to undergo imprisonment,
spoliation of thelr goods, and perhaps death
{tself rather than Join the army.
There are other people who are perplexed
in mind about this question from the purely
Christian standpoint, though not a few of them
are already doing their utmost i the Army
and out of it to help to defeat the Germans and
save Europe.
1 had an instance of this brought to my
notice some months ago. A fine youug fel
low who had just enlisted sald to me:
“1 teel 1 must do my bit for the old country
along with others; we are all up against it
and | just eannot hang back while other men
are being smashed and killed in a cause that
is as much mine as theirs. But | am quite
well aware that what 1 am doing is not
Christian, but the very opposite if we are to do
what Jesus Christ told us to do.”
Christians Who Think
They Should Not Use Force.
Now is that really so? This Is a question
that ought to be frankly and honestly faced,
for they are not all cowards who put it.
Is it generally known, I wonder, that 2ertain
Quakers whose pacificist principles forbid them
to fight, have, from the beginning of the war,
been engaged in the hasardous service of mine
sweeping in the North Sea and elsewhere?
Persons who are willing to jeopardize their
own lives In such an intrepid fashion as this
are entitled to full respect in differing from
their nelghbors qn the subject of war In
general. :
Ought & Christian ever under any circum
stances to fight or approve of fighting? Can
a true follower of the Prince of Peace consent
to or take part in the shedding of human
blood on the battlefield or indeed anywhere?
1 believe it was Dr. Salter, of Bermondsey,
a man whose lelt-ucrlflcl:: labors among the
poor command universal admiration, who said
somewhere, with reference to the present
colossal struggle, that it was impossible to
imagine Jesus bayonetting anybody or tear
ing human flesh and bones to pleces with ox
plosives. A good many people feel that way.
It would shock them to think of their Lord
under any such aspect.
This troubles them, as well it might, for what
{s out of character for Christ, what would be
wrong for Him, ought to be wrong for us—on
this question anyhow., And then there are His
recorded words. Everybody knows them. He
inculcated non-resistance, the turning of the
other cheek to the smiter, and substantiated
the law of love for that of the resentment of
injuries. What are we to say about this?
1 should not like to say what some of the
German divines appear to find to say on the
subject. Pastor Lober, of Leipsic, for instance
appears to have been preaching on Christianity
and war, and putting views before his con
gregation that ought to please the Prussian
and the Turk. Everyone, he maintains, serves
God who makes the blood of an enemy flow,
and it is because he is thus serving God that
he can reckon on God's blessing.
The admonition of the New Testament to
return good for evil cannot be applied in war,
he adds. In war evil must be met by evil
and, wherever possible, by. greater and in
sreased evil,. War demands Old Testament
severity, not the mildness of the new dispensa
tion. He is to be praised and envied who sees
uis enemies perish.
This, he concludes, is only another side of
love for one's country, this desire for thorough
revenge on the maliclous enemy:
We beflag our houses, we ring our bells
and sing, “Now thank we all our God” when
dered by Catholic soldiers to please their
Materialist masters, who were only for a
time Lutherans and are now no longer Christ
fans. If the helr of Frederick the Great wanted
to treat Cologne Cathedral in exactly the same
style as Rheims Cathedral it would certainly
be done. And that brings me to the first of
the large facts which I wish to emphasize ahout
Prussia in one or two articles which I shall
write in this place.
When the slaves of the Prussian talk in ugly
undertone about his strength, they mean some
thing. They do not mean anything connected
with the highly belated romanticism with which
he is now posing as the dying hero, as a last
chance of escaping death. Such thin senti
mentalism contradicts, but will scarcely con
’ 3; - . ’ . ’ |
?:: 3"y co L I S
M"t ; TN [
: ’ s ]
3 . o N 3
b ’.‘ -}’ > - % | - " ’.}('
e 3 ‘y o 0 d L O
7 . ¥ " ‘ L b > ¥
* 5, she b 5 4 'y “l * s .o ] .’,‘ ""
i S A B L AL W & ‘lfe A 4 M
" B PN o M - ARV % v -
‘;’ » g E , L. (‘ . .;L : '
. " ¥iw i by o " '
Ny - : i Al
f o "‘e“( y " . P s 4, R
i P WP &l -3 fe , ""t\ g . k] B
.".:' v sMgo {' g ¥ l; ~‘§>“~ ‘:o:,.’
