Germany’s Existence Threatened.

Germany contends that her breach of treaty obligation is punishable by the payment of money indemnity to the aggrieved party.  This she has offered to do in the case of Belgium, as she has already done in the case of Luxemburg.  Germany’s existence was so seriously threatened that her action seems justifiable, and there remains a sole moral obligation to compensate any neutral country injured by her.

The mere fact that Belgium had made an unfortunate alliance with England is deplorable in that Belgium has suffered terribly; but this suffering is not attributable to Germany.  When Japan violated Chinese neutrality, China protested.  Though she was entitled to a money indemnity, there is no valid reason under the sun why the United States as a guarantor of the integrity of China should declare war against Japan.  England’s justification, in so far as there can be any justification for adding to the toll of death, is the same as that of Germany, the preservation of national sovereignty.

Further:  “It seems unnecessary to discuss the wanton disregard of these solemn obligations.”  There can be nothing wanton in a struggle for existence, and that this European war is such a struggle is the only possible explanation of its magnitude, ferocity, and vast possible consequences.  Then, too, though deplorable, treaty obligations are not solemn, as Italy has proved to the complete satisfaction of so many.  Italy’s contention that this is an aggressive war on the part of Germany and Austria is as untenable as the German contention that it is an aggressive war on the part of England.  For this war was not an aggressive war on the part of any nation, but an unavoidable war caused by the simultaneous bursting of the long-gathering economic storm clouds.

Again:  “The ethical aspects of this great conflict must largely depend upon the record that has been made up by the official communications.”  This is similar to a contention that the ethical rights in a case in court must depend upon the astuteness of counsel in summing up to the jury.  “A court would be deeply impressed ... by the significant omissions of documents known to be in existence.”  A court of law, as our former Assistant Attorney General of the United States surely knows, compels no one to give testimony that tends to incriminate, and, furthermore, does not construe failure to testify on the grounds that it will tend to incriminate against the defendant.  In the law the defendant is entitled to every reasonable doubt.  It is also conceivable that a reasonable time for the defense to present its case would be granted before passing judgment.