Chapter M: H. Holubowicz (6)

Now that is a sample, gentlemen. We cannot make anything out of
Russia. We cannot make anything out of our standing by Russia
at this time--the remotest of European nations so far as we are
concerned, the one with which we have had the least connections in
trade and advantage--and yet the people of the United States rose
to that suggestion as to no other that I made in that address.

That is part of America as we are ready to show it by any act of
friendship toward Mexico. Some of us, if I may speak so privately,
look back with regret upon some of the more ancient relations
that we have had with Mexico long before our generation; and
America, if I may now so accept it, would now feel ashamed to take
advantage of her neighbor.

NO SELFISH AGGRESSION

So I hope you can carry back to your homes something better than
assurances and words. You have had contact with our people. You
know of your own personal reception. You know how gladly we have
opened to you the doors of every establishment that you wanted
to see and have shown you just what we are doing, and I hope you
have gained the right impression as to why we are doing it. We are
doing it, gentlemen, so that the world may never hereafter have to
fear the only thing that any nation has to dread--the unjust and
selfish aggression of another nation.

Some time ago, as you probably all know, I proposed a sort of
Pan-American agreement. I had perceived that one difficulty in
our past relations with Latin America was this: The famous Monroe
Doctrine was adopted without your consent and without the consent
of any Central American or South American States. If I may adopt a
term that we so often use in this country, we said: "We are going
to be your big brother whether you want us to be or not."

We did not ask whether it was agreeable to you that we should be
your big brother. We said we are going to be. Now, that was all
very well as far as protecting you from aggression from the other
side of the water, but there was nothing in it that protected you
from aggression from us, and I have repeatedly seen an uneasy
feeling on the part of representatives of States of Central and
South America that our self-appointed protection might be for our
own benefit and our own interest and not for the interest of our
neighbors. So I have said:

"Very well, let us make an arrangement by which we will give
bonds. Let us have a common guarantee that all of us will sign a
declaration of political independence and territorial integrity.
Let us agree that if any one of us, the United States included,
violates the political independence or territorial integrity of
any of the others, all others will jump on her."

I pointed out to some gentlemen who were less inclined to enter
into this arrangement than others that that was, in effect, giving
bonds on the part of the United States that we would enter into an
arrangement by which you would be protected from us.

PEACE BY MUTUAL TRUST

Now, that is the kind of agreement that will have to be the
foundation of the future life of the nations of the world,
gentlemen. The whole family of nations will have to guarantee
to each nation that no nation shall violate its political
independence or its territorial integrity. That is the basis--the
only conceivable basis--for the future peace of the world, and
I must admit that I was anxious to have the States of the two
Continents of America show the way to the rest of the world as to
how to make a basis of peace.

Peace can only come by trust. If you can once get a situation
of trust then you have got a situation of permanent peace.
Therefore, every one of us, it seems to me, owes it as a
patriotic duty to his own country to plant the seeds of trust and
confidence instead of seeds of suspicion.

That is the reason I began by saying to you that I had not had the
pleasure of meeting a group of men who are more welcome than you
are, because you are our near neighbors. Suspicion on your part,
or misunderstanding on your part, distresses us more than we would
be distressed by similar feelings on the part of those less near
to us.

It is you who can see how Mexico's future must depend upon peace
and honor, so that nobody shall exploit her. It must depend upon
every nation that has any relation with her and the citizens of
any nation that has any relations with her keeping within the
bounds of honor and fair dealing and justice, because so soon as
you can admit your own capital and the capital of the world to the
free use of the resources of Mexico it will be one of the most
wonderfully rich and prosperous countries in the world.

And when you have foundations of established order and the
world has come to its senses again we shall, I hope, continue
in connections that will assure us all permanent cordiality and
friendship.

In Flanders Fields

By Lieut. Col. JOHN D. McCRAE

[Written during the second battle of Ypres, April, 1915. The author, Dr. John McCrae of Montreal, Canada, was killed on duty in Flanders, Jan. 28, 1918.]

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly,
Scarce heard amidst the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow.
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe!
To you from falling hands, we throw
The torch. Be yours to hold it high!
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

America's Answer

By R. W. LILLARD

[Written after the death of Lieut. Col. McCrae, author of "In Flanders Fields," and printed in The New York Evening Post.]

Rest ye in peace, ye Flanders dead.
The fight that ye so bravely led
We've taken up. And we will keep
True faith with you who lie asleep
With each a cross to mark his bed,
And poppies blowing overhead,
Where once his own life blood ran red.
So let your rest be sweet and deep
In Flanders fields.

Fear not that ye have died for naught.
The torch ye threw to us we caught.
Ten million hands will hold it high,
And Freedom's light shall never die!
We've learned the lesson that ye taught
In Flanders fields.

