New-York tribune. [volume], November 14, 1915, SPECIAL FEATURE SECTION, Image 29

About New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
SPECIAL FEATURE
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.