Chapter X: The Judgment of the World

The record has now been laid before the reader in all its essential details. The witnesses for the different countries have taken the stand and we have their respective contentions in their own words. Czar, Emperor, and King, as well as Prime Minister, Chancellor, and Ambassador, have testified as to the fateful events, which preceded the outbreak of the war, with a fullness of detail, to which history presents few parallels. The evidence which Germany and Austria have suppressed does not prevent the determination of the issue.

It is a great tribute to the force of public opinion and a clear recognition that the conscience of mankind does exist as something more than a visionary abstraction, that the secrets of diplomacy have been laid bare by most of the contending nations, and that there is an earnest desire on the part of all of them to justify their conduct respectively at the bar of the civilized world.

Even more impressive to the sincere friends of peace is the significant fact that concurrently with the most amazing display of physical force that the world has ever known has come a direct appeal by the belligerent nations to the neutral States, and especially to the United States, not for practical cooperation in the hostilities but for moral sympathy.

All past wars are insignificant in dimensions in comparison with this. The standing army of the Roman Empire, according to the estimate of Gibbon, did not exceed 400,000, and guarded that mighty Empire from the Euphrates to the Thames. The grand army of Napoleon, which was supposed to mark the maximum of human effort in the art of war and with which he crossed a century ago the Niemen, did not exceed 700,000. To-day at least fifteen millions of men are engaged in a titanic struggle, with implements of destruction, to which all past devices in the science of destruction are insignificant.

Apparently, therefore, the ideals of the pacificist are little better than a rainbow, a rainbow of promise, perhaps, but still a rainbow, formed by the rays of God's justice shining through the tears of human pity.

But when, in contrast to this amazing display of physical power, there is contrasted an equally unprecedented desire on the part of the contending nations to justify their case at the bar of public opinion and to gain the moral sympathy of the neutral States, then it is seen that the "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" is still a mighty factor in human affairs, and the question as to the judgment of the world, upon the moral issues raised by this great controversy, becomes not merely of academic but of great practical interest.

What that judgment will be it is not difficult to determine, for the evidence in the case can admit of but one conclusion. It may be, as Mr. George Bernard Shaw says, that in the contending nations, the ears are too greatly deafened by the roar of the cannon and the eyes too blinded by the smoke of battle, to reach a dispassionate conclusion. But in the neutral States of the world, and especially in that greatest of all the neutral Powers, the United States of America, a judgment has been pronounced that is unmistakable.

The great Republic is more free than any other nation to reach a just conclusion "without fear, favor, or affection." Without alliances with any Power and with no practical interest in the European balance of power, itself composed of men of all the contending nations, it can, above every other people, proceed to judgment, "with malice toward none and with charity for all."

It is a tribute to its unique position among the nations of the world that from the beginning of the war each of the contending Powers has invoked its judgment. The Kaiser, the President of the French Republic, and the King of Belgium have each in an especial way sought its moral support, while to the other nations the question of the attitude of the United States has been one of practical and recognized importance.

If the United States is thus a moral arbiter in the greatest war of history, its judgment is now, and may hereafter increasingly become, a potential factor of great significance.

The nature of that judgment is already apparent to all men. The people of the United States, numbering nearly one hundred millions, have reached, with an amazing approach to unanimity, certain clear and definite conclusions.

These conclusions maybe summarized as follows:

1. That Germany and Austria in a time of profound peace
secretly concerted to impose their will upon Europe in a
matter affecting the balance of power. Whether in so doing
they intended to precipitate a European war to determine the
hegemony of Europe is not satisfactorily established,
although their whole course of conduct suggests this as a
possibility. They made war almost inevitable by (_a_)
issuing an ultimatum that was grossly unreasonable and
disproportionate to any grievance that Austria may have had,
and (_b_) in giving to Servia and Europe insufficient time
to consider the rights and obligations of all interested
nations.

2. That Germany had at all times the power to induce Austria
to preserve a reasonable and conciliatory course, but at no
time effectively exerted its influence. On the contrary, it
certainly abetted, and possibly instigated, Austria in its
unreasonable course.

3. That England, France, Italy, and Russia throughout the
diplomatic controversy sincerely worked for peace, and in
this spirit not only overlooked the original misconduct of
Austria but made every reasonable concession in the hope of
preserving peace.

4. That Austria, having mobilized its army, Russia was
reasonably justified in mobilizing its forces. Such act of
mobilization is the right of any sovereign State, and as
long as the Russian armies did not cross the border or take
any aggressive action, no other nation had any just right to
complain, each having the same right to make similar
preparations.

5. That Germany, in abruptly declaring war against Russia
for failure to demobilize, when the other Powers had offered
to make any reasonable concession and peace parleys were
still in progress, precipitated the war.

6. That the invasion of Belgium by Germany was without any
provocation and in violation of Belgium's inherent rights as
a sovereign State. The sanctity of its territory does not
depend exclusively upon the Treaty of 1839 or The Hague
Convention, but upon fundamental and axiomatic principles of
international law. These treaties were simply declaratory of
Belgium's rights as a sovereign nation and simply reaffirmed
by a special covenant the duty of Germany and the other
Powers to respect the neutrality of Belgium.

7. England was justified in its declaration of war upon
Germany, not only because of its direct interests in the
neutrality of Belgium, but also because of the ethical duty
of the strong nations to protect the weak upon adequate
occasion from indefensible wrong. Apart from this general
ethical justification, England was, under the Treaty of
1839, under an especial obligation to defend the neutrality
of Belgium, and had it failed to respect that obligation it
would have broken its solemn covenant.

If they are "thrice armed" who have their "quarrel just," then England, France, Russia, and Belgium can await with confidence, not merely the immediate issue of the titanic conflict, but also the equally important judgment of history.