Secretary Lansing on War Themes

Why the United States Is at War

Robert Lansing, Secretary of State of the United States, delivered an address in New York on May 23, 1918, in honor of the third anniversary of Italy's entrance into the war. He said in part:

Oh, you of the blood of a people who have given so much to
civilization, no greater task has ever fallen upon you, no greater
duty has ever been the lot of the Italian race, than that which
is yours today. You are called forth to defend the land which is
enshrined in the hearts of the world as the cradle of justice and
liberty. Fail you cannot, fail you must not, fail you will not in
such a cause and such a crisis.

This is no time to measure the price which must be paid in blood
and treasure. No price is too large, no sacrifice too great for
the protection of your sacred heritage from the invaders.

Today, America, youngest of the great powers of the earth, is
proud to cross the seas and to stand side by side with the most
ancient power of Europe in upholding the standard of democracy,
and to unite in proclaiming to the nations tortured by war that
peace must be won and will be won by the might of liberty-loving
men, a glorious peace which will endure throughout the ages
because it is written in the book of destiny that freedom will
rise triumphant from the ashes of this desolated world.

To gallant Italy, to our loyal associate and friend, we of America
extend greetings on this day of reconsecration to a noble cause,
on this day when the Italian people renew their solemn pledge to
resist to the uttermost the accursed ambitions of the military
rulers of Germany and Austria.

Italy's decision was the decision of a people who preferred the
horrors of war to dishonor, who preferred to die rather than to be
enslaved by Prussian masters or by Prussia's vassals. It breathed
anew the valor of Rome.

United with you of the Latin race are we who could desire no
prouder title than "the Romans of the West." A citizen of this
young Republic could crave no higher public virtue nor covet a
more devoted patriotism than that which inspired a dweller on the
Seven Hills in the brave days of the old Roman Republic.

My friends of America and of Italy, we will win this war. It may
be on the wasted fields of Flanders and Picardy; it may be in the
valley of the Piave and the snow-crowned peaks of the Alps; or it
may be on German lands beyond the Rhine. Somewhere and somehow and
some time we will win. It cannot be otherwise, for we fight for
justice, for liberty, and for humanity.

AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Secretary Lansing delivered another address in New York on June 5 at the commencement exercises of Columbia University. In accepting an honorary degree from that institution he said:

Today this Republic stands with the democracies of the earth
arrayed in battle against the most relentless enemy of human
liberty which the ages have produced. To save this country of ours
and to save the civilized world from Prussianism has become the
supreme duty of the American people and of all other peoples who
love justice and freedom.

In this titanic struggle we are joined not only with France, our
historic ally, but also with Great Britain, our ancient foe. On
the blood-stained fields of France we three, together with Italy,
Belgium, and Portugal, are standing shoulder to shoulder against
the plunderers. Our traditional friendship for France, which can
never be forgotten, and our traditional enmity for Great Britain,
which is forgotten, are swallowed up in this supreme crisis of
liberty, our common heritage. The grave perils to our lives as
nations unite us with bonds of steel as our armies face the foe of
all mankind.

I am proud that in these terrible days we are associated with
the tenacious warriors of Britain; I am proud that with our
blood we can on French soil prove the affection which we cherish
for the French people; I am proud that Italy, superb in her
determined resistance, is our partner in this conflict, and that
the indomitable spirit of the Belgians and Serbs is a living
inspiration to gallant deeds and noble sacrifice. I am proud, as I
know every American is proud, to be thus united with the nations
which hate Prussianism and loathe the evil desires which it
engenders in the hearts of men.

Prussianism has appealed to the sword, and by the sword
Prussianism must fall. It is the divine law of retribution which
we as the instruments of justice must enforce so that the world
may be forever rid of this abomination. * * *

Let us understand that a Prussian-made peace would not be the end;
that it would only postpone the final struggle. Now that this war
has come upon us we must carry it through to a decision. We must
not transmit to future generations the germs of militarism. From
the spirit of despotism, which has caused this awful tragedy, this
war must free the world. We have suffered enough. The nations must
never endure such black days of agony as those in which we are
living.

It is the supreme task of civilization to put an end to
Prussianism. To listen to proposals for a Prussian peace, to
compromise with the butchers of individuals and of nations so that
they would by agreement gain a benefit from their crimes would
be to compound an international felony, which this Republic will
never do.

Force is the one way to end Prussianism, for it is the only thing
which the Prussian respects. This war for democracy must be waged
to a successful conclusion to make liberty and justice supreme on
the earth. It will be a bitter struggle, with lights and shadows,
for the foe is strong and stubborn; but in the end we shall
triumph, for we must triumph or abandon all that is worth while in
this world. May every American so live and so serve that when the
day of victory over the Prussians dawns, as it will dawn, he may,
by right of faithful service, share in the glory.

To that bright hour let us look forward with confidence, for the
Supreme Ruler of the Universe could not decree otherwise. He has
imposed upon us and our brave comrades in arms the task of freeing
mankind from the curse of avarice and inhumanity which besets us.
He has put upon us the burden of making this world a fit dwelling
place for civilized men. Let us not shrink from the task or seek
to avoid the burden. Convinced of the righteousness of our cause
and of our destiny let us make war with all our energy. Let us
keep our banners unfurled and our trumpets sounding to battle
until victory is achieved.

