these prevarications and distortions, but, with them as a basis, immediately rendered a verdict against us.  For he who publicly judges must be expected to have heard first both parties; and whoever is not in a position to do this must in decency be expected to postpone his verdict.  Yes, even more than that, one should think that the sense of justice of every non-partisan must be violated if the one party is absolutely muzzled by the other, and even for this one reason the cause of the latter must be considered as not being free from reason for doubt.  Furthermore, one should assume that he who once has been unmasked as a liar therewith should have lost the blind confidence of the impartial in his future assertions.  In spite of this, although the first ridiculous news of German defeats and internal dissent could not withstand the far-sounding echo of facts, there still seems to be no twisting of the truth, no defamation, which over there is considered as too thin and too ridiculous by the press and as too shameless by the public.

Should the Germans, who, since the time when they fought for and attained their national unity, have exclusively devoted themselves to works of peace and culture, suddenly have been transformed into an adventurous, booty-hungry horde which from mere lust challenged a tremendously superior force to do battle?  Should they suddenly have sacrificed to their so-called militarism all their other efforts in commerce, industry, art, and science, in order to risk their very existence for the love of this Moloch?  Do you believe that, Americans?

Question of Militarism.

Our militarism!  What does this expression, quoted until it is sickening, mean in the mouth of enemies who in respect of the energy and extent of their armaments were not behind us?  Is there no such thing as militarism in France and in Russia?  Is the English giant fleet an instrument of peace?  Was the Triple Entente founded in order to bring about the millennium on earth?  Would the Entente, if we had been foolish enough to disarm, have guaranteed our possessions as a reward for being good?  Do you believe that, Americans?

It certainly may be difficult for the citizens of the Union—­happy beings they are for it—­to put themselves in the place of a nation that knows it is surrounded on its open borders by jealous, hateful, and greedy neighbors; of a country that for centuries has been the battlefield of all European wars, the place of strife of all the European peoples.  They, the members of a nation which for itself occupies a space nearly as large as Europe, almost half of a continent, protected on both sides by the ocean and on the other borders not seriously threatened for as long a time to come as may be anticipated, have no people’s army because they do not need any; and yet they would—­their history proves it—­give their blood and that of their sons for the cause of their nation just as gladly as we, if the necessity for doing so came to them.  Will they, therefore, reproach us for loving our country not less than they do theirs, only for the reason that we have a thousand times more difficulty in protecting it?