really seems as if some of the professors who have rushed into print to defend Germany's cause are doing it quite as much harm as the enemy." The appeal to the cultured world has destroyed the myth of German culture.

The rest of Haeckel's paper is notable only for a few misstatements— such as that "Russia in the beginning of August declared war on Germany and Austria," whereas Germany sent an ultimatum to Russia on July 31,' at a time when negotiations were still proceeding between Russia and Austria, and that England aims at a world empire, "the annihilation of the independent German empire, the destruction of German life and works, the subjection of the German people to British domination," a dream worthy of a German mind. The conclusion has a very unlucky prophecy, also an outcome of German subjectivity, that Germany would find powerful allies among the nations that already bear England's unbearable yoke-Canada, India, Austria, Egypt and South Africa. Prophecy is of all controversial weapons the most dangerous.

Twelve Points Assured.

And here is Mr. Jourdain's reply to the Editor's discussion of this subject. -Editor.

SO

The only important controversial points in the Editor's December article, "Lessons of the War," are summed up in the section "Twelve Points Assured," pp. 758-760. The Editor regards certain points as assured. Could he give any evidence that Russia "officially" supports a policy of assassination in Servia (p. 758)? In the fourth paragraph he assumes that the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Servia is the result of the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914. We now know, thanks to Signor Giolitti's revelations to the Italian parliament, that the murder of the archduke and the indictment of Servia's complicity, which figured largely in the Austrian ultimatum, had little to do with the settled purpose of Austrian policy. In the middle of 1913 Signor Giolitti, then Italian prime minister, was informed by the AustroHungarian government that it contemplated immediate action against Servia and reckoned on the support of Italy under the terms of the Triple Alliance. The Italian government replied that it could not regard the action indicated as constituting a casus foederis, which would never arise out of an aggressive act. This reply induced Austria-Hungary to postpone action. As the Austro-Hungarian policy was already set in 1913, it is absurd to speak of it as conditioned by the Sarajevo assassination in 1914. I have already dealt with further points such as the Belgian neutrality and Russian mobilization. In the case of Germany's "positive evidence that the Belgians had broken neutrality long before a German soldier set foot on Bel

gian soil," the English case is strengthened by Herr Dernburg's publication of the military convention between England and Belgium. The proposed help from England, it is definitely stated in this document, was only to be given after Belgian neutrality had been violated.

VEST POCKET ESSAY.

THE GERMAN EMPIRE.

By George Fitch, Author of "At Good Old Siwash."

The German empire is a world power which is contained, with difficulty, by Europe. It has 200,000

square miles and 65,000,000 round citizens. It alarms England on the west, backs Russia off on the east, impinges seriously on Austria to the south and reduces France to a state of frantic irritation on the southeast. It is not large in area, but has a 14-inch rifled voice with large penetration which is widely respected.

The German empire once consisted of a large number of kingdoms, each of which are a different variety of sausage and were otherwise at variance. About 50 years ago, however, these nations united and since then Germany has grown until even Russia is respectful in its presence.

The German empire has two armies which inspire great fear. One is composed of a million soldiers and the other consists of several thousand traveling men who are selling goods from Cape Horn to Nome. Germany manufactures everything from battleships to Teddy bears, and its cities are growing faster than Chicago. They do not, however, grow in the same way. German cities are handsome and clean and whenever a man throws paper on the street he is arrested. Americans subject to heart failure from great shocks should not visit German cities.

Germany is surrounded by the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Alps and custom houses. Its greatest rivers are the Rhine, the Elbe, Wurzburger, Pilsener and Munchener. There is not much water in Germany, and the citizen who drinks any of it is charged with wasting a natural resource.

Germany has the finest musicians, the deepest thinkers, the largest airships, the fastest automobiles, the greatest steamships, the tallest cathedrals, the haughtiest lieutenants and the most obedient private citizens in the world. The whole duty of Germany is to obey the army and the whole duty of the army is to obey the Kaiser.

SAVING A CATHEDRAL.

From "The Chicago Tribune," October 24, 1914.

Chicago, Oct. 21.-(Editor of The Tribune.)-Of the many valuable and interesting facts which your correspondents on the European battlefields have recently brought before the American public I consider the

article in this morning's "Tribune" by Joseph Medill Patterson, together with your staff photographer's picture of the "Guns Mounted on the Antwerp Cathedral," one of the best and most convincing yet published.

