The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915 / What Americans Say to Europe

E-text prepared by Juliet Sutherland, Linda Cantoni, and the Project Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team
CHARLES W. ELIOT
(Photo (c) by Paul Thompson.)
JAMES M. BECK
THE NEW YORK TIMES submitted the evidence contained in the official White Paper of Great Britain, the Orange Paper of Russia, and the Gray Paper of Belgium to James M. Beck, late Assistant Attorney General of the United States and a leader of the New York bar, who has argued many of the most important cases before the Supreme Court. On this evidence Mr. Beck has argued in the following article the case of Dual Alliance vs. Triple Entente. It has been widely circulated in France and Great Britain.
Let us suppose that in this year of dis-Grace, Nineteen Hundred and Fourteen, there had existed, as let us pray will one day exist, a Supreme Court of Civilization, before which the sovereign nations could litigate their differences without resort to the iniquitous and less effective appeal to the arbitrament of arms.
Let us further suppose that each of the contending nations had a sufficient leaven of Christianity to have its grievances adjudged not by the ethics of the cannon or the rifle, but by the eternal criterion of justice.
What would be the judgment of that august tribunal?
Any discussion of the ethical merits of this great controversy must start with the assumption that there is an international morality.
This fundamental axiom, upon which the entire basis of civilization necessarily rests, is challenged by a small class of intellectual perverts.
Some hold that moral considerations must be subordinated either to military necessity or so-called manifest destiny. This is the Bernhardi doctrine.
Others teach that war is a beneficent fatality and that all nations engaged in it are therefore equally justified. On this theory all of the now contending nations are but victims of an irresistible current of events, and the highest duty of the State is to prepare itself for the systematic extermination, when necessary or expedient, of its neighbors.

Various
Содержание

---


In the Supreme Court of Civilization


Critics Dispute Mr. Beck


Russia to Blame


In Defense of Austria


Defense of the Dual Alliance—A Reply


What Gladstone Said About Belgium


Fight to the Bitter End


Woman and War


The Way to Peace


Prof. Mather on Mr. Schiff


The Eliot-Schiff Letters


LA CATHEDRALE.


THE CATHEDRAL.


Probable Causes and Outcome of the War


Appreciation from Lord Bryce


A Reply by Dr. Francke


DR. ELIOT'S SECOND LETTER


DR. ELIOT'S THIRD LETTER.


Dr. Dernburg's Reply to the Third Letter


Dr. Jordan's Reply to Dr. Dernburg


Dr. Irene Sargent's Reply to Dr. Dernburg


DR. ELIOT'S FOURTH LETTER.


DR. ELIOT'S FIFTH LETTER.


THE LORD OF HOSTS.


A War of Dishonor


Might or Right


JEANNE D'ARC—1914.


The Kaiser and Belgium


Reply to Prof. Burgess


PROF. BURGESS'S SECOND ARTICLE.


Reply to Prof. Burgess


America's Peril in Judging Germany


An Answer by Prof. Ladd


Possible Profits From War


"To Americans Leaving Germany"


German Declarations


A Second Appeal


The Eucken and Haeckel Charges


Concerning German Culture


Culture vs. Kultur


The Trespass in Belgium


Apportioning the Blame


PARTING.


French Hate and English Jealousy


Dr. Sanderson Replies


In Defense of Austria


Russian Atrocities


"The United States of Europe"


A New World Map


The Verdict of the American People


Interview With Dr. Hillis


TIPPERARY.


As America Sees the War


TO MELOS, POMEGRANATE ISLE.


What America Can Do


TO A COUSIN GERMAN.


What the Economic Effects May Be


Effects of War on America


Germany of the Future


Germany the Aggressor


Militarism and Christianity


VIGIL


Nietzsche and German Culture


Belgium's Bitter Need


A CORRECTION.


Certainly Not!

О книге

Язык

Английский

Год издания

2005-09-16

Темы

World War, 1914-1918

Reload 🗙