O Tot W - e 0”‘ *g, o
i" 'L“' v " > ,‘: ’;\“ "y
. . 4 h " : P
R % e b :r‘gfi v b . “ ¢
4 .. y '.: - 'S p
2 LT Yol AR
A '’ ¥ W L AT ]
--. . e
2 RS s B
o‘ , } R »fl:.» 7 =394é\ ot 'g"' ¥ -
|, . F ¥, [ 2 -
i - = x.‘ .\.-‘A k .
2 ‘;‘._a A L ‘ (Y ) b
: e .
d -l" oy "m'fi ¥ L—. v
o » y - )"‘. nE SV g B, . b‘{o- ot
“'"} iy 4 o - "‘:& l"V" ot f .’?‘
L 3 e 3 "’\_“ R .
TR Pyl i
P AP > ARt IR
N.. s 4 & - ' ~ A;' N ""\‘ ~fl é‘h.‘a 'f‘p -!v i
o B ot R R
. =L . 1 e 5 AN
y ¥ ey LV b 43';5}"5?~¥£4,‘?;¢ E
& & a 8 ) Y oy % pRAI let
S7F 1) bt et % 5 Lel -
o ’ , ¥ P : » .
- X . v T 3 A v D ‘lfi ! o g A
b~ = 3 ? o B e > o, ‘e s &
e ,:L o 4 ?\‘,:—. s2S g‘ J f&' fi‘w, v—s
% Yo s;.?“ oA / B y 3 hY
B¢ 1 ARy U, S L(. yich i R
ROO TR L o R
.1, 4 & ‘«*, AV‘ o ’~‘>F\»* s A v . A R > R
PAz A R P ORARRR N - e
i Sh T a 4 AP v T :
{By &“?;;’:'r' ’:f’ Id t fi‘.{f ”‘(“' NS o N )AN e
re \"""é Bie ol VYL A . o e PR FITE W i
countiess multitudes of Russians meet a ter
rible death in the Masurian swamps, or whea
two thousand seamen are plunged to the bot
tom of the ocean by our submarines. And such
expressions of gretitude and joy are genulnely
German and genuinely Christian.
These are Pastor Lober's words, remember,
not mine, and are indeed the genuine German
blend of vindictive murderousness with abomin
able pletism. They remind one of Punch’'s sar
castic paraphrase of the first German Emperor's
letters to his wife on the debacle of the French
armies in 1870-71:
1 write to tell you, dear Augusta,
We've had another awful buster;
Ten thousand Frenchmen sent below,
Praise God from whom all biessings flow.
The Right to Use Force
\dmitted by the Church.
But we need not emulate this blasphemous
tosh. The question for us is whether it is
ever right to meet force with force. We have
to look to something besides the letter of
Scripture here. You can prove almost any
thing from Scripture, and the mere citing of
isolated texts is a profitless proceeding. We
have to look at Scripture as interpreted by the
mind ‘ef the Church during nineteen centuries.
From the first the right of the State to
make use of force, even to the taking of human
life, was admitted by the Church, and from
that admission she has never deviated,
This must include the right, even the duty
under certain circumstances, to make war; for
the principle thus set forth extends much
further than the coércion of the subject. If
the State has the right to judge and condemn
a criminal within her own borders—and who
would queation it?—she has the right to résist
unjust aggression from without, or even to in
terfere on behalf of the oppressed and down
trodden beyond the area of her sovereign juris
diction.
Surely in taking this gound—which she did
sven in New Testament times, as we see from
the Pauline epietle—the Church has all aiong
known the mind of her Lord. Is it so certain
that Jesus would not have sanctioned the tak
ing of human life? What distinction ls there
between the taking of life and the emyployment
of any other method than that of moral suasion
in the overthrow of iniquity?
And it is clear as clear can be that our Lord
did contemplate bringing force to bear in the
long run upon human wrong-doing. His toaco
ing about the last things leaves no room for
doubt upon this. And the force was to be em
ployed by Himself. People seem to forget this
when talking about the example of Jesus. It
was only up to a point that He meant to
tolerate men's wickedness or appeal to their
better nature. Beyond that poigt He declared
lle weuld overthrow it with a strong hand.
It makes not the slightest difference to the
question at issue that He expected to be sup
ported by heavenly rather than earthly legions
ceal, the whole of his historical theory and
practice. He has never shown any sympathy
with defeated valor in other people; and he
has not even shown any particular examples
of it in himself. His armies have fought with
the workaday courage of all white. men; but
his success has always been due much more
to their negative than their positive qualities.