Prussia wickedly sought war and Prussia shall have war and more
war and more war until the very thought of war is abhorrent to
the Prussian mind. So I read the spirit of America. So I read
the supreme purpose of the Allies. Victory lies before us and
beyond victory a just and enduring peace. Until that peace is sure
America cannot and will not put aside the sword.

ITALIAN AMBASSADOR'S SPEECH

Count Mocchi di Cellere, the Italian Ambassador to the United States, in his address at the Italian anniversary celebration, said:

Literally speaking, this is the third anniversary of Italy's
formal entry into the war. But perhaps I need not remind you,
gentlemen, that our struggle against the enemy goes back to the
time when, some twenty centuries ago, on those selfsame fields
and mountains that are now a part of our common allied front, the
Roman eagle was already waging that fight against the barbarians
in which the American eagle has more recently joined us.

The struggle of today is to us Italians the rounding-out of
a tremendous cycle of world history, in which, alone of all
civilized nations, Italy was in at the beginning and is in at the
finish. Since the time when Roman law laid the foundations for the
international intercourse of the world, the struggle has gone on
against Teutonic brutality. We are in it as a nation with all the
traditions and survivals of centuries, with all the memories of
the race, with all the influences of obscure ancestral heredities.

One verse of our national hymn reminds us that no Teuton stick
ever curbed Italy, and that the children of Rome do not bow their
necks to a yoke. That was the blunder of the enemy--he did not
realize that to a liberty-loving people the spirit of freedom is
like the breathing of pure air, an essential of life. Sometimes a
man does not know how essential it is until some one tries to take
it from him. Then he must die or revolt. Italy revolted. * * *

Whatever the enemy may have to say or may desire others to
believe about it, Italy is not in this war for any base and
selfish motives of conquest, imperial or unlawful territorial
aggrandizement. While in fact fighting for the liberation of
mankind threatened with oppression and slavery, Italy is aiming
at the liberation of her oppressed sons within and beyond the
boundary imposed upon her by an iniquitous treaty.

For the freedom of our country we need security on land and sea;
a security which nature herself had assured us with well defined
geographic boundaries and which the violence of oppressive and
barbarous nations has too long stolen from us. Now we see our duty
clear; and faithful to our duty, we will not lay down our arms
until the freedom of mankind, which implies the freedom of our
oppressed brothers, and the security of our land, is attained.

Secretary Lansing delivered the chief address at the commencement exercises of Union College, Schenectady, N. Y., June 10. He said in part:

It is hardly open to debate, in the light of subsequent events,
that the philosophical and political ideas which have been taught
for years from the university platforms, from the pulpits, and
through the printed word to young and old in Germany, excited in
them an insolent pride of blood and infused into their national
being an all-absorbing ambition to prove themselves supermen
chosen by natural superiority and by Divine mandate to be rulers
of the earth. Not only in Germany, but among those of German
descent in other lands, has this pernicious belief spread, linking
Germans everywhere to the Fatherland in the hope that they would
be considered worthy to share in the future glory of the masters
of the world. * * *

A decade before the war Reiner, inspired with the imperialism of
Prussia, announced: "It is precisely our craving for expansion
which drives us into the paths of conquest, in view of which all
chatter about peace and humanity can and must remain nothing but
chatter."

Not less ominous to liberty are the words of Professor Meinecke:
"We want to become a world people. Let us remind ourselves that
the belief in our mission as a world people has arisen from our
originally purely spiritual impulse to absorb the world into
ourselves."

Observe that extraordinary phrase, "to absorb the world into
ourselves." To conceive such a national destiny is to resurrect
the dead ambitions of an Alexander or a Caesar; to teach it as
a right to young men is to sow in their minds an egotism which
breeds distorted conceptions of individual honor and justice, and
gives to them an utterly false standard of national life.

Not alone from the lecturer and the essayist came this idea that
the Germans are a superior race set apart to rule the world. It
was preached in the pulpits as a Divine truth by those who even
had the effrontery to support their assertions by references to
the Holy Scriptures. Listen to some of the thoughts proclaimed by
ordained ministers of Christ to their German congregations:

"It may sound proud, my friends, but we are conscious that it is
also in all humbleness that we say it; the German soul is God's
soul; it shall and will rule over mankind."

May we be spared the consequences of a German "humbleness" which
fairly struts and swaggers, and which finds further expression in
the words of another Doctor of Divinity when he declares: "Verily
the Bible is our book. It was given and assigned to us, and in
it we read the original text of our destiny, which proclaims to
mankind salvation or disaster as we will it."

"As we will it!" There in four words is the whole story of the
Prussian doctrine of the "superman," of a "place in the sun."

Paganism, tinctured with modern materialism and a degenerate type
of Christianity, broods today over Germany. Christian ministers
have proclaimed Jehovah to be the national deity of the empire,
a monopolized German God, who relies on the physical might of
His people to destroy those who oppose His will as that will is
interpreted by His chosen race. Thus the Prussian leaders would
harmonize modern thought with their ancient religion of physical
strength through brutalizing Christianity.

