In the last analysis, it is only success that counts. This homely truth was the alibi of Alexander, Caesar, Richelieu, Mazarin, Cromwell, Frederick the Great, Metternich, and Bismarck. So let us keep that in mind. If and when the German and Austrian arms are victorious, the Americans will probably give them their "sympathy". At present, however, when the fortunes of war are still in the balance, German arms will have to carry on without America's blessings, and we suppose they will carry on. The "German barbarians" were never able to please anybody no matter what they tried.

The topic of German atrocities in this war has changed its pattern somewhat. It has been given a new "twist". A writer for a magazine tries to prove scientifically that the word "barbarian," in its true meaning, is applicable to the Prussian officer. His logic simply overwhelms us. "Russia, England, Serbia, France, 2Montenegro, Japan, and Morocco are fighting for a noble cause and against the barbarians." This amazing "scientific thesis" of an author of repute is a sensation all by itself. We can dispense with any arguments, for as far back as 1870--and our author, Mr. G. K. Chesterton bases his theory on this--a learned and dispassionate Frenchman, M. Hanotaux, had made this statement: "An outcry is heard by all peoples: Down with the Barbarians!" That suffices for Mr. Chesterton, who is content to quote just two examples: the theft of Silesia and of Alsace-Lorraine. For him this is irrefutable that the Germans must be barbarians. If Chesterton would dispense his philosophy in some little backwoods town it would not be so had, but when it appears in the columns of a magazine like Everybody's we cannot help being amazed. In no way does it improve the reputation of the magazine when an associate editor and scientist does not even seem to be familiar with the basic concept and meaning of the word "barbarian". This Mr. G. K. Chesterton is, in our opinion, about the greatest blockhead of all the scribes who have commented on the "war business" in Europe. American journalists, educators, writers, men in public life, and statesmen should ask for an injunction against that fellow who is so fond of telling fables and who is 3a discredit to his profession. "Napoleon the First was no barbarian,"--no, by God!--"he was, like Raphael or Alfieri, a great, conscientious Italian artist." Not every Prussian is a full-fledged barbarian, because he does not necessarily have to be one, but every barbarian is, according to Chesterton, a Prussian, that is, a Prussian officer. Well, now we know! Since the days of Paracelsus, the world has lacked a brain like Chesterton's. Napoleon was an artist like Raphael, and every Prussian officer without exception is a barbarian. We believed Everybody's magazine to be a publication fit for "everybody" to read. We learn with amazement that it means: Every fool can write everything he wants to for Everybody's. Professor Muensterberg, whose article "Kaiser Wilhelm, the Man", was published in the same issue, may have been amazed too.

You cannot argue and say that we should not bother with such people. On the contrary: we foreign-born must try to understand [the mentality of] the American people. Here is a chance to look over the mental workshop of one of their best interpreters. (Otherwise he would not be writing for Everybody's). But, unfortunately, our eagerness to learn, our desire to find coordinated thinking and 4logical conclusions, are doomed to disappointment. In this particular case, it is like coming into the yard of a junk dealer who has just bought a lot of second-hand printer's type-faces and has dumped it all on the ground. Chesterton then reaches into that heap pulls out something, and starts formulating ideas. But--let us not hold the Americans responsible, who consider philosophy a pastime for "fools". History, so they believe, is recorded by newspaper reporters, and we [German-Americans] are supposed to subordinate ourselves to such mental leadership. [Translator's note: In the following quotation, the parenthetical expressions are the remarkes of the Abendpost editor.]

"The psychology of barbarism is as follows: Like the lower animals, it cannot grasp the idea of reciprocity. It does not possess that small mirror, so to speak, by which we (meaning the Americans) can perceive the thoughts of others. If we feed the birds in the winter time, they will still pick on our fruits in the summer; birds, like the Prussians, are barbarians.

"Even if I let the bee keep its honey, it might sting me just the same. And the 5bees, like the Prussians, are barbarians. This fundamental inability to rise above the instincts of animals can easily be demonstrated if we would examine any of Prussia's civilized institutions (and Prussia has a monopoly on almost all civilized institutions). In each case we will find that Prussia has put this mark of a one-sided character on all its institutions.

"The duel, for instance, is often called a relic of barbarism. But, bad as the duel may be, it is not barbaric. It exists in Prussia, but it also exists in France, Italy, Belgium, and Austria; in short, the duel exists wherever there is a high level of civilization. (From which we can conclude that North America and England do not belong in this category.) The duel, whether desirable or not, embodies the element of reciprocity.

"But a specialty existing in Prussia, not to be found any place else but in Prussia, is the idea of an army officer who really imagines himself to be a 'big shot' not only because he carries a sword, but because he can draw it against 6those who do not have one. Prussian officers talk with a pompous air about their honor and the necessity of defending it whenever they are caught trying to kill a small shopkeeper. 'I'll run you through with my sword, but you cannot do the same to me!'--That is the philosophy of a true barbarian!

"If we examine the claims of Prussia, even the legitimate ones, we will find that they invariably bear the mark of this one-sided philosophy.

"It is true in a sense that northern Germany has some sort of culture (how gracious of him), a 'certain' scheme of the arts and sciences. France and Italy have praised it; England and America have paid almost too much tribute to it. But this culture only glories in itself and nothing else. It believes itself to be not only Germanic in aspect but of universal scope, and it would make German not only a synonym for Polish, but also for Latin and Esperanto."

According to Chesterton, there is no sphere which the Germans respect, "but 7they expect everybody else to respect their domain". Perhaps we are taking this "scientific" investigation of the "psychology of barbarism" too seriously by going into such detail. But in the vast desert of mental degeneracy and idiocy, the diatribe of this Mr. Chesterton has a novel and unique flavor. Everybody's would do well to put a barbed wire fence around their office to keep authors of his caliber at a distance.