The Prussians interpret this crudely as mere self-assertion and the will to power.  The Christianising of international relations will be brought about by insisting on the contrary interpretation—­that our highest self-development and interest is to be attained by respecting the interests and encouraging the development of others.  The root fallacy to be eradicated of course, is that one Power’s gain is another’s loss; a fallacy which has dominated diplomacy and is the negation of law.  I think we are perceptibly breaking away from it:  the great obstacle to better thinking now is the existence of so many backward peoples incapable (as we think) of seeking their own salvation.  Personally I don’t see how we can expect the Christianising process to make decisive headway until the incapables are partitioned out among the capables.  Meanwhile let us hope that each new war will be more unpopular and less respectable than the last.

I’m afraid I haven’t even the excuse of a day’s fishing without any fish.

Now for your letter of August 11th.  I’m sorry you are discouraged because the programme you propounded to Auntie’s work-party in February has not been followed.  But comfort yourself with the reflection that the programme which Kaiser Bill propounded to his work-party has not been followed either.

Your Balkan programme, or rather Bob’s, does not at present show much more sign of fulfilment than the one you propounded to Auntie’s work-party, I’m afraid.

As usual nothing whatever has happened here.  Elaborate arrangements have been made to have a battle to-morrow 120 miles up the river at Kut.  It ought to be quite a big show:  the biggest yet out here.  As the floods are gone now it may be possible to walk right round them and capture the lot.  If we pull off a big success the G.O.C. is very keen to push on to Baghdad, but it is a question whether the Cabinet will allow it.  It means another 200 miles added to the L. of c.:  and could only be risked if we were confident of the desert Arabs remaining quiet.  Personally I see no solid argument for our going to Baghdad, and several against it (1) the advance would take us right through the sacred Shiah country, quite close to Karbala itself (Karbala is to the Shiah Mohammedans—­and the vast majority of Indian Mahommedans are Shiahs—­what Mecca is to the Sunnis; and Baghdad itself is a holy city).  It would produce tremendous excitement in India and probably open mutiny among the Moslem troops here if they were ordered up. (2) Surely Russia wouldn’t like it. (3) We can’t expect to hold it permanently.  Everything, so far as I can see, points to portioning this country into a British sphere and a Russian, with a neutral belt in between, on the Persian model, except that the “spheres” may be avowed protectorates.  The British one must come up far enough to let us control the irrigation and drainage of Lower Mesopotamia properly:  and stop short of the holy cities:  say to the line Kut-el-Amarah (commonly called Kut)—­Nasiriyah, along the Shatt-al-Hai.  The Russians would, I suppose, come down to about Mosul.