In view of the spirit of hypocrisy and bad faith manifesting
an entire lack of conscience, we ought not to be astonished
that the Berlin Foreign Office never permitted a promise or a
treaty engagement to stand in the way of a course of action
which the German Government deemed expedient. I need not cite
as proof of this fact the flagrant violations of the treaty
neutralizing Belgium--and the recent treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
This discreditable characteristic of the German foreign policy
was accepted by German diplomats as a matter of course and as
a natural if not a praiseworthy method of dealing with other
Governments.

Frederick the Great, with cynical frankness, once said: "If there
is anything to be gained by it, we will be honest. If deception
is necessary, let us be cheats." That is in brief the immoral
principle which has controlled the foreign relations of Prussia
for over 150 years.

It is a fact not generally known that within six weeks after the
Imperial Government had, in the case of the Sussex, given to
this Government its solemn promise that it would cease ruthless
slaughter on the high seas, Count Bernstorff, appreciating the
worthlessness of the promise, asked the Berlin Foreign Office to
advise him in ample time before the campaign of submarine murder
was renewed, in order that he might notify the German merchant
ships in American ports to destroy their machinery because he
anticipated that the renewal of that method of warfare would in
all probability bring the United States into the war.

How well the Ambassador knew the character of his Government, and
how perfectly frank he was! He asked for the information without
apology or indirection. The very bluntness of his message shows
that he was sure that his superiors would not take offense at the
assumption that their word was valueless and had only been given
to gain time, and that, when an increase of Germany's submarine
fleet warranted, the promise would be broken without hesitation
or compunction. What a commentary on Bernstorff's estimate of the
sense of honor and good faith of his own Government!

We must go on with the war. There is no other way. This task must
not be left half done. We must not transmit to posterity a legacy
of blood and misery. We may in this great conflict go down into
the Valley of Shadows, because our foe is powerful and inured to
war. We must be prepared to meet disappointment and temporary
reverse, but we must, with American spirit, rise above them; with
courageous hearts we must go forward until this war is won.

Premier Lloyd George Lauds Americans

David Lloyd George, the British Premier, speaking at the Printers' Pension Fund dinner in London, June 7, 1918, paid this tribute to the American soldiers in France:

I have only just returned from France, and met a French statesman
who had been at the front shortly after a battle in which the
Americans took part. He was full of admiration not merely of their
superb valor but of the trained skill with which they attacked and
defeated the foe.

His report of the conduct of the American troops, a division
that had been in action for the first time, was one of the most
encouraging things I have heard, because they are coming in
steadily. There is a great flow, and we are depending upon them,
and the fact that we know that when they appear in the battleline
they will fight in a way which is worthy of the great traditions
of their great country is in itself a source of support and
sustenance and encouragement to all of those who with anxious
hearts are watching the conflict which is going on in France.

The toast with which you have done me the honor to associate my
name is "Success to the Allied Cause." If for any cause the Allies
were not to succeed, it would be a sorry world to live in. Most
times people are inclined to exaggerate events of the day, but
there are occasions when generations of men underestimate the
significance of events. You cannot exaggerate the importance or
significance of the issues with which we are confronted today.

In the past you have had in the history of the world great
struggles for domination of a certain civilization, a certain
ideal or a certain religion, and the fate of the world and the
destiny of man and the lives of untold millions for generations
have been fashioned upon the triumph or failure of this cause.
Take the time of Turkish military power in the past or the
Saracens' attempt to trample down and overrun the civilization
of the West. Nations were wiped out, great countries devastated.
You had untold misery and wretchedness throughout vast tracts
of territory for ages. At last that tide was stemmed. Supposing
that had failed. What a difference it would have made for European
civilization today!

At this hour there is a struggle with an ideal more material, more
sordid, more brutal, than almost any other which has been sought
to be imposed upon Europe--the Prussian military ideal, with its
contempt for liberty, its contempt for human right, its contempt
for humanity. If they were to succeed today, you would fling back
human civilization into the dark dungeons of the past.

The crisis is not past, but with a stout heart we shall win
through, and then woe to the plague. In the interests of
civilization, in the interests of the human race, it must be
stamped out. You cannot allow it to come again to darken the lives
of millions, and to desolate millions of homes. That is what we
are fighting for.

This is a country which has faced a great crisis in the past.
We hear about Ludendorff's hammer blows. Hammer blows crack and
crumble poor material. Hammer blows harden and consolidate good
metal. There is good metal in British hearts. It has stood the
test of centuries. It will stand this. So will that gallant
little people, that gallant great people across the Channel who
are fighting for their liberties, for the honor of their native
land, fighting without flinching. I have seen them. I never saw
signs of wavering in any French face. They are full of courage,
full of determination to fight through to the end, and it is a
united France more than ever. So it is a united Britain. Unity and
resolution are two qualities we need. We have sunk our political
differences. We have bigger things to think about. I am not
despising the political controversies of the past. In some form
or another they will come again. These controversies are the very
essence of freedom, but for the moment we have one purpose.

