Newspaper Page Text
SECTION. alVeit? ?Sribttiu SPECIAL FEATURE SECTION. FICHT FACES. SUNDAY. NOVEMBER 14. 1915. FART IV. FICHT F AG ?ES. org **T? Qi> UQ?I ?TaLS rMeir French Commit ___e Same In.e__ec.*i_&- Sims for Which They Ridicule Germany Win en The y Demas-d Symipathy of |! Peaceful Nations. By (icfirtj Hr?indes. T THE beginning of the wer the writ? ers o? the neutral countries were challenged to give expression to their sympathies. These appeals came first and most press ?ngly from Germany, which was, generally speaking, the nower that was keenest in the ?tempts to aria sympathy and admiration. The word "barbaric," which had been attached to German war.are in Belgium, upset the Ger man mind. Sometimes we were told that the Belgians themselves were to blame for all their misery, because not only the army but also the civil population had acted as franc tireurs and shot at the German troops. Some? times the fact that Germans had been called barbaric, though they believed themselves to be the chief bearers of culture, provoked in? dignant protests or ridicule. A favorite feat? ure in those protests was the pointing out of the contrast betwew the brutal Cossacks, the bloodthirsty Arabs and negroes from French Africa, the half savage troops from British India and the weli disciplined army, which, because of general conscription, includ? ed the flower of German culture and intelli? gence. Over and over again the Germans re? minded us of their work in the fields of sci? ence and art, their repeatedly manifested love of culture, and they asked us if such a nation could be called barbarian. Though we must admit that it is wrong to make such sweeping accusations, we cannot help thinking that the Germans went outside the question in vindicating their conduct. It was not necessary to point out that Kant was no barbarian, that Sebastian Bach was no bar? barian, that Lessing and Goethe, Beethoven ind Richard Wagner were no barbarians, be? cause no one ever maintained the contrary. But that does not prove that German officers and soldiers did not commit atrocities in Bel? gium, all the more outrageous because Bel? gium was not at war with Germany and the Germans had no right there. The Germans themselves had never before withheld their country from a foreign tyrant. What else was the national hero of the Tyrolean, Andreas Hofer. but a franc-tireur? And what else was William Tell, the hero of songs, so deeply ad? mired by Schiller and by the whole German and Swiss nations? A Ne.\t to the Germans, tl-.c French came ap pealing to the writers in the neutral countries after the war had broken out. The expres? sions o? sympathy which they wanted were lo have the form of letters of condolence and indignation at the damnable cruelties of their enemy. Some individuals went so far as to declare any person a wretched friend of France rnd a mean and contemptible fellow in gen? eral who was afraid to speak the truth, if that person WB? not at once willing to curse the Germans at the top of his voice. While the German joi-rna!ists threatened revenge after the war if you did not side with Germany during the war, the French journalists wreaked vengeance upon you at once, punishing silence with insults. Every one who did not passion? ately embrace the cause of the Allies was de? clared to be an enemy of France and a still worse enemy of truth and justice. Every French journalist began by proving that the fight of the Allies was a fight for freedom and civilization, and, quite naturally, any writer who considered the question complicated and kept aside was immediately placed on the blacklist. To speak of the Russian government as a champion of freedom and civilization is a poor joke, which cannot be discussed by educated people. People forget that the same reasons which make u; feel sympathy for the govern? ments of England and France prevent us from sympathizing with the Russian government, and vice versa. Besides, the Russian atrocities in East Prussia were just as bad as the Ger? man atrocities in Belgium. The Russian cruel? ties were more directly hangmanlike, while the German cruelties were systematic, pedantic, quasi-scientifically worked out. CLEMENCEAU ATTACKS DENMARK. The most astonishing feature in the polemics conducted by French papers against writers in neutral countries was their typical German? ism. The same sins for which the French blamed the Germans wiey committed them? selves in the intellectual sphere just as the Germans had committed them in the material department of life. They attacked the writer, whose only crime war. the neutrality of his country, with most brutal insults, just as the Germans had attac'?:eJ the people whose only crime had been the neutrality of their country, demanding them to join hands with that power. Georg Brandes, Who Defines His Position as a Dane and a Writer. "While German journalists threatened you with revenge ai ter the war If you did not side with Germany during the war, l:rench journalists wreaked vengeance upon yttu at it nee ii you did not side with the Allies." All Europe has written about Georges Cle rnenceau's attack, first on Denmark and then on t$e writer of these lines, so it cannot be con? sidered illegitimate if I remind the reader of it. Clemenceau began by calling the Danish people a people without pride, only bccnnsc he had been told that some in.-1 v. uni Danish merchants, in spite of the Danish-German war which took place fifty-one years ago, were feathering their nests by selling all sorts of foodstuffs to the German Empire. The aston? ishing part of his polemic was, as I have said, that it possessed all the features he pro? nounced as peculiarly characteristic of the Ger ?r.:?:*i method cf warfare?attacks upon a per sor, whobe or.ly crime was a forced neutrality, The Danish Critic Replies to Clemenceau 's Attach. r His Country and Him .