The ignorance of history displayed by Americans is getting worse every day. Although we cannot expect the average American to be an expert on European history, we nevertheless assume that a journalist must have some knowledge of the topic about which he intends to write. No matter how thankless the task of enlightening English language newspapers about the causes of this war, we have to do it just the same. Conscientiousness in matters historical, if nothing else, would compel us to do that, aside from the fact that the nation from which we stem is involved in this case and is being made the scapegoat.

The Washington, D. C. correspondent of the Evening Post reports that the officialdom (U. S. government employees) is sympathizing with England and France. To quote the Post:

If Germany were involved in a war with Russia only, all Washington would be 2on Germany's side with full and undivided sympathy." We can omit the rest. This one sentence is sufficient to remove all doubt from the readers' mind about the threadbareness of the argument and the lack of historical knowledge of this correspondent. But still we would not be amazed if a "well-meaning public" would praise Mr. Edward B. Clark--the correspondent--for his "objectivity" toward the German people, because at the end of his report he pays them a few compliments. And just this proves his total ignorance.

A people either gain the respect of the world or they lose it. There is nothing in between. And now we ask these ultra-smart scribblers to prove to us by what act or deed during the past one hundred and fifty years the German people have forfeited the respect of the world. We do not want to hear phrases, platitudes, or any other kind of claptrap, only concrete facts. If we are moved to sympathy for a nation "on the one hand," we cannot very well withhold that sympathy "on the other hand," and still be logical. Either a nation is worthy or she is not, and it is irrelevant whether circumstances force her to 3fight the British and the French, or Russia by herself. If that Washington correspondent had any knowledge of history he would hide his face in shame a thousand times because of England and France, but he could not cite one case of knavery committed by Germany.

If Mr. Clarke's observations on the Washington officials and employees, are true, then they must be not only unfair but downright malicious people, and we Germans must protest against it, unless these officials can base their antipathy on historic facts. Why don't they pull the statue of General Steuben, first drillmaster of America, off his pedestal in Utica? So let's hear the complaints!

It has never been regarded a crime for any nation to arm herself against attack. What made the Germans do it? France? Not in the least! France they could lick within a month. Germany's military preparedness became a necessity when the now seventy-five year old Ribot concluded a military alliance with Russia. From that moment on--that was twenty-three years ago--Germany realized that 4she would have to fight on two fronts. And when England's fashion plate (Edward VII) ascended the throne after the death of his mother, Victoria, there was no more doubt in Berlin that a third party had joined the alliance--a third party who had the instincts and the appetites of a vulture. Under such circumstances Germany would have lost the respect of all nations, if she had not started to prepare for her self-preservation. It was hoped, particularly in England, that an impoverished Germany would collapse under the strain of armaments.

Germany did not do England that favor. Whereupon the latter tried to fix Germany's naval building program for the future. Impudence! would Germany ever dare to tell the United States how many ships she could build? Then came the Balkan incident. Only beginners in history could be made to believe that the Balkan war originated in the brain of four statesmen from Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Montenegro. When Germany prepared to build a land route to Asia by obtaining the concession to construct the Bagdad railway, England was afraid that the strongest land power would challenge her position 5as the strongest sea power. Between 1904 and 1907 Germany's credit in the Orient was systematically undermined by England's intrigues in Constantinople. Abdul Hamid (then Sultan of Turkey) ,friend of Kaiser Wilhelm II, was dethroned and exiled six weeks after King Edward's visit to Constantinople. At the same time an Anglo-Russian program regarding Macedonia was agreed upon, the consequence of which was a military revolution in Constantinople. Italy had Russia approve a claim on Lybia, after it had already been granted by England and France. Without these agreements there could be no Lybian war. This appeasement price for Italy served two purposes: to pry Italy loose from the Durbin (three power alliance: Germany, Austria, and Italy), and to ruin Germany's credit with the Ottoman Empire. Both objectives were successful to a degree by 1908. It was the German Kaiser who forestalled a war in 1908. The German people were ready to a man to pay the Mephisto of Europe his dues and settle accounts with him! Agadir, Algaferas, Casa Blanca, and Tabah was enough!

Italy's aspirations are known: She wants to control the Adriatic. Russia wants to get out of the confinement of the Black Sea and obtain an open, warm water port; an alliance of the Balkan states, of the South Slavs in other 6words, would give Russia the hegemony over Eastern Europe, marking the beginning of the end of the Austrian dual monarchy and the economic ruin of that country. When did a nation ever earn contempt for being loyal to her ally? Germany had to stand by Austria.

England wanted to create a Turkey which would be dependent on her. If ever the Islam lost its power in Europe, England's possessions in the Nile region and in India would be lost. Can American journalists comprehend all that? Hasn't it dawned on them yet that, strictly speaking, Russia's tendencies and aspirations today are the same as during the Crimean War? And did not a Christian England and a Catholic France fight with the Turks and against Russia at that time? Germany today is fighting for the same cultural values as did England and France in the Crimean War, and maybe for more and better ones; but these two countries are fighting today for the opposite principles of those involved in the Crimean War--for Russia and her Muscovite civilization.

In the Seven Years' War, England was the ally of Frederick the Great who, 7analogous with today, had to fight the same power, the only difference being that he had to fight Austria on account of Silesia. England was the beneficiary of that huge advantage for which little Prussia had fought and sacrificed. The former established her supremacy on the high seas, in commerce and industry, and gained Canada and India. Prussia was satisfied to have saved her Silesia. France was ruined financially, and Austria morally. Only England, which had done practically nothing, grabbed while the grabbing was good. And that is her "moral" objective in this war also: to take, but not to give a thing. She will save her men and even her ships.

In Bacon's "Lights of History," in the essay on Frederick II we read: "Frederick II erected a barrier against the future conquest by a much more rapacious power than the military state of Prussia--against the barbaric Russia. Russia, the degenerated, demoralized, Slavic Empire can never conquer Europe unless she has destroyed Germany's military power first." The task that is Germany's is regarded by the author as a highly moral one. The essayist is not a German, but an American historian named Ford.

Do England and France fight for a moral purpose? Nobody has claimed that yet, not even English-American journalists, brazen though they have been so far. They are beating around the bush by picturing the Kaiser as the aggressor. But they are not inclined to give reasons for their assertion, because they haven't any! But if they harbor sympathies for England and France, they should at least not be hypocrites, but should say: We hate Germany because she marches at the head of civilization. Nobody was more anxious to avoid the war than the Kaiser. Anybody with good common sense should know that. Nobody is taking a greater risk than he. To his people and to history he is responsible for his actions. Only the pitiful babblings of a political greenhorn could vest the Kaiser with the absolute authority to make war on his own decision. Even if there were no constitutional limits to his power, he still had to consider public opinion. Conditions, where public opinion means nothing, are only found in Russia. Behind the Kaiser stand the German people, let us state that here once and for all. The Tribune, too, would be taken much more seriously if it would treat such absurdities as we hear from Paris for what they are--lies. The war is supposed to be a war of the "officer caste"! That 9it is the people's war is England's fault, with her perfidious isolation policy and her boundless jealousy. France's policy of revenge had almost died down when it was artificially whipped up again by the diplomacy of Britain and Russia for the advantage of both. Russia needed money that only France had to loan. England wanted Germany's power hog-tied. Russia and France were to do that for her.

We don't want the sympathy of the Washington officials; we can do without that, but we do ask for justice for a country and a nation from which we originated. Nothing else! If we cannot get it as a matter of course, the logic of events will be in favor of our eventually obtaining it.