Let us be one people, one in aim, one in courage, one in the
resolve never to give in. Let Britain stand like a breakwater
against the torrent, and, God willing, we will break it in two.

Clemenceau's Defiance of Obstructors

Premier Clemenceau of France received a vote of confidence in the Chamber of Deputies on June 6, 1918, by a vote of 377 to 110. An attempt was made by the militant Socialists to embarrass the Government by demanding information of military matters which it was deemed inexpedient to reveal. In his victorious speech defying his critics he said:

The collapse of Russia enabled the enemy to set free an army of
a million men to add to his forces on our front. Anybody can
understand that under such enormous weight our line must give
way at some points. Some of our men have fought one against five
without sleeping for three or four days. The losses of our allies,
the British, in the heroic struggle have been more than we could
have believed possible.

The situation has become dangerous for our armies, but in all
this I see nothing to diminish our confidence in our troops. As
to the Government, it will continue to make war stubbornly and
obstinately. We will never capitulate. If you are not satisfied
with our work, turn us out. It is for you to decide.

The only thing that matters is final success. Our effectives
are lessening in number, but so are those of Germany, while the
Americans are coming in larger and larger numbers to take part in
the final victory. * * *

Down there all that the heroes can do is to die, but you
by your firm and resolute attitude can give them what they
deserve--victory. You have before you a Government which told you
the very first day that it did not enter into power to negotiate
without victory. As long as we are here the fatherland will be
defended at all costs, and no force will be spared to obtain
success.

We have allies who represent the greatest nations in the world,
that have decided to go on until success is certain, success which
is near. The Americans are arriving for the final blow.

The Living Line

By HAROLD BEGBIE

[By arrangement with The London Chronicle]

_As long as faith and freedom last,
And earth goes round the sun,
This stands--the British line held fast
And so the fight was won._

_The greatest fight that ever yet
Brought all the world to dearth;
A fight of two great nations set
To battle for the earth._

* * * * *

_That bleeding line, that falling fence,
That stubborn ebbing wave,
That string of suffering human sense,
Shuddered, but never gave._

_A living line of human flesh,
It quivered like a brain;
Swarm after swarm came on afresh
And crashed, but crashed in vain._

* * * * *

_The world shall tell how they stood fast,
And how the fight was won,
As long as faith and freedom last
And earth goes round the sun._

Brute Force Versus Humanity

By MAURICE MAETERLINCK

[Translated for CURRENT HISTORY MAGAZINE from Les Annales, Paris]

The struggle of today is only a resumption of the conflict that has never ceased to redden the soil of Western Europe ever since its birth into history. The two chief episodes of this conflict, as everybody knows, are the invasion of Roman Gaul (including Northern Italy) by the Germans, and the conquest of Great Britain by the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans. Ignoring questions of race, which are complex, uncertain, and always debatable, one can, by viewing the subject from another point, see in the persistence and desperation of this war the conflict of two wills, either one of which succumbs for a moment only to rise again with more energy and determination.

On one side there is the will of earth, or of nature, which openly, in the human species, as in all others, favors physical and brutal force; on the other, the will of humanity, or at least of a part of humanity that is seeking to establish the reign of other energies more subtile and less animal. It is incontestable that brute force thus far has always triumphed. But it is equally certain that it has never triumphed save in appearance and for a brief moment. Gaul, invaded and overcome, quickly assimilated the invaders, and England gradually transformed her conquerors. The instruments of the will of earth turned against it on the morrow of victory and armed the hand of the vanquished.

It is probable that, even today, if events followed the course prescribed by destiny, the same phenomenon would be reproduced. Germany, after having crushed and enslaved the greater part of Europe, throwing it back and overwhelming it with numberless evils, would herself end by turning against the will which she represents; and that will, which hitherto had found a docile instrument and a chosen accomplice in the German race, would be obliged to find these elsewhere, a task less easy than formerly.

But now, to the stupefaction of those who will some day examine this epoch dispassionately, behold, events are suddenly moving upward against the irresistible current, and, for the first time since man is in a position to observe it, brute force is meeting an unexpected and insurmountable resistance. If this resistance remains victorious to the end, there will, perhaps, never have been a change of course comparable to it in the history of man; it will mean a triumph over the will of earth, of nature, or of fate, a triumph infinitely more significant, more heavy with consequences, and perhaps more decisive, than all those which in other domains appear to have crowned our effort with more glory.

Let us be not at all astonished, then, that the resistance is enormous and prolonged beyond all that experience of war has taught us. Our prompt and easy defeat was written in the annals of destiny. We had against us all the force of aggression acquired since the origin of Europe. We have to reverse the wheel of history. We are on the point of succeeding; and if it is true that intelligent beings on the heights of other worlds are watching us, they are doubtless contemplating the most curious spectacle that our planet has offered them since they discovered it in the star dust scintillating around them in space. They must be saying to themselves, disconcerted, that age-long and fundamental laws are being unexpectedly transgressed.