The Christian world owes your correspondents a deep gratitude for the saving of this beautiful cathedral. But for them this sacred structure would now be in ruins and we would have been told by London and Paris that it was willfully destroyed by the German guns as a pure act of vandalism by the German army. Your photograph speaks for itself and shows as the real vandals the French and Belgian governments, who send their armies to mount guns on top of these cathedral towers. Many will now say what a pity your photographer was not in Reims, for he probably would have saved that sacred edifice by another such photograph.

The millions of liberty loving and impartial citizens throughout the United States will continue to appreciate your efforts for truth and justice in this lamentable conflict. J. Matthews.

DEWEY AND DIEDRICHS.

Quarrel of "Newspaper Manufacture," Said American Admiral. (From "The Fatherland," New York, October 14, 1914.)

From the days of Frederick the Great and General George Washington, the German people have been the friends of the United States, while twice England has been engaged in war with us, and time and again she has all but provoked us to war, notably in 1861-5, and during the Venezuela episode. But enemies of Germany have tried to erect the Dewey-Diedrichs affair in Manila harbor into a German attempt to embarrass the United States. Hence it is interesting to recall an exchange of letters between the two admirals, published July 6, 1898. The first is addressed to Dewey under date of March 17, and reads:

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of March 4, informing me your excellency has been promoted Admiral. While congratulating your excellency sincerely upon this new token of recognition, I beg you to believe your good news has given me the greatest satisfaction.

I have the honor to be your Excellency's obedient servant.

DIEDRICHS.

Admiral Dewey replied April 16, saying:

Dear Admiral von Diedrichs:-I wish to thank you most heartily for your cordial letter of congratulations upon my promotion. It is a great pleasure for me to feel my advancement is a source of satisfaction to you, and I rejoice that our differences have been of newspaper manufacture.

Hoping to have the pleasure of meeting you again before leaving this station, I am, very sincerely,

DEWEY.

GROWING MILITARISM AND THE WAR.

This is the eleventh article of a series on THE EUROPEAN WAR, which appeared in the October Number of THE OPEN COURT, under the title "Growing Militarism," written by the Editor, Dr. Paul Carus.

Consult the INDEX for the complete scries, and, in order to see where, in the various Chapters of the book, the different articles of this treatise may be found, look for EUROPEAN WAR (THE). In this way the reader may read the entire series of articles in their original order, if he chooses to do so, while the present arrangement still gives him the advantage of bringing the various articles under their proper, respective Chapter-headings of the book.

This is a series of exceptionally fine articles on the subject in question, and they bear a unique and important relation to each other. Be sure to read them also in their original order.-Editor, "War Echoes."

The advocates of peace are often peculiar people; they preach peace on earth, and their ideal is quite

commendable; but each clamors for his own peace. England will preserve peace so long as she owns the seas, and Germany's chief fault is the exasperating persistence with which she builds up a navy. Italians of the "peace" party condemn war, but they justify the conquest of Tripoli; and there are Americans, for example, Mr. William Randolph Hearst and Mr. Richmond P. Hobson, who demand a strong American navy to dominate the Pacific and the Atlantic.

Such views are often uttered. A certain famous "peace advocate" once said that he would shoulder the gun himself to keep the Japanese out of the United States, and Mr. Tschirn, whose German poem we have quoted above, also belongs to those who desire "peace at any price."

There are some in England who declare that the present war will be the last one; that it is commendable, because it is a war against militarism; but one Englishman, Mr. C. Cohen, a liberal and freethinker, prophesies that this war can not lead to peace, but is sowing future discord.

He says: "Who is to say that

there shall be no more wars? Is it England? Is it Russia? Is it France? Is it the three combined? Will any of these trust the others enough to depute the task? Are Russia and France and England in alliance with each other because of their mutual love or because of their enmity of others? Was it love of Russia that drove France into alliance, or hatred of Germany? And with Germany eliminated what bond is there that can unite the autocracy of the Czar and the republicanism of France?"