It may even be said, politically, at least, that
the Prussian is supreme not because Germans
fight, but -because they don’t fight. Certainly
ke has never once in this business shown either
special skill or unexpected daring as apart from
numbers and obedience. 1 know of only two
cases in this war in which manhood and the
handling of men made a larger force give way
before & smaller one. One was when Jofflie
Rev. Reginald J. Campbell.
in so doing. The principle is just the same.
There is to be a consecrated use of i-rce to
counter and overthrow force enlisted on the
side of evil. Nor can we absolutely restrict
the.mruclpu!on in the struggle to angel hosts.
That strange book called Revelation, not one
of the latest in the New Testament, indicates
otherwise in {ts mysterious allusions to
Armageddon—a word often on the lips of
journalists and public speakers to describe the
present European conflict—and to a final and
terrific trial of strength betweén the em
battled forces of evil and those of good on
the stage of humad affairs. It is not all 2lle
gorical. It is a real world war that is spoken
of. '
Moreover, our Lord's own very emphatie
words about non-resistance are plainly ad
dressed to the individual and are concerned
with the avenging of personal affronts. lle
never told us to turn anyone else’s cheek to
the smiter, which is just the ‘point. And He
never sald a single word about refusing to
obey th 2 call of the State to defend one's home
and kindred by force of arms.
Tnat the Church never understood Him to
mean that is plain from her practise in the
early centuries. There were plenty of Christian
soldiers in the imperial armies. Being a
Christian did not disqualify a man for under
taking such a service. On the abstract pria
ciple, there is no room for doubt. Christianity
‘has always recognized that the executive of the
State “beareth not the sword in vain.”
Christians Were
Soldiers in Early Times.
1t is not so easy to say where the limitations
of that authority come in. In the last resort
that is a matter for-the individual conscience
to settle. It might be a Christian duty to re
tuse to shed one’s blood in a bad cause at the
bidding of the State or any other aufhority.
In the early days to which I have already
alluded, there were martyrs who died rather
than fight just as there were martyrs who died
rather than render divine honors to Ceasar.
I am only pointing out, and it is well worth
emphasizing, that from the very first the
Christian Church, as a whole, did admit that,
under certain eventualities undefined, the State
had the right to make war and therefore the
right to require its subjects to serve in its
armies.
The Christian ideal was universal peace; but
in such a very unideal world as ours it had to
be acknowledged that on the way to universal
peace it might sometimes be the duty of a
Christian to draw the sword.
I am not insisting that war itself is a good.
1t is not a good. Pain in itself never is. War
may be a merciless purgation of the body
politic, a bracing up of the energies of the
soul; but it is a grim remedy even at the best.
It is no more a good than a surgical operation
is a good. It may be necessary to get rid of
a disease, but it would be better not to have the
trapped and turned the whole huge onset just
before it could touch Paris; the other was
when the Serbians rolled ‘the second Austrian
invasion down their mountains to the Danube.
The courage of the forlorn hope is a kind
which Prussia has not only never had, but has
never admired. !
Nevertheless, as I say, the sycophants of the
Prussia» Imperialism have something in their
minds when they talk of the strength of
Prussia. And what they mean is this: That
Prussia has a certain directness of action as of
a giant who is deaf or blind. She does not
feel atmospheres. In the sunlight and the
silence of staring multitudes, she will act as a
wicked man will act when he is alore. Some
of her international acts were even more in-
disease to begin with, We have to distinguish
between what is ideally and what is practically
right. .
The Christian ideal of marriages, for ex
ample, is the union of one man and one woman
for life on the basis of pure mutual affection
and loyalty. But in praciise we have to recog
nize that it s not always attainable with
human nature as it is, and we leglalate ac
sordingly.
The Christian ideal, again, is that of the
ange! song at the birth of the world's Re
deemer, “Glory to God in the highest, and on
earth peace, good will amongst men.” But
while tyranny, oppression and crueity remain
there must be war,
But, further, I utterly and entirely dissent
from the view that there is something essen
tially uplifting In war as war. The late Mr,
Lecky, in his History of European Morals,
says: “That which invests war, io spite of
all the evils that attend it, with a certaln moral
grandeur, is the heroic self-sacrifice it elicits.
