Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 19 November 1914, Page 21

Current Topics

A Good Word for the Germans It would seem as if Belgium and the Belgians had been.specially singled out by the Germans. for exceptionally severe and ruthless treatment—possibly from a feeling of annoyance and bitterness caused by the knowledge that but for Belgian resistance Von Kluck would long ago have pntered Paris. Making all allowance for exaggeration and for the irresponsibility of individuals, it is certain that their record in that country is notably worse than in any other portion of the theatre of war. Long ago the official Press Bureau issued’a long statement by the Belgian Minister protesting on behalf *of his Government against ‘the fearful and atrocious crimes committed, wilfully and deliberately, by the invading hosts against helpless and non-combatant old men, women, and children;’ ‘ Long is the list of outrages committed by the German troops,’ said the statement, ‘ and appalling the details of atrocities as vouched for by the committee of inquiry recently formed by the Belgian Minister* of Justice, and presided over by him. This committee comprises the highest judicial and university authorities of Belgium, such as Chief Justice Van Iseghem, Judge Nys, and Professors Cottier and Wodon.’ v * In. France, on the other hand, reading between the . lines of such reliable evidence as comes to hand, it would appear that, on the whole, the German fighting man’s behaviour has been on quite a different and altogether a higher plane. Long ago General French, in his finelywritten despatch after the battle of the Marne, chivalrously testified that while the Germans are ‘ out to win anyhow,’ and at times pay scant respect to the accepted rules of war, the accounts of the outrages and atrocities laid to their charge are very much exaggerated. And now we have a further favorable report from a Catholic priest who speaks from first-hand knowledge and observation. In the vivid and extremely interesting narrative which has been published in the daily papers, this witness makes the casual but significant remark with which the following quotation closes: ‘We pushed back over the battlefields of the preceding days, and that was the .most terrible part of the two weeks’ fighting, for we passed over the fields of the unburied dead. The Germans had retreated so fast that they attempted nothing more than to take their wounded with them, leaving their dead where they had fallen. To- my last day I ■will never get from my mind the picture of ghastly death those battlefields presented. We picked up many English wounded who had been cared for by the Germans and left behind in their retreat. The English had nothing but praise of their treatment by the Germans. During all the time I was with the army I saw no- dum-dum bullets, and heard no story of German atrocity.’ It is not only a duty but a pleasure to print such testimony. We cannot shut our eyes to Louvain and Rheims, and the awful and criminal ravages in Belgium, but neither - do we desire to be blind to any facts on the other side. Nothing is to be gained by tarring Germans everywhere with the one brush; and it is very much pleasanter to be able to think of your foe as a soldier and a man rather than as a ghoul and a wild beast, Berlin Under the War An American refugee, entirely friendly tp Germany, contributes to A merica of September 26, a long and detailed account of the state of things prevailing in Berlin shortly after the outbreak of war. The letter is. not dated, but was probably written about the end of August; and even then the economic pinch was beginning to make itself severely felt. * The sacrifices the Germans made and are making/ he writes, ‘ both- as individuals and as members of families, communes, states, and kingdoms, are enormous. There is hardly a family that has not two or three members at the front.

Despite the drain on the male: population of the capital, over a hundred thousand men are out of work in Berlin, as the factories had to shut down, not being able to obtain credit, raw material or transportation for the finished products. heart of the mighty capital has almost ceased to throb. Stores open at .10 a.m. and close at 5 p.m., since only bare essentials are in demand. Employees, too, must have time to reach their distant homes, as the street car service is paralysed, the carmen and. other officials having gone to the war.’ * There was, of course, the usual ebullition of national spirit of the kind, that has shown itself in Russia in the change of St. Petersburg into Petrograd and, nearer home, in the revision of certain Germanic place-names in Victoria. A large cafe on the Potsdamer Plata, called the 4 Piccadilly,’ was rechristened 4 Cafe Vaterland.’ A street called ’English Street’ was renamed ‘German Street.’ French fashion and English fabrics were taboo. A special committee of German artists was formed to invent German styles and dictate German fashions in ladies’ wearing apparel, French and English signboards disappeared or, with a piece of paper pasted over them, gave more conspicuous testimony to the storekeepers’ patriotism. One news peddler had his papers confiscated by an infuriated mob because they bore the name Kleiner Journal, the word Journal being a French word. * We had thought that' Britons and Belgians were the most cordially detested of Germany’s enemies, but it would seem that Japan occupies the place of preeminence in the scale of German hatred. The Germans, it appears, hate foreigners generally, but the Japanese above all. ‘ Germany had always,’ says this writer, voicing the German viewpoint, ‘ welcomed the Japanese to her universities and even to her military schools and academies. She did not think that Japan would ever use these arts of peace and war against her. Almost to the very end people were convinced that Japan would join Germany and Austria. They even held a friendly demonstration before the Japanese Embassy; and finally, when the crash came, their disappointed hope gave way to'bitter hatred. In the second place .they hate the English principally, I think, because their hopes of a friendly understanding with England were disappointed. At first the feeling against the Belgians was not strong, but as time wore on it became so. They look upon the Russians as barbarians. They do not hate the French ; they feel that they are superior to the French in the arts ,of war, and they have been expecting hostility from France ever since 1870.’ Ireland and Louvain As we have already mentioned in these columns, the American Catholic papers have for the most part adopted an attitude of friendly neutrality towards the belligerents in the present struggle, and in one or two instances for example, in the case of America—the friendliness is rather more in evidence than the neutrality so far as Germany is concerned. After publishing in its issue of August 15 a weighty, practical, and thoroughly-informed account of the events which led up to the declaration of warfrom which the conclusion was irresistible that Germany was the prime mover in bringing about complications— paper later on essays to discuss editorially the direct and indirect causes of the outbreak; and in what is, for that highclass publication, a strangely, labored article, finally leaves the location of responsibility in the matter an open question, or rather it more than insinuates that it does not rest with Germany. The fact that our contemporary has many German contributors on' its staff —to say nothing of German subscribers on its subscription listmust be taken in explanation of its mysterious, not to say sophisticated attitude, which is not a little reminiscent of the policy of the suburban mayor who proclaimed his intention to show neither partiality nor impartiality. The comparative equanimity or attitude of philosophic calm with which it records the destruc-