He continues: "An international agreement that would secure peace is a laudable ideal, but how is it to be secured? England, it may be assumed, will still demand the control of the seas. It suits us, and we say it is necessary to our existence. Very good; but can we expect every other country to submit to this ownership of the world's highway forever and with good feeling? Why, this fact alone will drive other nations along the old line of offensive and defensive alliances, the fruits of which we are reaping in the present war. And alliances based upon such considerations as hold the Christian nations

of the world together may be broken at any moment. Nor is there any power based upon force too strong to be overthrown. Of course, it may be said that it is to everybody's interest that some international agreement should be reached when this war is concluded, and such outbreaks prevented in future. Quite so; but on the other hand, it is never to anybody's real interest to go to war. Even to win is to lose. The truth is, that nations do not go to war because it really pays them, but because of misdirected ambitions and mistaken ideals; in other words, because of lack of intelligence and defective civilization.

"How wrongly the lessons of this war are being read, may be seen in the newspaper talk about 'blotting Germany out,' or 'wiping Germany off the map.' These are the greatest fools of all. If by 'blotting out Germany' is meant the destruction of the German navy and defeat of the German army, that may be done, and looks like being done-unless our press censorship is keeping us in the dark. But Germany remains, the German people remain, German ambitions remain, and there will also remain the memory of crushing defeat. And the man is a lunatic, blind alike to the lessons of history and the facts of human nature, who imagines that a nation of seventy millions can be 'blotted out.' All the power of Russia has not been able to crush the sentiment of nationality in Finland. All the power of Russia, Germany and Austria has not been able to crush out the sentiment of nationality in Poland. After four centuries, England, in spite of all it could do, finds the sentiment of Irish nationality as active as ever. Short of an absolute, a complete massacre, a nation of seventy millions cannot be 'blotted out.' They remain, their ideals and ambitions, and their way of looking at life, must always be reckoned with.†

"Armaments will go on; of that I feel assured, although I should be only too pleased to find myself mistaken."*

Note that Mr. Cohen expects Great Britain and her allies to win, but his belief is subject to a slight doubt. Certainly we agree with him in his conclusion when he says: "There is only one way to peace; and that is the growth of intelligence and humanity."

The peace advocates in England are certainly mistaken if they claim that this war is a war against mili

† See "The Metaphysical Point of View of Italy in the Turkish War," in The Open Court, XXVI, p. 190.

One of the noblest sentiments of my experience! This expression alone ought to commend the Author to the profoundest respect and a generous consideration of his articles.

We all appreciate, to a great extent, the value of the pros and cons on

Militarism. Whatever we might say or do about it, I am convinced of one thing: the peace advocates who seem to deplore German militarism so much, and would impress us with their noble work of doing away with it, need lessons in logic and common sense, for I can hardly conceive of anything that would have a greater effect in an exactly opposite direction than that of their pretended and hypocritical boast.-Editor.

The British government has come to the conclusion that the war will not be so easy as originally supposed. It will need more soldiers, and so recruiting offices are opened. We read in the newspapers that Rudyard Kipling has offered his oratorical talent to persuade young men to join the army, and that he said:

"We must have many men, if we, with the allies, are to check the inrush of organized barbarism. We have only to look to Belgium to realize the minimum of what we may expect here. Germany's real object is the capture of England's wealth, trade and world-wide possessions."

If you knew a little more about Germany and were a little less infected with English egotism, Mr. Kipling, you would be ashamed of what you have said!

Speaking at a great recruiting meeting in Liverpool, Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Aamiralty, said: "If the German navy does not come out and fight, they will be brought out like rats in a hole.

tarnished, not by the Germans, but by your Own ministers, by your statesmen, your diplomats, by those men who, by their secret treaties, by the machinations of the Triple Entente, have led you into a most perverse and stupid war. If your country needs defense, join the army, but first have your generals replaced by capable men who are able to meet an enemy as great as your Saxon brothers of the continent. And, above all, see to it that you fight for a cause that is honorable, not merely a flimsy excuse to rid your shopkeepers of a dangerous rival, even though the sum at stake may average two hundred million pounds a year! Fight for a cause endorsed by men of understanding, by men of honor!

as

No comment is necessary on this specimen of modern English, spoken in these days by the men who are guiding English destinies. England's navy must be proud of the First Lord of the Admiralty.