Unexpectedly? That is too much to say. This transgression of an inferior law, no longer as high as man, has long been in process of preparation; but it came very near to being frightfully punished. Its success will be due only to the aid of a part of those who formerly swelled the great flood which today they are resisting with us, as if something in the history of the world or in the plans of destiny had been changed; or, rather, as if we had finally succeeded in changing something, and in bending laws to which we have hitherto been entirely subject.

But we need not think that after victory the struggle will be ended. The profound forces of earth (brute force) will not lay down their arms so soon, and the invisible war will go on for a long time under peace. If we do not take care, victory will be even more fatal than defeat. In fact, this defeat, like its predecessors, would have been only an adjourned victory. It would have worn out, scattered, absorbed, the adversary by dispersing his energies over the world, while our victory will bring us a double danger. It will leave our enemies in a fierce isolation, where, massed upon themselves, fenced in, purified by misfortune and misery, they will secretly strengthen their formidable virtues, while we, no longer held in check by their intolerable but salutary menace, may give free rein to defects and vices which, soon or late, will place us at their mercy. Before thinking of peace, therefore, it would be well to assure ourselves of the future and make it powerless to harm us. We cannot take too many precautions when going, as we are, against the manifest desire of the power that is carrying us.

This is why our effort is painful and meritorious. We are going, it cannot be too often repeated, against the law of force. Our adversaries are driven forward by a power that drives us back. They are advancing in the direction of nature, whereas we are swimming against the great current that flows around the globe. Earth has an idea that is no longer ours. She is convinced that man is an animal in all respects like other animals. She has not yet noticed that he has drawn away from the herd. She does not yet know that he has climbed her highest mountains. She has not yet heard of justice, of pity, of loyalty, of honor; she knows not what these are, or she confuses them with weakness, inefficiency, stupidity, and fear. She has held to the original certitudes that were indispensable in the beginnings of life. She is falling behind us, and the space between is growing rapidly. She thinks less swiftly and has yet had the time to comprehend us. Besides, she does not count as we do, and the ages for her are less than our years. She is slow because she is almost eternal, while we are swift because we have not many hours before us. It is possible that her thought may some day rejoin ours; meanwhile, we have to defend our advance and prove to ourselves, as we are beginning to do, that it is permitted to be right against her will, that our advance is not fatal, and that it is possible to maintain it.

For it is beginning to be difficult to maintain that earth, or nature, or brute force, is always right, and that those who do not blindly follow its mandates are doomed to perish. We have learned to observe nature more attentively and have acquired the right to judge her. We have ascertained that, far from being infallible, she never ceases to deceive herself. She hesitates, she gropes. She does not know just what she wants. She begins with enormous blunders. She first peoples the world with fantastic and inchoate monsters, not one of which is stable, and they all disappear. Gradually, at the expense of the life which she creates, she acquires an experience which is the cruel fruit of innumerable sufferings inflicted with indifference. In the long run she grows wiser, learns moderation, corrects herself, retraces her steps, redresses her errors, and devotes to their reparation the best of her intelligence and of her forces. It is incontestable that she is perfecting her methods and that she is showing herself more able, more prudent, less given to excess, than in the beginning. It is none the less true that in all reigns, in all organisms, and even in our own bodies, the bad workmanship, the double uses, the inadvertencies, the things repented of, the absurdities, the useless complications, the sordid economies, and the senseless wastes continue.

There is no reason, therefore, to believe that our enemies have the truth on their side because nature's primal force is with them. Nature does not possess the truth any more than we do. She searches for it as we do, and does not find it any more easily. She does not seem to know any more than we where she is going or whither she is being led by that which leads all things. We do not have to obey her without questioning, and there is no need to be disturbed or to despair if one is not of her opinion. We are not dealing with an infallible and immutable wisdom against which it would be madness to oppose one's thought. We are on the way to prove to her that she is in error, that the raison d'être of man is higher than that which she has provisionally assigned to him, that he has already surpassed her previsions, and that she is wrong to retard his march. Besides, she is full of good-will, knows how to recognize her faults on occasion, to avoid their disastrous consequences, and never stiffens herself in an inflexible and majestic self-esteem. We can convince her if we can persevere. It will take a great deal of time, for, I repeat, she is slow, but not at all obstinate. It will take a great deal of time, because it involves a very long future, a very great change of direction, and the most important victory for which man has ever hoped.

The Battle of Jutland

Debatable Phases of the Great Naval Conflict Reviewed by
Eminent British Experts

By ADMIRAL SIR CYPRIAN BRIDGE, G. C. B.

_In the May number of_ CURRENT HISTORY MAGAZINE _appeared a general review of the battle of Jutland by Mr. Thomas G. Frothingham, with a footnote and diagrams by Professor Westcott of the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. The article was brought to the attention of Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge, one of the most noted naval experts of Great Britain, and was also sent to Mr. Arthur Pollen, an internationally recognized naval writer in England, both of whom contribute comments on the American writer's article. Since his review appeared Mr. Frothingham has joined the National Army of the United States as Captain._--EDITOR.