tion of Louvain and Reims Cathedral has naturally called forth the ire of some of its subscribers, who have made indignant protest; but the mental obfuscation—so unexpected in a quarter to which we are accustomed to look for absolute straightforwardness and common sense-to which we have adverted, has, happily, hot ..prevented the American paper from finding space for a fitting reference to the loss which the world in general and Ireland in particular has suffered by the annihilation of the great and historic Belgian monument of learning. Indirectly, Ireland is.indebted to Louvain, indeed, for the saving of her spiritual life ; for it was, under, God, to the Irish College in Louvain that the preservation of the Faith in Ireland in the penal days was largely due, ‘The loss of its vast and well-selected library, the accumulation .of ages of scholarship,’ says an Irish contributor to America, has been deplored by the world of letters the destruction of the institution itself will be felt more poignantly by many an American priest, and indeed by the whole American Church, which owes to it many of its most distinguished bishops and missionaries. The Irish Church and people will*feel it still more. In the penal days it was preeminently the seminary of Ireland. Archbishop Conry of Tuam, with the aid of Philip 11. of Spain, founded in 1616 the Irish College at Louvain, and from it went forth the majority' of the heroic priests who saved the faith in Ireland. There a Gaelic press was set up, and from it Ward, Colgan, and O’Clery, three of the ‘‘Four Masters,” issued besides numerous works of Catholic defence, Lives of the Irish Saints and Irish Martyrology , and moulded into shape the imperishable Annals. They and their successors had gathered into the library of the college the most valuable.collection of Irish literary and historical records in or outside of Ireland. Some of these were transferred to Brussels by the Bollandists, whose Acta Sanctorum Ward had helped to initiate ; but all the rest is destroyed, and much of it is irreplaceable. When John Redmond assembled the Irish Catholics of London to do honor to Cardinal Mercicr, he was paving a well-earned tribute to the University with which that prelate is identified and the Cardinal’s erv of “God save Ireland” was but a, prayer for the continuance of what Louvain had helped powerfully to realise in the past, the saving of Ireland’s spiritual life.’ Japan and the American Attitude There can be little doubt that whatever anti-British sentiment is to be found in America in relation to the war is almost entirely the outcome of Britain’s action in inviting Japan to participate in the struggle, and has little if any reference to the original casus ' belli. It is true that there are a very large number of Germans in America, particularly in some of the large cities. The German immigration into the United Stales during the nineteenth century totalled 5,009,280, as compared with 3,871,253 from Ireland, and recent statistics show that the inhabitants of New York comprise 322,343 born in Germany and 761,795 of German parentage. Native Germans constitute very nearly two-thirds of all the foreign-born in Cincinnati, three-fifths in Milwaukee, very nearly three-fifths in Louisville, more than one-half in St. Louis, and very nearly one-half in Baltimore. It is estimated that before the United States gained their independence 225,000 Germans had settled there, mainly in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. But notwithstanding the presence and influence of this large German element in the. population, there does not appear to be any definite or substantial pro-German sentiment avhongst the American peoplebv which we mean any real belief that. Germanv .is in the right' on the original issue, or any real desire that she should come out victorious. Some slight anti-British feeling in some quarters there certainly is: but, as we have said, this arises- entirely from .irritation at the appearance of Japan- on the scene of operations, and at the success which has ‘attended her bid for recognition as a world Power. Even the papers to whom the thought of Japanese advancement is as gall and wormwood frankly admit tha+ on ,the merits of the. Original quarrel Britain was wholly and absolutely in the right.