In the second week of September another inducement to join the army appeared in London, on large billboards, which read thus:

"We've got to beat Germany because her arrogant brutality is a menace to civilization; because she breaks treaties; because she murders non-combatants; because she destroys beautiful cities; because she sows mines in the open sea; because she fires on the sacred Red Cross; because her avowed object is to crush England.

"Men of England, remember Louvain.

"The fight is democracy vs. tyranny.

"Do you wish to share the fate of Belgium?

"If not, enlist now."

Why did the author of these posters not say: "The Germans are cannibals; they are coming to roast your babies for supper and will make boots of human skin!" Such descriptions of the Germans might have been more effective. They would not have been less false than the placard, and would have been more fanciful, more poetical and more romantic. In modern English newspapers, Germany is almost comparable to the ogre shouting: "Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum,

I smell the blood of an Englishman, Be he alive or be he dead,

I'll grind his bones to make my bread."

And if you fight, do not slander your enemy, do not discredit him, do not lie about him, do not brag about your own superiority, your greater prowess, your courage, your unrivaled heroism; history will correct your bravadoes and you are running the risk of making yourselves ridiculous. The writer of these lines has been your friend, your defender, your supporter. He feels ashamed of the misjudgment he has shown, and even yet he feels inclined to defend you by saying that, in his opinion, you English people are perfectly honorable, and that it is only a very small diplomatic clique that has misled you. This small clique has brought on the war without the consent of the people, and even now your government establishes a censorship of news and propagates deliberate falsehoods for the sake of defending the war, and to induce English youths to prop up the blunders that have been made.

I would try to convince you that, by provoking the war, Great Britain has not only done wrong-a grievous wrong-but she has proved to be blind. The war policy leads you to your own ruin. You have made an enemy of a people that has been your friend, and, in Germany, you will have a most insistent and dangerous enemy. At present you do not care, but the time will come when you will regret having lost Germany's good will. I can not help seeing greater danger in this war for England than for

Germany. Great Britain is scarcely prepared to face the danger.

As soon as war has begun, people, as a rule, become impervious to reason, and I fear that my friends in England have reached that stage. They have grown mad; they have become incapable of arguing calmly and impartially. They believe all, they hope all, they suffer all. They believe all accusations against their enemies, the most impossible ones. They hope for victories where there is but little if any chance. They suffer defeats with patience, in anticipation of a final triumph which they, in their vanity, think must be theirs.

In Germany, warfare has been developed into a science, and it is not left to a genius who is able to assume leadership. The German army is a school in which German youths are trained to be good soldiers, and the German general staff is also a school in which officers are instructed

in strategy. There is not a Moltke to lead them, but Moltke's spirit guides them all. Should one of them die today, even if he occupy the highest rank, there are dozens who can take up the work.

The indignation of the Germans against the English is tremendous. The Germans were prepared for French hatred and Russian impudence, but the bickerings between these brother nations were (at least in the writer's opinion) petty jealousies such as often exist among quarrelsome brothers. But now Eng

land declares war at a moment when Germany is in the greatest danger from the simultaneous attack of her two neighbors, in the east and in the west, the two mightiest land-powers next to herself. And at this critical moment for Germany, England casts in her lot with Germany's foes, in the hope of dealing a crushing blow. But England may be mistaken. Things may turn out. differently from what is now expected. My good English friends, how I wish you had not been so rash in venturing into this war this abominable war, this vic

ious, mean, ill-intentioned war, this most stupid war.

The Roman proverb says, Quem Deus perdere vult eum dementat. When surrounded by enemies, Ulrich von Hutten, the valiant knight of the age of the Reformation, exclaimed, Viel Feind, viel Ehr! Certainly, Germany, much honor is thine, for thine enemies are numerous, and England among them! What a glory for Germany! What a shame on England!

Quantilla prudentia Britannia regitur! How small is the wisdom with which Great Britain is ruled.

Infantry Division-Two brigades of infantry, cavalry, one squadron of twelve batteries. Total, 12,000 men and 48 guns.

Brigade-Two regiments of three battalions each. Total, 6,000 men. Regiment-Three battalions of four companies each. Total, 3,000 men. Battalion-Four companies of 250 men each. Total, 1,000 men. Cavalry Division-Two and sometimes three brigades. Total, 3,200 to 4,800 men.

Brigade of Cavalry-Two regiments of eight squadrons, with two batteries of artillery.