There is only one thing certain in naval history, and that is that every great sea fight--as to the circumstances of which we have detailed information--has been criticised as indecisive and as not fought in the way which it should have been. Ex-President Theodore Roosevelt, whose fairness and accuracy as a naval historian have been generally recognized, has said: "Every historian ought to feel a sense of the most lively gratitude toward Nelson; in his various encounters he never left any possible room for dispute as to which side had come out first best." Unfortunately, this is going rather too far, for the merits of every one of Nelson's battles have been disputed, and his way of fighting each has been adversely criticised. This fate he shares with the great De Ruyter and with less important men. Rodney and Lord Howe, as commanders in general actions, were fiercely criticised. Lord Hawke did not receive the customary recognition of his services until seventeen years after the great battle of Quiberon Bay. Roosevelt tells us that: "In every one of De Ruyter's last six battles each side claimed the victory." If we had minute accounts of the talk that went on in the gardens and porches of ancient Athens we should, without doubt, learn that Salamis was far from being decisive and that, anyhow, it ought to have been fought in a different way. It is just as well to remember this whenever we are discussing a naval battle, whether of old date or recent. Land battles have not been treated in quite the same fashion. Their results have not been disputed so often, nor has the manner in which they were fought been so often adversely criticised.

Perhaps we may account for this difference in the treatment of conflicts on the two elements by noting the fact that naval historians and critics of naval operations have but rarely been men of naval experience, while the historians and critics of military operations have usually been soldiers. There has, of course, been some conflict of opinion as to the results of fighting on shore, as we can see on comparing the communiques of the contending sides in the present war. Even after allowing for the unprecedented mendacity of the German authorities and the unprecedented gullibility of the German public there is still some sign of an honest difference of opinion. The difference is not due to lay or unprofessional ignorance.

As regards naval operations in war--indeed, as regards naval affairs in general--it has been shown times without number that it is impossible for any one without naval experience to take a comprehensive or accurate view of naval conditions. This is by no means to disparage what shoregoing writers have done in naval history or in the discussion of some subjects largely though not totally naval. As long as they record facts they do very valuable work. It is when they express opinions and draw inferences from very technical data that they are almost certain to go astray. As a searcher in authoritative records and a narrator of detailed occurrences James is distinctly superior to Mahan; but who would give a fig for James's opinions? Whereas Mahan's govern the naval thought of the world.

JUTLAND RECORDS INCOMPLETE

Thomas G. Frothingham's "Review of the Battle of Jutland" in THE NEW YORK TIMES CURRENT HISTORY MAGAZINE is a valuable account of the events of the engagement. It would not have been possible within the limits of his article to have related every incident, but he has made a judicious selection of those which he does bring forward. He had, of course, to depend on his sources; and on some important points these contained little or no information. Anything like a full account from the German side was virtually nonexistent. It would have been instructive to have put the German naval authorities into the witness box and to have subjected them to that species of cross-examination which consists in a comparison of some of their statements with others and with the statements of their opponents. It would be here that a writer with the true instinct of a historian, which Mr. Frothingham evidently does possess, could render valuable service had the necessary materials been at his disposal.

A writer who draws inferences from data by no means full and perhaps open to dispute can hardly expect to carry conviction to every reader. It might be sufficient to deal with Mr. Frothingham's general conclusion concerning the battle of Jutland; but it will be well before doing so to notice also one or two minor but still important inferences which he draws from the events of the battle.

GERMAN FLEET'S OBJECT

Mr. Frothingham maintains that the German fleet came out with the object, and no other, of engaging the British fleet, a force known to be greatly superior in number of ships and power of ordnance. He apparently, but not quite clearly, suggests that the Germans knew how the British fleet would be employed and how it would be disposed. It would be difficult to put any other construction on the words--"With the object of engaging a fleet usually so disposed and so employed, the Germans came out from their bases." Surely this is a pure assumption which can only be supported by other assumptions founded on improbability rather than on probability. There is another assumption which is more plausible and which is supported by evidence--indirect, it is true, but copious. The war had been going on for more than a year and a half, and yet the German High Sea Fleet, in spite of its name, had sedulously refrained from venturing on the high seas. This made it the object of perpetual taunts by the enemies of Germany. There was some not completely suppressed restlessness among the German people.

It has been an almost invariable rule in war that the fleet which keeps on lying in port is eventually forced to put to sea by public opinion. The tone and wording of many official German statements justify the conclusion that the German fleet put to sea with the object, not of meeting the British fleet, but of returning to port with the assertion that the British fleet had kept out of the way and that the North Sea had been "swept" for it in vain. Contrary to the probable expectation, Sir David Beatty's force was met with and there seemed a chance of being able to attack him with the whole strength of the German Navy. Unforeseen opportunities of the kind have frequently occurred in naval war, and may be expected frequently to occur again.

