SEARCH
0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Prev | Current Page 337 | Next

Various

"The New York Times Current History: the European War, February, 1915"


The increasing German reaction against those traditions, particularly in
morals, was not wholly sympathetic to the temper of the gentry, at least
in England, and was sometimes exasperating.
All nations have cynically violated treaties at one time or another, but
there is about a solemnly undertaken treaty by the great European powers
and affecting the happiness of the smaller neutral States something
particularly sacred. And though it must not for one moment be regarded
as the principal cause of the war, it is true that the crudity of
Prussia's neglect of treaties, the too simple fashion in which Prussia
proposed a breach of international obligations in the matter of Belgium,
did affect the conscience of not a few powerful men in England, and,
what is perhaps more important, furnished a definite and concrete point
on which the doubtful issue of peace or war could repose.
It must be remembered in this connection that Prussia had a novel
tradition of her own in such matters. The phrase "The Frederickian
tradition" is an accurate phrase. Frederick the Great did start the open
and avowed doctrine that a breach of international convention and of
international morals is always tolerable in the aggrandizement of one's
country.
I think one is not telling the truth if one says that the proposed
violation of Belgian territory for the invasion of France was of a
nature to cause an explosion of anger in the very hardened minds of the
professional politicians in any modern country.


Pages:
325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349