Regiment of Cavalry-Four squadrons. Total, 800 men.

Squadron of Cavalry-Two hundred

Aix-la-Chapelle, Germany, Sept. 14. Here are ten maxims of the German army that come to me from an officer who considers them potent as the ten commandments; there is no need to add that they epitomize the spirit of the German army:

No soldier can lead who has not first learned to obey.

The character of the discipline in an army augments or weakens its numerical strength.

A soldier insufficiently fed may be to the overcome without recourse sword.

Courage is worth more than co

The struggle of Germany for the right to exist as a free and united nation is, in some respects, similar to our own struggle to preserve the Union. The high contemplations aroused in that great contest for human rights and the integrity of our Union were most fittingly expressed by Emerson, in his peroration on "Lincoln," and may be profitably pondered at this time:

There is a serene Providence which rules the fate of nations, which makes little account of time, little of one generation or race, makes no account of disasters, conquers alike by what is called defeat or by what is called vic

L. E. M. Is it true that as an answer to the action of England and France in prohibiting the production of the compositions of Wagner and other leading German dramatists and Germany has composers, barred Shakespeare?

It is not. The question was raised in Germany of adopting this retaliating measure, but was unanimously opposed by the leading Germans consulted and was consequently lost. Among those most emphatic in their stand for the continued production of Shakespeare's plays were Professors Harnack and Max Liebermann and the Chancellor, Dr. v. BethmannHollweg. Shakespeare will be played as usual. Herman Ridder.

In Major de Civrieux's book, La fin de l'empire allemande.-La bataille du Champ des Bouleaux 191.. (Paris and Limoges, Henri Charles-Lavanzelle, 1912), we gain an interesting insight into the Belgian neutrality question as seen through French spectacles, and we get the impression that the invasion of Belgium by Germany was not only expected by France but ardently hoped for in order to make an end of Germany.

The book gives an imaginary picture of the end of Germany in the near future. This takes place in the following way: After the German fleet has been annihilated through a sudden attack by the English fleet, following, as the book says, the example of Japan in the Russo-Japanese war, without any further declaration of war, the invading German armies are defeated by the French at Apremont, southwest of Metz, then at Neufchateau, south of Toul, and on the Ourthe in Belgium; in the latter battle in conjunction with the English and Belgians. After these defeats the victors, strengthened further by the Dutch, press forward from different directions through the Rhine province and Westphalia, and finally

make an end of Germany in "the battle of the Birch field" near Hamm. William II is also killed in this battle, as the last German emperor, his headquarters being smashed into a thousand fragments by bombs thrown from French flying machines.

In the book the following sentences are significant. First, that one in the preface, written by Major Driant, representative from Nancy, to the author of the book, and those by the author himself. Major Driant says: "The proposed violation of Belgian neutrality has long ceased to be a secret. True, every one resists this idea, we know that; but in spite of this, and in consequence of the intimate relations between France and England, this violation is unavoidable. It is of the most pressing interest to Germany to march through Belgium as quickly as possible, first, in order to hinder the junction of the British forces and the northern French armies, second, in order to gain the shortest and most weakly defended route to Paris."

The author, Civrieux, says in his imaginary description of the future war: "As long as the Belgian border was barred to the French movements every French attack, which found itself confined within the narrow space between

Basel and Mezières, had to go to pieces against the powerful girdle of German fortifications in Alsace-Lorraine, and, behind them, against the fortified line of the Rhine. On this narrow space a campaign having a prospect of victory was impossible. Never could it have carried our troops along with enthusiasm. It would have come to a bitter and terrible struggle, and one of extreme sacrifice, without a spark of hope for victory in the hearts of the fighters. On the contrary, the superior mass of the Germans would have crushed the French through its weight alone, for the mobility of the French would have been restricted by the narrowness of the war area, yes, would have been made entirely ineffective. But now, all at once, the plains of Belgium were open to the French armies, where, besides, there were 100,000 Belgians ready to defend the violation of their neutrality. Now the prospect was altogether different. After a victorious fight on Belgian soil there would be an invasion into the enemy's country, toward the Lower Rhine, which was without fortifications, hand in hand with the English ally who ruled the sea and would now set foot on the continent."

IOWA CITY, IA., FEB. 11, 1915.
A. KAMPMEIER.