FRENCH EXPERT'S OPINION

Here may be quoted some observations, dated March 11, 1918, by the very distinguished French flag officer Vice Admiral E. F. Fournier, in a preface to a translation of an account of the general work of the British Navy:

Je m'associe également aux regrets de l'auteur de cette notice
qu'une ombre injustifiée ait été portée sur le tableau, si
flatteur pour l'amour-propre de la Grande Bretagne, par certains
critiques de la presse anglaise sur la bataille du Jutland. Je
le fais d'autant plus volontiers que, dès la nouvelle de cette
memorable rencontre navale, j'écrivis dans le Matin un article ou
je vantais l'esprit de décision et la résolution si opportune de
l'Amiral Beatty, n'hésitant pas à se jeter, malgré l'infériorité
de ses forces, à la tête de la flotte allemande toute entière pour
la contrecarrer dans ses desseins, en s'y accrochant énergiquement
jusqu'a l'arrivée du renfort anglais, comme l'eût fait, sans aucun
doute, Nelson lui-même, en pareil cas.

TRANSLATION:

I regret as much as does the author of this article that an
unjustified shadow has been cast upon the picture, so flattering
for the self-esteem of Great Britain, by certain English press
criticisms upon the battle of Jutland. I indorse his view the more
willingly because, on first receiving the news of that memorable
naval combat, I wrote for the Matin an article in which I extolled
Admiral Beatty's spirit of decision and very opportune resolution,
in not hesitating to throw himself, despite the inferiority of
his forces, at the head of the whole German fleet to checkmate its
designs, and in hanging on firmly until the arrival of English
reinforcements, as Nelson himself undoubtedly would have done in
such a case.

Mr. Frothingham holds that the German fleet had not been led into a trap. Here, perhaps, something turns on the meaning given to particular words. A trap may be reasonably defined as an unforeseen and unfavorable position. Was it a deliberately sought or an unforeseen result that at 9 P. M. the German fleet was so placed that it had between it and its bases a hostile fleet which, as Mr. Frothingham tells us, still had an "overwhelming superiority in ships and guns?" Was such a position favorable or unfavorable? Surely there can be but one answer to each of these questions.

LOSS OF BRITISH SHIPS

Those who prefer to do so may use long words like "psychology" and "mentality," but the plain English of the situation is that the public mind in the allied and neutral countries was greatly impressed by the news that the British fleet had lost several ships, and by the fact that these losses were announced in the earlier part of the official communiqué concerning the battle. In the few great sea fights of which anything was generally remembered, the British had not lost ships. This, however, was far from being the universal rule.

In the great naval actions of the seventeenth century we lost many ships. It was recognized that a fleet might be victorious and still lose ships. The great Lord Hawke at Quiberon Bay lost ships. The contending fleets of the present day are so very large that they recall those of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, when ships were lost in action by both sides. This, especially in view of the power of the naval ordnance of today, is almost certain to occur again. There is a wide difference between the naval gun of the present day and that of Nelson's and earlier times. The primary object of the older gun was to cause casualties among the enemy's crews; the modern naval gun is meant to destroy his ships. A fifteen-inch gun is not necessary to kill or wound a man. Naval weapons would be complete failures if, in sea fights, they were to prove incapable of destroying ships, and there is no probability that the destruction will fall on one side only.

Mr. Frothingham's final conclusion is that the "actual tactical result of the battle was indecisive." A very full definition of an indecisive tactical result would be instructive. One result of the battle of Jutland is beyond dispute and is in no way a matter of opinion. These lines are being written on the 12th of May, 1918, close upon two years after the battle of Jutland was fought. Not once during all that long time has the German High Sea Fleet ventured on the high seas or done more than just peep over the edge of its sheltering mine fields.

Comment by Mr. Arthur Pollen

_Arthur Pollen, the English naval critic, offers the following observations on debatable phases of the battle:_

I have read Mr. Frothingham's article, and it seems to me to be substantially accurate as a synopsis of the officially published events of the afternoon and evening. The writer's comments also seem to be judicious and fair. The battle raises, however, so many and such large problems, strategical, tactical, and technical, that it is impossible for any writer to exhaust the matter, or even to indicate the disputable points in so small a space as Mr. Frothingham has been able to devote to it.

In one or two not unimportant particulars I hold a different view of the facts and different opinions from the writer. For example, it seems to me that the Grand Fleet did not, as Mr. Frothingham states on Page 339, at 6:25 form in battle line astern of the battle cruisers. The plan published with the dispatches makes it seem more probable that the van of the Grand Fleet followed a course considerably to the north though parallel to that of the battle cruisers, and that it was not until about 7:05 that they turned from an easterly to a southerly course and formed astern of the Vice Admiral commanding the battle cruiser fleet. The story of the action might have been very different had circumstances permitted of the Grand Fleet going into action astern of the Vice Admiral at 6:15.

Again, Page 337, I cannot agree that it is evident that the German fleet was not forced into action with the Grand Fleet, but that Vice Admiral Scheer deliberately chose to engage that force. There is nothing to show that Scheer suspected Jellicoe was on the scene until he began to turn from north to southeast about a quarter of an hour before the Grand Fleet was sighted.