*.!??? and Explains Why' r4_an_t Mas Made TO en mark's Su p p or? Im? possible. lac!: c,r consideration for things which are usu? ally respected 1 y gentlemen even when they carry on a controversy, as. for instance, con? fident e'.prersions in private letters, and then the ?7,sultin(' of a whole nation as well as of individual?. Everything seemed suddenly per? missible to him. as if he had been one of the lieutenants who before the war upset the popu? lation of Ai?:ace, or one of the captains who during the war declared it a crime for the Bel? gians to defend their neutrality. I pointed out more politely to M. Clemen? ceau how wrong it was to accuse a whole na? tion of lac!; of pride only because a few in? dividuals may perhaps have used unjustifiable means to obtain sordid gain as merchants. He answered that he had. of course, thought of these last mentioned ones alone. We can imagine what 3n outcry there would have been, what an outcry M Clemenceau himself would have raised, against any one calling the French people "a nation without pride." Would the French people in such a case have been con? tent with the lame explanation that the slan? derer did not mean the whole nation, only a few of its members whom M Clemenceau persecutes, calling them significantly enough "les embusques." Nobody could doubt that the Danish nation as a whole had been grossly insulted. I, for my part, did not raise an outcry. I answered him calmly and not only politely but cordially, reminding him only of historical facts and of the geographical position of the country which he had not explained. My method of warfart was like that of the French at Fontenoy, no like the present German methods. "GERMANY MUST NOT BE HUMILI? ATED." M. Clemenceau .hov.-ed in h;s answer that he was quite Germanized. The answer was brutal and went outside the question, attacking me personally in a most inquisitory manner. What did I want under these circumstances? Whom did I wish success? Whom did I wish failure? M. Clemenceau could just as well have asked mc for whose victory I was offer? ing up prayers. It is not my habit to offer up prayers or wishes. I doubt too much the value of them. Prayers arc for churchgoers, wishes for children and fools. I do not waste my time on either. Children wish something :or Christmas or 7.0?- '.heir birth lays. I thought wc men felt and talked like men. If I consider oniy the welfare of my own country I cannot, as M. Clemenceau thinks, believe in a permanent increase of its terri? tory in case Germany wculd be defeated. If Germany, humiliated, would have to return the Danish part of Slesvig back to Denmark she would seize the first opportunity to tear it away from us again, and the strength of Den? mark, with her 2.000 000 of inhabitants, in pro? portion to the strength of Germany, with her 6S.000.000. is such that it would be thoroughly impossible for us to take up the tight with any hope of success. M. Clemenceau misrepre? sented these, my words, as if I had said that I did not generally wish for a humiliation ol Germany, and he points out to me that Franca had been humiliated, that Denmark had been humiliated, and then my words, according to him, could be understood only as expressions of pure madness or of ovetculture that broke down the power of judgment. In the form of "Germany must not be humiliated" these words are now incessantly quoted as mine in French and German papers, as a rule with more or less witty, ironical remarks, which, however, do not hurt me. My answer to the quest-on if I did not thoroughly sympathize with the Entente pow? ers was that this question was not as simple as it looked, as these powers were so differ? ent that the very reasons which made us sym? pathize with the French system of government and the English method of ruling foreign na? tionalities must necessarily create in us a lively antipathy apainst the Russian government, which is des >otic to her own people and out Herods Herod in her treatment of the Finns, the Jews, the Poles, the Georgians, etc. M. Clemenceau answered to this that the Russian people were all right. Surely I did not need to be told so. I wrote already twenty-seven years ago a book in glorifica? tion of the Russian people. But this is no ex? cuse for the Russian government. Gn the contrary, it is an accusation against it. Hardly any war has been conducted so much as this one in pursuing programmes all of which tend toward selling the bear's skin be? fore he is hunted. The German programme aims at the con? quest of most difteren.t ?ojntries and districts which could be useful to the German Empire, ? Mi-teed >"> tii ni i,,i_e. WM AT AILS OUR? PLAN FOR MILITARY TRAINING? Three Months' Service a Year for Three Years-It ?s a Scheme Devoid of Sense, Acording' to Colonel W. C. Church. By Edward A ?den Jewell. COLONEL W. C CHURCH, acknowl? edged military expert and who for fifty years has been editing "The Army and Navy Journal," criticises the continental army feature of President Wilson's national defence policy and points out what looks ?rangely like irregularity (to put the thing w.th mildness) in the Department of War. As publicly outlined, the proposed scheme en? tails the establr.hment of a continental army of 400,000 men, who will ?serve three months each year for three years and then be plac-d in a reserve and made subject to call in case of war or threatened attack. The hopeless inadequacy of such a system ?s this is pointed out by Colonel Church. What he desires to see instituted in this country is compulsory military training, and military training which will stand the most ??fid tests. "The argument ?a advanced," he declares, "that a so-called 'continental army,' composed o? 400,000 men, divided into incrementa of 'W-OOO a year, who eerve two montha for the firit three yearn, would perfectly prepare this nation for any possible demanda of a mili toj nature Those who understand army mnt ?**? can hardly refrain from smiling at the *Uion of conferring an adequate military haming upon men in two months, this period **ing followed by ten months of entire sus Pension from service. Would such a system ?oik anywhere else? Go into any profession. WouM it be pom ble for a man to become ? -wwyer by applying himself to law two **?th? a years' Would he be esteemed com ^?SSSf Would client? put any confidence in ???f Quite the eame thing appliee in the **?? The plan is devoid of aense." 