[Footnote 145:  “Deutschland und der Weltkrieg” ("Germany and the World War"), pp. 566-8.]

Subterfuges, insinuations, distortions, even brazen falsehoods, are scattered throughout German war literature, thicker “than Autumnal leaves in Vallombrosa’s brook.”  It is to be feared that just as Germans have lied for a century to prove that the English were annihilated at the battle of Waterloo, and for over forty years to show that Bismarck was not a forger, so they will lie for centuries to come in order to prove that the invasion of Belgium was not what Bethmann-Hollweg called it, a “breach of international law.”

Like his confreres, Herr Schoenborn admits that Germany was pledged to respect the neutrality of Belgium, but the said neutrality was non-existent, which appears somewhat paradoxical.  Yet this is not the least logical part of his case.  “The passage of German troops through Belgium was indispensable in the interests of the preservation of the German Empire.  A successful resistance to the annihilation-plans which our enemies had wrought for our downfall seemed possible only by this means.  The Government regretted that, by so doing, we should commit a formal infringement of the rights of a third State (Belgium), and promised to make all possible compensation for the transgression.

“The judicial point of view which influenced the decision of the German Government is perhaps, best illustrated by a parallel taken from the ordinary laws of the country:  A forester (game-keeper) is attacked by a poacher, and in that same moment perceives a second poacher bearing a gun at full-cock, creeping into a strange house in order to obtain a better shot at the forester.  Just as he is about to enter the house the forester breaks the door open and thus forestalls him—­in order to surprise and overcome him.  The forester is justified in taking this step, but must make good all damage resulting to the householder."[146]

[Footnote 146:  Ibid., p. 575.]

The instance holds good in the land of Kultur, where law and order affords so little protection to a civilian and his property; but in countries where laws are based upon culture the author believes that the forester would receive condign punishment for breaking into another man’s house, no matter under what pretext.  Unconsciously the learned professor is humorous when he compares Germany to a gamekeeper and Russia and France to poachers; but he is naive to a degree of stupidity, when he makes France carry a weapon fully prepared to shoot the forester.

We will consult another German authority to show that France’s weapons were not at full-cock.

“During the last ten years France has given special attention to the fortresses on the German frontier.  But those facing Belgium have been so carelessly equipped that we see clearly to what a degree she relied upon her neighbour.  The forts are in the same condition as they were twenty or thirty years ago.  As some of these fortifications were built fifty years ago, various points on the frontier are strategically, absolutely useless.