With perhaps the single exception of the
church, it is the sphere in which mercenary
motives have least sway, in which performance
is least weighed and measured by strict obli
gation, In which a disinterested enthusiasm
has most scope. A battlefield is the scene of
deeps of self-sacrifice so transcendent, and at
the same time so dramatic, that in spite of
all its horrors and crimes, it awakens the most
passionate moral enthusiasm.”
Is there no other way of arousing this moral
enthusiasm, no other way of evoking to the
same degree the spirit of self-sacrifice? Yes,
if civilization as a whole could rise to the
moral level requisite for it. The late Professor
William James, of Harvard, used to maintain
that one great thing which modern civilization
had yet to do was to find a moral substitute
for war, an incentive to action that would bring
out the grandest qualities of human nature
without the accompaniment of slaughter and
the suffering and anguish that follow in its
train. On that we were sufficlently great of
soul to do it, and to do it as one man!
Every normal human being must dread,
loathe and detest war, for if it reveals some
things that savour of heaven, it reveals more
than that reek of hell. See what the glorifi
cation of war has done for Germany.
1 have not the slightest hesitation in admit
ting that as a people the German are intel
lectually better trained and more efficient than
we, their resources better organized and de
veloped, their manhood better disciplined and
equipped for the business of life In its material
aspects. But look at the temper of mind that
goes with it—hard, arrogant, domineering, un
able to appreciate the rights of others or even
to understand others point of view.
The Evils of
Militarism Shown by Germany.
It has given Germany the most unscrupulous
government of modern times; for as sure as
you get a nation mastered by the monster of
militarism, a nation in which everything else
in administration is subordinated to militaristic
ideals, you get a government without senti
ment, without humanity, without respect for
the ordinary obligations of truth and honor.
Two ideals of the State confront each other
on the battlefield to-day. For the sake of the
future welfare of mankind which were it bet
ter should prevail? I think we could fairly
appeal to civilization on that issue alone with
out fear of the verdict. Is the State a moral
entity or s it not?
Our enemies hold that whatever the State
chooses to do it may do, if it thinks it to be for
{ts advantage, that considerations of right and
wrong have no meaning as applied to the State,
No question of conscience, they say, must deter
the individual from carrying out its behests. A
more cynical doctrine the world has never
heard. If Germany were to win this war that
doctrine would be triumphant. It is for us to
determine that it shall not be.
We war not for revenge nor for our own
aggrandisement. We war to set mankind free
from a bondage under which it has groaned for
generations, Germany even more than our
selves. We are fighting the battle of the Ger
man people as well as our own, paradoxical
thought it may seem to say so.
We are fighting the battle of America as well
as of Europe, and America knows it. We are
fighting for democratic institutions, for inter
national justice, for the right of the weak to
live in safety alongside of the strong.
International law has broken down. We
have got to rebuild it. Political and social
idealism has been swept under by this flood of
cultured barbarism from Berlin., We have got
to restore it to its proper place. We are war
ring to end war.
The world has an object lesson bafore it to
day as to what militarism leads to. Heaven
grant that the outcome of the present awful
collision of spiritual and material forces may
be the end of militarism, and, as our Prime
Minister said a year ago, the creation of a pact
»>f the nations to prevent it from ever lifting
its head again, not in Germany only, but any
where else throughout the world.
decent than immoral. This nakedness and
even deadness in her deeds does impress some
weak-minded sophists and willing slaves as a
sort of strength.
And the truth to be emphasized here is that
wherever the Prussian goes, and however he
stands, these deeds he will do. He will do
them when they are quite out of the picture
he {s trying to paint; for he is no judge of
pictures. He will do them when they are in
flat contradiction of the words he has just
uttered; for he is ignorant of the magic of
words. They break out of him in calm sur
roundings and cold disquisitions, like screams
out of a man possessed.
He smilingly assured the Americans that a
mere misunderstanding had obscured his good
The Longer the
War Lasts
the Worse for
Germany
Why England |Believes That
Signs of the Fatal Weakness
Are Already to be Seen Which
Insures Ultimate Victory for
the Allies.
-
By the Editor of the London
-
Nation
E can galn a just insight ioto the for
W midableness of an enemy by measur
ing his reservolr of trained or tralne
able men and his munitions In hand and pro
curable. Although we know Htth o! his moral,
we know that it must decrease if it I 8 realized
that the available troops are diminishing and
the store of munitions is becoming low.