1 *?ked him how It wss that such a faulty **???? came to be advanced, then, end why It __? was that President Wilson should so con dently court the smiles of "those who und? stand army matters." "The War Department," declared Colon Church, "knows very well what ought to 1 done to place the United States in a positic to defend itself against possible attack. Th War Department knows very well what soi of recommendation should be made to Cor gress at this time. That is the worst c things. The department realizes, yet is ur willing to assert. Congress is going to b made the recipient of a military recommendi tion, not such as it should receive, but sucl as it is deemed likely Congress will feel lik adopting. In other words, the country wil not be given what it needs, but what speciouslj embodies those need*. "For many months," Colonel Church con tinued, "army experts labored over plans foi national defence which the War Department requested. The very highest military judg? ment in the country was directed toward the preparation of these plans. When completed they voiced the sentiment of keen minds, backed by rich experience, and recommended broad yet specific measures. What became of these plans? I understand that the Secretary of Wsr ?tates that the General Staff has never mads a report on the policy. This is true, becauss he never called the General Staff together or asked it for a report. He called on the War College division of the General Staff, which submitted a report, but which he has ignored. It is not so much the failure of the Secretary of Wsr to recommend a present increase in the regular army ss it is his failure to stats the whole problem. "Based upon the number of troop? which the different great powers csn land on our ihorei in the event we lose control of the sea. wc should have a regular srmy, or troops of Col. W. C. Church, Editor of "The Army and Navy Journal," Who Desires Compulsory Military Training. "Would It he possible for a man to become a lawyer by applying himself to law three months a year?" "The report of the War Secretary is a political report and not a military report." _. _, "the opinion of experts has been it,nored in the scheme now set before the American people." Editor of "The Army and Navy Journal" Believes the War Department To Be Swayed by Politics in its Recom? mendations io Congrei .. the first line, of a certain strength. This strength has been determined by the War College, and this is the programme that the Secretary should submit to Congress and let Congress take the responsibility of either pro? viding for it or refusing to do so. Instead of this he has formulated a policy which is in? tended to cover up the deficiencies of Con? gress. It il a political report and not a mili? tary report. "It boils down to a very simple proposition ?the opinion of experts has been ignored in the scheme now set before the American peo? ple. Political exigencies have swayed the ac? tion of the War Department. The public has been invited to assimilate sham and esteem it sound wisdom. There has been a great deal of talk, but the emptiness of mere words is appallingly apparent to those blessed with a capacity for grasping the pith of things and rejecting the chaff." Colonel Church, though venerable, is vivid of mind and reminds one, so far as externals go. of Walt Whitman?Walt of that mellow and meditative period glimpsed by John Sargeant. There is much the same fulness of flowing white beard, much the same steady, demo? cratic cast of eye. Military influences mani? fest themselves not so much in bearing of body as in bearing of mind. Life, according to the vision of this practical philosopher, to attain its completest perfection should sub? scribe to military ethics. These ethics make for clear thought, broad outlook, accuracy and a solid sense of proportion. And these ethics, lived up to through a long and vigorous life? time, make Colonel Church an authority worth listening to at the present time. "There is a great deal ot delusion enter? tained in respect to what constitutes military instruction," he went on to affirm. "A soldier to be in any degree efficient must be subjected to very severe physical and moral training. His body must become inured to every hard? ship. He must learn the difficult lesson of implicit obedience. He must learn not alono to conduct himself as an individual but to act in concert. "The true principles of military instruction were not arrived at by inspiration or over? night. These principles are the product of ages of deep study and wide practice. They are proved to be utterly sound, and their high? est office ?3 to achieve individual excellenca and instant co-operation. But individual ex? cellence, from a military point of view, and the co-operation which is ?_,o vital and without which no army is equipped to meet a foe de? pend upon rigorous training. The present plan for a continental army appears to ignore alto? gether this necessity for military discipline. "The soldier is distinctly an artificial prod? uct. He is moulded into something far other than he was in the beginning. And this is as it should be. The soldier must resolutely fight against almost every natural instinct. It is a fundamental human instinct, for instance, to run away from obvious danger. But the sol? dier has to school himself to perform the du? ties of his office quietly and bravely, without any regard for the distractions and terrors of the field. As the pianist in acquiring pro? ficiency begins by thoroughly familiarizing himself with the instrument, but finally msk mg the action of the fingers an unconscious sction, so the soldier who is really dependablo and efficient must begin to master the rudi? ments of his business and later become so re? sponsive to all demands that he goes about his programme of sctivlties in s sane, intelli? gent, unconscious manner, indifferent to th?s dangers of the battlefield. C?antta???! ?a Sfth ?mam.