The Philadelphia North 7 American , for example, in. the course of a ' comprehensive survey of the position from the American standpoint, observes: 4 The brutal violation of Belgium's neutrality, in defiance of solemn treaty, obligations, made Britain’s participation in the war demanded by honor as well as national safety. The position taken by Sir Edward Grey in his telegram to the British Ambassador at Berlin offered irrefutable proof of a genuine desire for peace: “I said to the German Ambassador this morning that if Germany could get any reasonable proposal put forward (concerning the dispute between Austria and Servia) which made it clear that Germany and Austria were striving to preserve European peace and that Russia and France would be unreasonable if they rejected it, I would support it at St. Petersburg and Paris, and go to the length of saying that if Russia and France would not accept it, this Government would have nothing further to do with the consequences; but otherwise, I told the German Ambassador, if France became involved we should be drawn in.” , This (continues the North American) was masterly diplomacy, in view of the effect which it must have upon the opinion of the world. But it was also honorable and obviously sincere. We would not unsay a word of the praise which we gave to Great Britain’s course in meeting the gravest crisis in her national life.’ * But the spreading of the conflict to the Far East it regards as a development which may be more ominous for civilisation than the struggle in Europe; and for this 4 false step,’ as it calls it, it holds that British responsibility is clear and unmistakable. It sketches the course of the present development in a few swift sentences : The threatening, condition is due primarily to aggression by Germany several years ago, when she formed a coalition to obstruct the ambitions of Japan; secondly, Japan’s deliberate purpose to force recognition as a world Power and to demand a share in the European settlement; thirdly, and most emphatically, to cold-blooded selfishness on the part of Great Britain, which has led her to endanger the future security of Western civilisation in order to serve her immediate interests.’ Here is the detailed history of' German move and Japanese counter-move; ‘Germany’s responsibility dates back to her intrusion in Oriental affairs in 1895. Japan had decisively beaten China, and exulted in the holding of Chinese territory on the Feng Tien Peninsula as a prize of war. The German Emperor thereupon proclaimed that the white races were menaced by “the yellow peril,” and induced France and Russia to join him in “advising” Japan to withdraw. The Japanese yielded with what grace they could, in the interest of “the lasting peace of the Orient” ; but they never forgot nor forgave German influence for blocking their plans. Nineteen years later the opportunity for reprisal has come, and Tokio, in turn, offers the “advice” that Germany abandon her holding in China, phrasing the demand, with calculating insolence, upon that made to Japan by Berlin in 1895. It would be hard to find in history an instance of nicer revenge. But Japanese resentment over being compelled to relinquish, territory formally ceded to her by China in the treaty of peace was to be still further inflamed. Within two years Germany herself had seized a slice of China, and had begun the erection of a strongly fortified naval base within striking distance of Korea and the southern part of Japan. In 1897 two German Catholic missionaries were murdered in the province of Shan-tung. This gave Germany her chance. She made four demands upon China; First, a formal apology : second, indemnity for the families of the victims; third, compensation for the expenses incurred in investigating the outrage, and, fourth, the lease of . a naval . station. China readily agreed to the first three requirements—-and Germany did not- wait for an answer as to the fourth. . Within ten days of the murder a German squadron was on its wav to the coveted territory, and within two weeks Kiao-chau bay was in German hands, controlling a large part of the :rich province of, Shan-tung. Having ho other recourse, China agreed to a ninety-nine-year lease. l

The paper makes no attempt to justify this high-handed course, and points out that it was specially’ able in that Germany, unlike the other Powers who had taken similar arbitrary action in China, pursued the usual policy of German; exclusiveness, and absolutely refused to concede the commercial ‘ open door,' * ■ While admitting that the war between Great Britain and Germany naturally imperilled Germany’s hold on the Chinese colony, the American paper holds that it did not justify Britain in allowing, still less in inviting, Japan to take upon herself the task of ejection, without any request from China. It bases its objection to Britain’s action on the following grounds; ‘ In the first place, she needed no help in the Orient; the combined naval power of Great Britain and France in those waters is far superior to that of Germany. And she is behind an ultimatum just as arrogant and as impossible to meet as that of Austria to Servia, which she denounced. The move is a blunder, in that it goes far to justify the assertion of Germany that she is fighting for Western civilisation against Asiatic barbarism. Far worse than that, it extends the area of the war. Great Britain, which had labored earnestly to delimit the hostilities, is the nation responsible for spreading them to the other side of the globe. She has intensified, the , danger : of further complications in Canada and Australia over Japanese immigration, a problem already acute, and has established a precedent for Asiatic influence in settling the affairs of Europe. Still more menacing is the fact that , she has implanted in the Oriental mind the ideas that imperial ambition justifies any resort ; that might makes right; and that the aid of Asiatic despotism is grateful to one Christian nation fighting against another.’ Whatever force may be conceded to the first two contentions, that expressed in the concluding sentences must certainly be regarded as far-fetched and exaggerated. The paper concludes : ‘ Because of her lofty pretentions and the power derived from her unimpeachable attitude in the war hitherto, it rested with Great Britain to keep the strife at least within the bounds of Europe. Her partisanship with Japan may serve her immediate purposes, but she is likely to . find her needless call for its fulfilment the costliest move she ever made. For she has strengthened the case of her great antagonist, while forfeiting much of the good opinion she had justly earned. And she has let loose upon Europe and America influences which may embarrass them for generations to come.’ This last remark expresses in a sentence the whole explanation of American lukewarmness— far as it exists—in Britain’s cause at the present juncture.