Now, If we examine Germany's conditioa
with regard to the first of these factors we
see that attrition has fulfilled its purpose in
striking fashlon. We know that she must keep
four milllon men in the fleld, and of these
three must be of first-rate fighting quality,
We further know that at this moment she can
not have lost from the various flelds of cam
palgn less than three and a half millions; and,
finally, we know that eight miilions must be
her maximum recruitment. And since the
foundations for these calculations may be
questioned, we have two supporting consider
ations for the conclusion te which they lead.
That Germany's reserve of able-bodied men
must be near the end is clear from the fact
that to conduct her Balkan adventure she has
sent poor troops, and from the further fact
that she is being gradually pushed back on
the Russian front, where it is imperative she
should hold her own. Another fact which Is
indisputable ia that recent regulations issued
to doctors who examine recruits state that &
man is only to be considered unfit if his dis.
eases make hém incapable of his ordinary civil
work.
That is a striking fact, and under its ap
plication men are being recruited who can
never take their place in the firingline. As
the men on garrison duty and at work on
communications are already the older and less
fit, these new recruits will increase the re
serve by reinforcements superior ounly to them
selves,
Essential Articles,
Germany Cannot Obtain.
As to the question of munitions, Germany
{s now short of metal, rubber and glycerine.
These are all necessary commodities. She has
not too much cotton, and is beginning to be
anxious about securing more, or some sub
stitute. Cellulose is an absolute necessity for
the manufacture of munitions, and though cot
ton is not the only source of it, the use of any
other form would require new plant. At this
moment Colone! Gadke admits that the sup
plies of manitions are low.
Germany's economic condition is such that
she can continue the war on its present scale,
so far as that alone is concerned, for a formid
able period; but she cannot create metal, rub
ber, glycerine or cotton.
When we come to examine her moral, we
are met by an extraordinary array of fact
which all point to the same conclusion. Thers
{s much real distress among the people owing
to lack of meat, milk and fats, and such a state
must inevitably react upon the soldiers. We
know that the Germans hoped to secure a vic
tory in the Summer, and that they hate the
idea of another Winter campalign. There ars
outspoken statements in the German papers
which would never have appeared last year.
They admit that they cannot cope with our sub
marines. They praise our soldiers. They
praise the Russians and express the fear that
they are recovering too quickly.
Herr Harden boldly warns his countrymen
that Russia and England are only now begin
ning the war. Another writer says that it is
certain that we all desire peace. Yet another,
at the end of a vigorous article, hints that
when we are willing to make peace and be
friendly with them, they, too, will make their
approach to us. It is sometimes sald ' that
Germany can refit from the Turkish Empire.
This would probably be true if she had a year
or two In which to organize, though rubber
and cotton cannot be obtained in any quan
tities. She could also obtain reinforcements
if she could have time to train them, and if
the Turks would consent to fight in Russia or
France, a sugg*;ion which is repudiated by
competent authokities as unworthy of consjd
eration.
This, then, seems to be the state of our
chief enemy. He is within sight of his last
reserves, short of munitions and irreparably
deficient in several necessary constituents for
their manufacture, financially bankrupt, short
of food and with a growing weariness of the
war, which he feels to be beyond his powers.
In other words, he knows—as he ought to
have known from the beginnirg~-that the com
bination of Russia, France and England is too
much for him. ‘
How the end will come, it is almost idle to
speculate; but it is difficult to think it can
be very far off. It is reported that the Kaiser
says that he hopes for success from our eco
nomic breakdown. This is a warning, but it
is also a proef that the end may not, indeed
probably will not, come by a series of dra
matic victories, though there will doubtless
be allied victorles before the end. It will
more probably come from a progressive attri
:lon of the enemy in every element of his
orce. ,
intentions, which should henceforth bs fu'filled
faultiessly; and then screamed and sank the
Arabic. He spread out his arms to the Pope
and the princes of the earth, asking for a halt
and a hearing for his equitable claims; and
then screamed and shot the nurse who tended
his wounded.
And the first moral of the matter as it con
cerns us here is this; that no parade of an
improved tone in his highly disciplined Press,
no elaborate preliminaries of peace planned
out for impartial arbiters, no falling back on
abstract amiabilities will ever cast out thig
devil that is in him; but when he mounts his
throne again robed in white and with a dove
for his eagle, he will give his command for
a crime.