Upon this follows a long argument in which I attempt to prove to Case 63 that one defends, not one's self but the nation. When in difficulties she repeats, "One must defend one's self."
She refuses to face the fact that if nobody offered any resistance, nobody would be killed; she completely confuses the defense of self against a burglar with that of a nation against an invader. Finally she assumes that the defense of one's country is legitimate, and yet insists on maintaining with the Bible that one may not kill!
Case 33
Case 33: "Why didn't America interfere with regard to German atrocities in Belgium?"
I: "Why should she?"
Case 33: "America did protest when her trade was menaced."
I: "Yes. America wanted to protect her interests, but does it follow that she should protest against atrocities which do not menace her interests?"
Case 33: "But her interests are menaced. Look at the trade complications; they've all come out of that."
Case 33 has confused trade interests with moral duty; she has confused two issues: atrocities against neutrals and destruction of American property. When I tell her this, she states that there is a connection: that if America had protested against atrocities, the war would have proceeded on better lines because the Germans would have been frightened.
I: "How would this have affected the trade question?"