That their traffic in mere words disables some literary men from comprehending facts is shown by Mr. Shaw’s play upon the word “Junkerism.”  He points to the dictionary definition of the word instead of to the fact it represents, and by this verbal juggling tries to convince his readers that the military autocracy that dominates and misdirects Germany has its counterpart and equal in Great Britain.  Whereas, the conditions in the two countries are wholly different, and it is this very difference that Germany has regarded as one of the signs of British inferiority.

Mr. Shaw’s suggestion that the British are posing as “Injured Innocence” and as “Mild Gazelles” is neither funny nor true.  We are simply a people defending ourselves, resisting conquest and military despotism, and fighting for the ideal of freedom and self-government.  When our country is no longer in danger we suffragettes, if it be still necessary, are prepared to fight on and wage our civil war that we may win freedom and self-government for women as well as men.  But, in the meantime, we support the men—­yes, and even the Government do we in a sense support—­in fighting the common enemy who menaces the freedom of men and women alike.  Although the Government in the past have erred gravely in their dealing with the woman question, they are for the purpose of this war the instrument of the nation.

Facts Belie Him.

Mr. Shaw would seem to hold Britain responsible for German militarism, but the facts he cites are against him there.  “I am old enough,” says he, “to remember the beginnings of the anti-German phase of military propaganda in England.  The Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871 left England very much taken aback.  Up to that date nobody was much afraid that Prussia—­suddenly Prussia beat France right down in the dust.”  Precisely!  It was this war on France, deliberately engineered by Bismarck, and it was the defeat and despoilment of France that fed Germany’s militarism and encouraged Germany to make those plans of military aggression which, after long and deliberate preparation, are being carried into effect in the present war.  Germany’s plans of military aggression have compelled other countries to prepare, however inadequately, to defend themselves.

Mr. Shaw gives support to the Germans’ contention that they are not the aggressors but are menaced by Russia.  Yet he does not explain why, if that is so, Germany took French gold and territory in 1870 and has since continued to alienate France; nor why Germany has chosen Britain as her enemy of enemies to be supplanted and surpassed in power.

If Germany is simply on the defensive against Russia and has no desire to attack and cripple France and Britain, then why has she antagonized these countries and driven one after the other into a Russian alliance?

When he affects to criticise Germany for not having “entrusted the security of her western frontier to the public opinion of Western Europe and to America and fought Russia, if attacked, with her rear not otherwise defended,” Mr. Shaw burkes the fact that Germany’s object is to seize Belgium and to make it part of the German Empire, also to seize at least the northern coast of France and to make this seizure the means of dominating Britain.